»

[FluffyMcDeath]

Since all of you guys out there on A.org in the US are super wealthy types, it should be good to know that you are now doing better than ever. Tough luck for all those middle-class and poor people (but screw 'em. If they were smarter they'd have become super-rich, right?)

BBC

[KennyR]

On the bright side, there are far more job opportunities for chaffeurs and yacht salesmen.

[Cyberus]

So all the lumberjacks, miners and hippies aren't doing so well then?
Heh, they haven't really recovered from the 70s have they...

[QuikSanz]

@ FluffyMcDeath,

I'me not wealthy by any means. In southern California where I live a house is VERY expensive, $300,000+. But thru hard work and tax changes I've increased my pay by about a third in the last 3 years. You guys are on the moon.

Chris

[KennyR]

@QuickSanz

I hardly think one exception makes any difference to the main issue. The statistics aren't lied about.

[FluffyMcDeath]

QuikSanz wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath,

I'me not wealthy by any means. In southern California where I live a house is VERY expensive, $300,000+. But thru hard work and tax changes I've increased my pay by about a third in the last 3 years. You guys are on the moon.

Chris

$300,000 US? That's not so much. Vancouver is more expensive than that, and I think much of the UK is too.

So, what is your work, what are the tax changes, and how exactly did you increase your pay?

And how would you continue to increase it if no-one wanted to hire you to do what you currently do (just so that we can all take advantage of this magical money tree). Are you in one of those positions that is immune to the rest of the economy? Or have you been lucky so far?

And what is it about your situation that is exactly the same as everyone elses situation (i.e. what makes you an accurate yardstick for the state of the nation)?

[Cyberus]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

$300,000 US? That's not so much. Vancouver is more expensive than that, and I think much of the UK is too.

Yep. In the UK, average house prices are about 160,000 GBP (quoting from a recent newspaper article). In the county where I live, you'd be looking at £180,000 + for a decent family home, and most older people, who have managed their money well over the years and are perhaps on their third home, will be living in a house worth 250,000 to 500,000 = approx $500k-$1m, esp in my area (in the Kent countryside).

[Try saying Kent countryside repeatedly and very quickly when you're drunk]

Admittedly I live in the South East, which is one of the most affluent areas of the UK though.

[Glaucus]

QuikSanz wrote:
I'me not wealthy by any means. In southern California where I live a house is VERY expensive, $300,000+. But thru hard work and tax changes I've increased my pay by about a third in the last 3 years. You guys are on the moon.

Then perhaps you should call up the BBC and set the record straight!

- Mike

[cecilia]

Thousands Form Symbolic Unemployment Line in N.Y.

Thousands of demonstrators formed a symbolic unemployment line in Manhattan today, standing silently along the sidewalk in a column that stretched for miles to protest what they called the high rate of joblessness during the term of President Bush.

Holding up pink slips of paper symbolizing the notices employees sometimes receive when their jobs have been terminated, the demonstrators held a line from Wall Street in Manhattan's downtown and stretched north about three miles to the midtown area where the Republican National Convention is in its third day today at Madison Square Garden.

"The Next Pink Slip Might Be Yours!" the fliers read.

i guess these must be lazy bums. just like me.

[redrumloa]

Super wealthy?



Try lower middle class. I own a duplex that cost $80K, 10 years ago. It's probably worth twice that now. My income puts me somewhere in the middle class range, but certainly in the very low end of the middle class spectrum.

I started with ZERO, nothing. I scratched and clawed my way to where I am now, no one gave me anything. I have no respect for pot smoking liberals who want to slack and have others support their laziness.

BTW havn't read your link yet, just responding to your little troll:-P

-Edit-
BTW A person's situation is 90% related to their outlook, drive and work ethic. I get sick and tired of hearing whoa is me, suck it up and move on. My income has gone up on average 20% a year, every year, over the last 10 years. Yes this means I started off making piss poor B$ pay, having to work 2 full time jobs for many years. Then working full time + part time + school. It sucked, but I knew what I had to do and i did it. Why should some dirty, smelly, drug using, rat infested liberal get a free ride?

Don't get me wrong, some people get thrust into situations by layoffs and such that genuinely suck. I feel for them, but it shouldn't be a life sentence. I've been laid off. I've had my job disapear due to contracts being lost. A person's got to be fluid and not too proud to do hard labor if needed.

[FluffyMcDeath]

redrumloa wrote:

I started with ZERO, nothing. I scratched and clawed my way to where I am now, no one gave me anything. I have no respect for pot smoking liberals who want to slack and have others support their laziness.

I feel the same way. Then again, I also feel the same about those wealthy pot smoking, coke snorting, call girl buying, power launch sailing, porsche driving slackers who live off investments bestowed on them by their parents. I think those people should have to work for a living too.

[Fade]

Questions for the Flufster:

Got a wife?
Got kids?
Got a house, car, etc.
Got life insurance?
Got a will?

If the above are true, who gets your wealth when you die?

I assume you won't be leaving it to your wife and kids!

[Cyberus]

Fade wrote:
Questions for the Flufster:

Got a wife?
Got kids?
Got a house, car, etc.
Got life insurance?
Got a will?

If the above are true, who gets your wealth when you die?

I assume you won't be leaving it to your wife and kids!

Do you guys have inheritance tax?
Here in the UK, the government scoops 40% of what you leave when you die anyway.
And before anyone says "Give it all away before you die"
They'll tax that as well - anything you give away I think 7 (?) years before you death gets taxed retrospectively.

[whabang]

Cyberus wrote:
Do you guys have inheritance tax?
Here in the UK, the government scoops 40% of what you leave when you die anyway.
And before anyone says "Give it all away before you die"
They'll tax that as well - anything you give away I think 7 (?) years before you death gets taxed retrospectively.

:-o

[Cyberus]

I think its partly to introduce some fluidity into the property market. Remember that here in Britain, we have a lot of landed gentry (Lords, Barons, Dukes)- those whose estate has been passed down through generations. If it wasn't for inheritance tax, most of Britain would still be owned by the aristocracy.
A large proportion of it is still owned by the Church of England I believe.


edit:
I'm not sure if I have the figures entirely correct, but the gist is true.