Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Ivanstone]

60 million Americans have a 401k, and half of all Americans own stock. That's a sizeable number. And yes, any adult can buy stocks. Things like plumbing are part of the expected expenses of owning a home. It's like not preparing for your car breaking down. Those things are a statistical inevitability, so it's not a matter of if such things happen, but how long until they do happen. You highlighted (albeit unwittingly) on one of the main reasons people never really escape the paycheck-to-paycheck life... not planning for those eventualities.

Except you don't have the excess capital to further rig things in your own favour. And again stop inserting "you" solutions into "everyone" problems.

And what of the other American's who don't have a 401K or own stock. Also a sizeable number. Anyone can also gamble. It makes about as much sense as the stock market. And like any casino, the house usually wins.
Things like a catastrophic power failure that causes burst pipes from no heating aren't really expected. Maybe a little if you expect the wealthy to fuck your local power grid.
Gotta love those constantly depreciating assets.
You highlighted (unwittingly) that a lot of eventualities are built into the system so even more money can be extracted by the wealthy at a later date.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, and I participate in that 401k plan, because it's free fucking money. I'm not obligated to, but it would be foolish to leave that money on the table. Anyone who is offered a 401k match, should take it. Once again, it's like saying you don't want your full compensation.

It's also why I use corporate-backed healthcare, as well. Of course, if I didn't like it, I could always choose to work for a different company. If you don't like that companies are offering healthcare, take it up with Obama and the Democrats, who required it.

Instead of full monetary compensation you take 401K money and healthcare from your employer. That doesn't sound like freedom.

Also companies offering healthcare is the norm for America. It has nothing to do with Obama and the Democrats. Although the wealthy did decide that high deductible insurance plans were a great idea. Thanks Bushie.

[Machismo]

Me and you went around for pages about Social Security only for you to intentionally not understand stuff, in the past we went over minimum wage and again, you went out of your way NOT to understand stuff.

Things on multiple topics have been explained to death to you and you go out of your way to not understand them at a basic level while pretending you do.

As much as I hate to say it, you personally are what Shalcker, TexasRules and the rest aspire to be on these forums. They just can't do it as effectively without losing their cool. You have gone countless pages on countless things and claim you get them while acting like you don't. At this point, I am not sure if that is intentional or not.

No, I simply disagreed. There's a difference.

This is the part you do not understand, we have differing priorities.

I'm well aware that SS is insolvent in less than 13 years (the date just got pushed to the left by a year. I'm well aware of what that means if nothing is done about it. It means that payouts would be cut by more than 25%, overnight, and continue to decrease every year.

I also iknow there's really only 3 ways to solve it:
1) Raise taxes - You either raise it for everyone, or you raise it for some.
2) Decrease benefits - That speaks for itself
3) Increase the retirement age - That's not much different than Number 2, it just decreases the years, instead of the dollar amount.

You want option 1, I prefer options 2 or 3.

Trying to say I don't understand something, is a cop out on your part.

- - - Updated - - -

Except you don't have the excess capital to further rig things in your own favour. And again stop inserting "you" solutions into "everyone" problems.

And what of the other American's who don't have a 401K or own stock. Also a sizeable number. Anyone can also gamble. It makes about as much sense as the stock market. And like any casino, the house usually wins.
Things like a catastrophic power failure that causes burst pipes from no heating aren't really expected. Maybe a little if you expect the wealthy to fuck your local power grid.
Gotta love those constantly depreciating assets.
You highlighted (unwittingly) that a lot of eventualities are built into the system so even more money can be extracted by the wealthy at a later date.

- - - Updated - - -



Instead of full monetary compensation you take 401K money and healthcare from your employer. That doesn't sound like freedom.

Also companies offering healthcare is the norm for America. It has nothing to do with Obama and the Democrats. Although the wealthy did decide that high deductible insurance plans were a great idea. Thanks Bushie.

You don't get to tell me how I'm allowed to debate.

I'm including myself into this, to show how easily it can be done. It wasn't very long ago, that I was as middle-income as they came. Shit, before that, I was broke as hell. I worked through college, making what I could waiting tables. I was in the military, and that doesn't pay too terrible well. After that, I worked in restaurants. I sure as shit wasn't rich. After that, I got a tech job, and the entry pay wasn't exactly flashy, I think it was about $44k a year. But, I started saving a little in the military, and saved a little more whenever I could. After several years, I made considerably more, and also started my own small company on the side. Shit, the latter was more of a hobby, than anything else (until about 2-3 years ago). But, all the while, I lived below my means, and invested.

None of that story is exceptional. I'm a normal guy, who worked just a bit harder, and made sure to always be looking for better offers (and continued learning new skills). Now, imagine if I had developed something truly groundbreaking, and my company was worth hundreds of millions, or even billions. The fundamentals don't actually change. Regardless of how much my house is worth, I can still borrow against the equity. Regardless of how many stocks I own, I can still use them as collateral in a loan.

All along the way, I made sure to put some aside, even when in the military when I was an E-2. Could I have put more away? Hell yeah, I drank way too much, and pissed money away.

Gambling doesn't make as much sense as the stock market, because the historical record of the stock market shows a long-term increase, whereas the math on gambling shows long-term losses. The risks are far lower with the stock market, especially in the long term. This is about as disingenuous as you can get.

Obama and the Democrats mandated company-based healthcare. Bush was out of office. We literally call it Obamacare. If you'd rather get paid more, and pay for your own retirement and healthcare, then be my guest. I'm all fucking for it. Let's get rid of the ACA. let's stop forcing employers to pay for healthcare, and let's push to have you simply take more money home.

[Ivanstone]

You don't get to tell me how I'm allowed to debate.

I'm including myself into this, to show how easily it can be done. It wasn't very long ago, that I was as middle-income as they came. Shit, before that, I was broke as hell. I worked through college, making what I could waiting tables. I was in the military, and that doesn't pay too terrible well. After that, I worked in restaurants. I sure as shit wasn't rich. After that, I got a tech job, and the entry pay wasn't exactly flashy, I think it was about $44k a year. But, I started saving a little in the military, and saved a little more whenever I could. After several years, I made considerably more, and also started my own small company on the side. Shit, the latter was more of a hobby, than anything else (until about 2-3 years ago). But, all the while, I lived below my means, and invested.

None of that story is exceptional. I'm a normal guy, who worked just a bit harder, and made sure to always be looking for better offers (and continued learning new skills). Now, imagine if I had developed something truly groundbreaking, and my company was worth hundreds of millions, or even billions. The fundamentals don't actually change. Regardless of how much my house is worth, I can still borrow against the equity. Regardless of how many stocks I own, I can still use them as collateral in a loan.

All along the way, I made sure to put some aside, even when in the military when I was an E-2. Could I have put more away? Hell yeah, I drank way too much, and pissed money away.

Gambling doesn't make as much sense as the stock market, because the historical record of the stock market shows a long-term increase, whereas the math on gambling shows long-term losses. The risks are far lower with the stock market, especially in the long term. This is about as disingenuous as you can get.

Obama and the Democrats mandated company-based healthcare. Bush was out of office. We literally call it Obamacare. If you'd rather get paid more, and pay for your own retirement and healthcare, then be my guest. I'm all fucking for it. Let's get rid of the ACA. let's stop forcing employers to pay for healthcare, and let's push to have you simply take more money home.

Just pointing out you're wrong and why you're wrong. Again.

Your story tells me you didn't do anything shady although you probably got your current job at someone else's expense. Which is what happens with any good job. The person who didn't get your good job still needs shelter, food, transportation, clothing and healthcare. Meanwhile those at the top might do hard work but they also have substantial amounts of luck and/or immoral and unethical behaviour to get where they were.

The stock market in general is legalized gambling between the wealthy. Everyone else might get to make a little bit of money in between. Assuming the stock market doesn't tank.

Employer healthcare within the US started in 1929. Through a variety of bills and negotiations 143 million Americans had health insurance by 1960. The ACA is just a means to get more uninsured people insured. This is far from ideal but its better than nothing. Bush, a wealthy man, decided with the help of other wealthy people that employers could save money by using high deductible insurance. This offloads costs from the employer to the employee.

Meanwhile your employer healthcare and your 401k are shackles. There may come a time when you might want to change jobs but the prospect of losing these perks keep you at a lesser job. How many other Americans feel the same?

Employers shouldn't provide healthcare. Although I don't think you'll like the alternate solution.

[Glorious Leader]

Yep, that's what happens when people don't plan. This has been kicked down the road for almost two full generations.

Don't worry, they'll just shift the burden onto the national debt, and screw over future generations.

This has been explained to you already. Future generations are not screwed over by the national debt.

[Machismo]

Just pointing out you're wrong and why you're wrong. Again.

Your story tells me you didn't do anything shady although you probably got your current job at someone else's expense. Which is what happens with any good job. The person who didn't get your good job still needs shelter, food, transportation, clothing and healthcare. Meanwhile those at the top might do hard work but they also have substantial amounts of luck and/or immoral and unethical behaviour to get where they were.

The stock market in general is legalized gambling between the wealthy. Everyone else might get to make a little bit of money in between. Assuming the stock market doesn't tank.

Employer healthcare within the US started in 1929. Through a variety of bills and negotiations 143 million Americans had health insurance by 1960. The ACA is just a means to get more uninsured people insured. This is far from ideal but its better than nothing. Bush, a wealthy man, decided with the help of other wealthy people that employers could save money by using high deductible insurance. This offloads costs from the employer to the employee.

Meanwhile your employer healthcare and your 401k are shackles. There may come a time when you might want to change jobs but the prospect of losing these perks keep you at a lesser job. How many other Americans feel the same?

Employers shouldn't provide healthcare. Although I don't think you'll like the alternate solution.

How did I get it at someone else's expense? I didn't screw anyone over. There's nothing wrong with being lucky, good for them. As for the immoral/unethical part, if it's legal, then arrest them. If it's simply being a selfish prick, then don't do business with them.

You can invest in the stock market. Are you wealthy? Nope, then that argument is stupid.

You were the one complaining that employers offer healthcare as part of their incentives to work there. Personally, I'm fine with it.

Nope, my healthcare and my 401k are not shackles. As you and Endus pointed out, they are part of the incentive to work somewhere. A 401k can be rolled over to any company, or if you don't want it to be, then you just keep it stationary. It's still your money. If you want to pass laws to make it easier to access your own money, I'm fully on board. As for the health care portion, once again, that's what happens when you demand employers cover it... they'll cover it. The fear of mobility is simply that... fear. People fear leaving their hometowns, their jobs, and that fear is capitalized on by companies. This is especially true in the tech industry, where it's simply often better financially to get a new job, instead of trying to get a raise in the current one. Being willing to be mobile is key to success.

- - - Updated - - -

This has been explained to you already. Future generations are not screwed over by the national debt.

No, there have simply been attempts to justify it. People can explain away their selfishness and lack of consideration for future generations all they like.

[Ivanstone]

How did I get it at someone else's expense? I didn't screw anyone over. There's nothing wrong with being lucky, good for them. As for the immoral/unethical part, if it's legal, then arrest them. If it's simply being a selfish prick, then don't do business with them.

You can invest in the stock market. Are you wealthy? Nope, then that argument is stupid.

You were the one complaining that employers offer healthcare as part of their incentives to work there. Personally, I'm fine with it.

Nope, my healthcare and my 401k are not shackles. As you and Endus pointed out, they are part of the incentive to work somewhere. A 401k can be rolled over to any company, or if you don't want it to be, then you just keep it stationary. It's still your money. If you want to pass laws to make it easier to access your own money, I'm fully on board. As for the health care portion, once again, that's what happens when you demand employers cover it... they'll cover it. The fear of mobility is simply that... fear. People fear leaving their hometowns, their jobs, and that fear is capitalized on by companies. This is especially true in the tech industry, where it's simply often better financially to get a new job, instead of trying to get a raise in the current one. Being willing to be mobile is key to success.

So there an unlimited number of jobs just like yours? Sounds fishy.
Being lucky torpedoes the idea that having good ideas or hard work is required for success.
Again the wealthy can manipulate the legal system to their benefit. This has been pointed out to you numerous times.

I think you need to read up on the 2008 recession again. It happened solely because of wealthy people gambling. Most, or maybe all, other recessions are the same.

So again you acknowledge the people are playing a rigged game created by the wealthy. Why do you keep supporting this horseshit?

[Machismo]

So there an unlimited number of jobs just like yours? Sounds fishy.
Being lucky torpedoes the idea that having good ideas or hard work is required for success.
Again the wealthy can manipulate the legal system to their benefit. This has been pointed out to you numerous times.

I think you need to read up on the 2008 recession again. It happened solely because of wealthy people gambling. Most, or maybe all, other recessions are the same.

So again you acknowledge the people are playing a rigged game created by the wealthy. Why do you keep supporting this horseshit?

No, there's not, and I never said there was. Capitalism is competitive by nature.

Being lucky helps.

Working hard helps.

Being innovative helps.

Being flexible helps.

The 2008 shitshow wasn't just because the wealthy were gambling. It was both the wealthy and the middle class leveraging their assets too much, and not being prepared for possible downturns. People assumed that the good times would last forever, and didn't plan for eventualities. To only blame the wealthy, is to ignore the middle class homeowners who had mountains of debt.

[Fugus]

No, I simply disagreed. There's a difference.

This is the part you do not understand, we have differing priorities.

I'm well aware that SS is insolvent in less than 13 years (the date just got pushed to the left by a year. I'm well aware of what that means if nothing is done about it. It means that payouts would be cut by more than 25%, overnight, and continue to decrease every year.

I also iknow there's really only 3 ways to solve it:
1) Raise taxes - You either raise it for everyone, or you raise it for some.
2) Decrease benefits - That speaks for itself
3) Increase the retirement age - That's not much different than Number 2, it just decreases the years, instead of the dollar amount.

You want option 1, I prefer options 2 or 3.

Trying to say I don't understand something, is a cop out on your part..

You understood part of it and dismissed the rest.

You understand that those on Social Security aren't living a decent standard of living already with many having it REALLY bad because it doesn't pay enough. You also know that they can't collect it till they are pretty old.

So you would rather these people go from barely making ends meet to NOT making ends meet or flat out going homeless because of it, all so you can avoid the top paying taxes THEY WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDING TO BE PAYING.

You simply disagreeing would be a MASSIVE step up from what you are doing. You have intentionally NOT understood the total situation even when spelled out to you.

1) Social Security is about to go insolvent.
2) Those on Social Security are not making enough as is and won't be able to survive with it being cut.

You accept number 1 but reject number 2 because to accept number 2 requires you to accept your solution isn't a solution at all.

And while I get to see some little old ladies sitting on chairs being greeters at Walmart because their $900 a month doesn't cover their bills, if they are so old they can't stop shaking and can't talk loud let alone look through my bags, they shouldn't be required to continue working after that point and after decades of working. A situation your "Solution" will make massively worse and unworkable.

The only reason my grandmother got the retirement she did was because:
1: She received retirement from decades delivering babies for the local hospital, job security most nowadays don't have. Even at that hospital one of her friends in the early 2000's had to sue them because they tried to lay them off just before they got old enough to retire.

2: Her husband was a retired Sergeant Major from the US Army who served in WW2 and didn't retire till 1995 where he was forced out due to age and she got his retirement as well.

If she had to rely on just Social Security, she wouldn't have made it with the cost of housing after she had to move out of her old house because of her age.

Under your "Solution" you would leave many to suffer and die because you refuse to accept the reality of the situation just because accepting that reality would require you to accept your ideological solution is completely worthless when the rubber hits the road and causes vastly more issues than it even attempts to solve and even fails at that.

As I have said before, you don't understand the facts. It isn't that you disagree, disagree with part of it while intentionally refusing to understand the rest of it because it blows up your stance.

- - - Updated - - -

Still wondering how for the mods will allow this to continue.

[Shadowferal]

Again the wealthy can manipulate the legal system to their benefit. This has been pointed out to you numerous times.

The anarchist thread, a deleted thread, and now this one where he constantly shows he doesn't care about anyone's argument that conflicts with his wealth worship.
You and the others have accomplished nothing but feed his ego.

[Ivanstone]

No, there's not, and I never said there was. Capitalism is competitive by nature.

Being lucky helps.

Working hard helps.

Being innovative helps.

Being flexible helps.

The 2008 shitshow wasn't just because the wealthy were gambling. It was both the wealthy and the middle class leveraging their assets too much, and not being prepared for possible downturns. People assumed that the good times would last forever, and didn't plan for eventualities. To only blame the wealthy, is to ignore the middle class homeowners who had mountains of debt.

So your job came at someone else's expense. That person who didn't get your job still needs shelter, clothing, food, transportation and healthcare. This is why advice like "just get a better job" is stupid. A former guildmate was a proud libertarian like yourself. He loudly touted how working the night shift got him more money and people in the day shift are just whiners unwilling to put in the hardship. I pointed out if everyone worked the night shift there would be no one to work the day shift. Being on the look out for the better job might be better for you personally but what's best for you personally isn't necessarily what's best for society and even shitty jobs are still necessary.

And being an unethical, immoral douchebag helps the most. Jeff Bezos is certainly a prime example.

The wealthy were gambling. The middle class had mortgages they were ineligible for or were out right fraudulent that were given to them by the wealthy so the wealthy could continue to gamble.

[Machismo]

You understood part of it and dismissed the rest.

You understand that those on Social Security aren't living a decent standard of living already with many having it REALLY bad because it doesn't pay enough. You also know that they can't collect it till they are pretty old.

So you would rather these people go from barely making ends meet to NOT making ends meet or flat out going homeless because of it, all so you can avoid the top paying taxes THEY WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDING TO BE PAYING.

You simply disagreeing would be a MASSIVE step up from what you are doing. You have intentionally NOT understood the total situation even when spelled out to you.

1) Social Security is about to go insolvent.
2) Those on Social Security are not making enough as is and won't be able to survive with it being cut.

You accept number 1 but reject number 2 because to accept number 2 requires you to accept your solution isn't a solution at all.

And while I get to see some little old ladies sitting on chairs being greeters at Walmart because their $900 a month doesn't cover their bills, if they are so old they can't stop shaking and can't talk loud let alone look through my bags, they shouldn't be required to continue working after that point and after decades of working. A situation your "Solution" will make massively worse and unworkable.

The only reason my grandmother got the retirement she did was because:
1: She received retirement from decades delivering babies for the local hospital, job security most nowadays don't have. Even at that hospital one of her friends in the early 2000's had to sue them because they tried to lay them off just before they got old enough to retire.

2: Her husband was a retired Sergeant Major from the US Army who served in WW2 and didn't retire till 1995 where he was forced out due to age and she got his retirement as well.

If she had to rely on just Social Security, she wouldn't have made it with the cost of housing after she had to move out of her old house because of her age.

Under your "Solution" you would leave many to suffer and die because you refuse to accept the reality of the situation just because accepting that reality would require you to accept your ideological solution is completely worthless when the rubber hits the road and causes vastly more issues than it even attempts to solve and even fails at that.

As I have said before, you don't understand the facts. It isn't that you disagree, disagree with part of it while intentionally refusing to understand the rest of it because it blows up your stance.

- - - Updated - - -

Still wondering how for the mods will allow this to continue.

I'm sending you a PM with the answer, since this is straying off-topic, and I'm actually wanting to keep it in the ball park.

[Shadowferal]

Still wondering how for the mods will allow this to continue.

They shouldn't.
Three threads in the past year with one person shitposting and everyone falling for it.

[Machismo]

So your job came at someone else's expense. That person who didn't get your job still needs shelter, clothing, food, transportation and healthcare. This is why advice like "just get a better job" is stupid. A former guildmate was a proud libertarian like yourself. He loudly touted how working the night shift got him more money and people in the day shift are just whiners unwilling to put in the hardship. I pointed out if everyone worked the night shift there would be no one to work the day shift. Being on the look out for the better job might be better for you personally but what's best for you personally isn't necessarily what's best for society and even shitty jobs are still necessary.

And being an unethical, immoral douchebag helps the most. Jeff Bezos is certainly a prime example.

The wealthy were gambling. The middle class had mortgages they were ineligible for or were out right fraudulent that were given to them by the wealthy so the wealthy could continue to gamble.

That's saying literally every job is at someone else's expense, and that's a stupid argument. If you genuinely care, then give someone else your job.

The middle class took out those loans, and many were eligible. They willingly signed up for what they genuinely believed they could afford. What they did, was leverage that equity, and not save money for a rainy day. That's the thing about loans, you have to know how you plan on paying them back. Trying to pretend that they were all just innocent shlubs who got conned, is a major retconning of history.

If you find him immoral and unethical, then don't use his company. Don't use Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Oracle, Google, Bloomberg, Nike, Dell, M&M/Mars, or any other company you don't want to.

- - - Updated - - -

They shouldn't.
Three threads in the past year with one person shitposting and everyone falling for it.

Unlike you, I'm actually trying to stick to the subject.

[Fugus]

They shouldn't.
Three threads in the past year with one person shitposting and everyone falling for it.

Part of the reason why I have got to the point where I participate more is BECAUSE I have accepted that the moderation is effectively toothless on this issue unless it goes to extremes at which point it is a slap on the wrist at best when anything does happen.

They keep doing it, and all that happens is a warning or a token infraction that will fall off with maybe a temp suspension where either another comes in to take the place entirely or they hop on an alt through a VPN and continue. But no ACTUAL action is really taken unless it goes to death threats level of offenses.

- - - Updated - - -
@Machismo

I much prefer to talk in the forum than through DM if you don't mind. I reserve that for stuff I would actually want private and, to be honest, it gets really annoying to deal with it giving pop ups for notifications for me, especially when half the time I am not at a PC but on my phone which makes them that much more annoying to deal with on here.


Edit: Off to bed, later guys.

[Machismo]

Part of the reason why I have got to the point where I participate more is BECAUSE I have accepted that the moderation is effectively toothless on this issue unless it goes to extremes at which point it is a slap on the wrist at best when anything does happen.

They keep doing it, and all that happens is a warning or a token infraction that will fall off with maybe a temp suspension where either another comes in to take the place entirely or they hop on an alt through a VPN and continue. But no ACTUAL action is really taken unless it goes to death threats level of offenses.

- - - Updated - - -
@Machismo

I much prefer to talk in the forum than through DM if you don't mind. I reserve that for stuff I would actually want private and, to be honest, it gets really annoying to deal with it giving pop ups for notifications for me, especially when half the time I am not at a PC but on my phone which makes them that much more annoying to deal with on here.


Edit: Off to bed, later guys.

I'm fine with keeping it public, but I do want to keep it on the actual topic. We had drifted off into SS, instead of this issue.

[Ivanstone]

That's saying literally every job is at someone else's expense, and that's a stupid argument. If you genuinely care, then give someone else your job.

The middle class took out those loans, and many were eligible. They willingly signed up for what they genuinely believed they could afford. What they did, was leverage that equity, and not save money for a rainy day. That's the thing about loans, you have to know how you plan on paying them back. Trying to pretend that they were all just innocent shlubs who got conned, is a major retconning of history.

If you find him immoral and unethical, then don't use his company. Don't use Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Oracle, Google, Bloomberg, Nike, Dell, M&M/Mars, or any other company you don't want to.

Incorrect. Every good job is at someone else's expense. Noted libertarian dipshit Eric Bolling liked to tout his teenage years working fast food. He worked hard and got the better paying assistant manager job. Most of his coworkers didn't put in the work and whined about their pay instead. The flaw in his argument is that if everyone worked just as hard as him there's not enough AM jobs to go around and someone needs to be the fry cook, work the cashier or be janitor.

Again what works for you personally isn't guaranteed to work for everyone. It only works for some people. Some isn't good enough. Meanwhile the wealthy get wealthier.

The middle class were deceived. Some had loans they shouldn't have, some had loans they deserved. In any event once the economy destabilized and people started losing their jobs, people were getting foreclosed on regardless of how good their mortgage was. The wealthy had an unending thirst to peddle bad investments hoping that could force someone else to hold the bag.

I actively boycott McDonalds and Starbucks. Its pretty easy to do that. Boycotting Amazon, Google or Facebook? Not so much.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm fine with keeping it public, but I do want to keep it on the actual topic. We had drifted off into SS, instead of this issue.

Its part of the same issue. Social Security is an outgrowth of the wealthy fucking over the little guy but they would rather get rid of it entirely.

[Machismo]

Incorrect. Every good job is at someone else's expense. Noted libertarian dipshit Eric Bolling liked to tout his teenage years working fast food. He worked hard and got the better paying assistant manager job. Most of his coworkers didn't put in the work and whined about their pay instead. The flaw in his argument is that if everyone worked just as hard as him there's not enough AM jobs to go around and someone needs to be the fry cook, work the cashier or be janitor.

Again what works for you personally isn't guaranteed to work for everyone. It only works for some people. Some isn't good enough. Meanwhile the wealthy get wealthier.

The middle class were deceived. Some had loans they shouldn't have, some had loans they deserved. In any event once the economy destabilized and people started losing their jobs, people were getting foreclosed on regardless of how good their mortgage was. The wealthy had an unending thirst to peddle bad investments hoping that could force someone else to hold the bag.

I actively boycott McDonalds and Starbucks. Its pretty easy to do that. Boycotting Amazon, Google or Facebook? Not so much.

- - - Updated - - -



Its part of the same issue. Social Security is an outgrowth of the wealthy fucking over the little guy but they would rather get rid of it entirely.

That's an illogical conclusion. Sometimes, jobs are created that didn't exist before. Sometimes, people start businesses. Sometimes, other dudes retire.

Nope, it's not guaranteed for everyone else, I never tried to say it was a certainty. But, that's also not my fault, nor should I shoulder the burden due to it. The same goes for you, Jeff Bezos, and every other asshole running around. It's not my fault that someone else is not successful.

No, it's not that difficult, just don't use them. Nobody is forcing you to use any of those services, and they have alternatives that are just a click away.

[Ivanstone]

That's an illogical conclusion. Sometimes, jobs are created that didn't exist before. Sometimes, people start businesses. Sometimes, other dudes retire.

Nope, it's not guaranteed for everyone else, I never tried to say it was a certainty. But, that's also not my fault, nor should I shoulder the burden due to it. The same goes for you, Jeff Bezos, and every other asshole running around. It's not my fault that someone else is not successful.

No, it's not that difficult, just don't use them. Nobody is forcing you to use any of those services, and they have alternatives that are just a click away.

No, its not. The reality is that a person may be able to better themselves but there are still things everyone needs. All jobs are necessary. They may not be equal but no one deserves to get fucked over for just trying to get through the day. Empty platitudes are worthless since some one still needs to be the cashier at Wal-mart and a cashier at Wal-mart still needs shelter, transportation, clothing, food and healthcare. You can tell one cashier to go improve themselves but they'll have to be immediately replaced by another cashier.

To borrow one of your lines: "I Dare You". Try going without the big guys. Fuck I don't even know where its convenient to go get a pair of jeans that isn't online or a big box store. Oh and these blue jeans might be poisoning the environment and are almost certainly encrusted with the tears of a Bangladeshi seamstress.

[Shadowferal]

Its part of the same issue. Social Security is an outgrowth of the wealthy fucking over the little guy but they would rather get rid of it entirely.

And that will happen Sooner than later

I suspect that one of the reasons some libertarians feel so frustrated is the inevitability that their golden idols will get shitcanned. One of the weaknesses libertarian ideology has...zero allowance for disasters...crises. Current pandemic is one example. Economies from most countries are going broke, and with inflation screwing most over only the biggest businesses and the rich are getting wealthier. It's no coincidence that a global tax system was agreed to last month. You can count on this trend to progress further. The only ones who are alarmed are red-state gopers and libertarians. But the longer this pandemic kills more gop voters, the more likely a blue wave will happen. And with other countries needing wealth there isn't any place for the 1 percenters to run. (I'm betting Elizabeth Warren is seeing this)

[Machismo]

No, its not. The reality is that a person may be able to better themselves but there are still things everyone needs. All jobs are necessary. They may not be equal but no one deserves to get fucked over for just trying to get through the day. Empty platitudes are worthless since some one still needs to be the cashier at Wal-mart and a cashier at Wal-mart still needs shelter, transportation, clothing, food and healthcare. You can tell one cashier to go improve themselves but they'll have to be immediately replaced by another cashier.

To borrow one of your lines: "I Dare You". Try going without the big guys. Fuck I don't even know where its convenient to go get a pair of jeans that isn't online or a big box store. Oh and these blue jeans might be poisoning the environment and are almost certainly encrusted with the tears of a Bangladeshi seamstress.

There isn't a specific number of jobs in existence. Specific jobs are created, and disappear all the time.

Now, take your comment about "the big guys," many people are trying to donwithout them, by forcefully taking almost everything from them. Those "big guys" exist, because consumers want them. People don't really care about morals or ethics, when it comes to their shopping habits. If they did, then Wal-Mart would be out of business. Whether you want to admit it, or not... thosenrich fuckers exist, because you and continue to demand their products and services.