Yes, because everyone should INHERIT 13 Billion dollars.

This woman never worked for her money - she is a great example of what is wrong in the world. A rich, entitle ungrateful spoiled brat pointing fingers at others, and not realizing that she is the exact example of what she hate.

The only reason she isn't one of the drinking/smoking poor has nothing to do with her. Just money she got from her family.

The Marie Antoinette of the 21st Century except fatter and uglier. But just as out of touch with the problems of the real world.

While I disagree with her means of expression, I agree with the message. I have been born in the lowest economic situation possible, in a family who has been poor for at least five generations now. Now I am at a top 25 private university in the country studying a topic which will enable me to make 60,000 - 150,000 a year after I graduate. It is because the job requires a lot of stamina and work. One must realize that it isn't just working hard, but working smartly. The most successful people in the world are where they are at because they had worked wisely, not because they solely worked hard.

Anyway, extreme socialism is even more disgusting than extreme capitalism. It promotes control over the people and doesn't offer the benefits of competition. Social policies should be restricted to safety nets and only safety nets, at least in the United States and similar countries whose premise is based on free markets and the least government intervention possible.

Copy of what I replied to superchunk.

The issue these comments have is their disconnect with reality. It's a simple math that most can't and will never be a millionaire, no matter how hard they work.

Does hardwork and intelligence and investment factor greatly into success? Of course! But you know what else factors greatly into success? Something people like her will never want to admit because it makes her wealth that much less impressive: luck.

There are only so many high paying jobs available. There are only so many products people are willing or able to buy. Even if EVERYONE works REALLY hard and does everything they are supposed to do, they will not all get six figure jobs. They will not all be able to become millionaires. The moment I read her comment I thought to myself "She sounds like someone who never actually had to work for her wealth". Low and behold a few sentences later...

There is nothing wrong with being rich, or inheriting money, and there are still plenty of genuine rags to riches stories of people obtaining great wealth through hardwork. I was born into a multimillion dollar family. My grandpa on my father's side became a millionaire under a 92% tax rate through hard work and accumulating the wealth he needed to buy a factory. He was smart, inventing a kind of egg peeler and a three sided cookie sheet. He was also lucky enough to have opened his factory at the dawn of WW2. With the start of the war he repurposed his factory and made much of his fortune on military contracts. With that money he continued to grow and manage his wealth throughout his life and now, 70 years later I have far more money then someone my age has any right to have, but gosh darn it I am using it to pursue personal projects and give myself a chance to pursue a career I love rather then a career I need. That being said, it's important to understand where your wealth comes from, and not allow it to give you a warped world view. I'm friends with enough "hard working penniless college graduates" to know that hard work does not equate monetary success. It only helps you get there.

My grandpa on my mother's side worked incredibly hard himself. He held numerous jobs, ranging from waiting tables to owning his own fish store in South Florida, and was incredibly active in his community throughout his life. Yet at the end of his life he lived in an apartment in an increasingly run down condo complex, while my other grandpa lived in a million dollar bayside home in Miami Beach. 

... and that also puts into perspective the complaints about how unfortunate the "poor" are in the developed world.

Do you what your income has to be to be in the top 1% of income earners on a global scale? According to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic you would need to earn $34,000/year to be in the top 1% of income earners.

One of my biggest problems with Socialism is that a nation is a (somewhat) arbitrary concept and an economic system should be viable on a global scale. Do you think the average American would agree that since they are among the top 1% of income earners and are part of the 1% that controlls 40% of the world's wealth that they should be heavily taxed to support the truly poor? Or do you think that these people who complain about the wealthy in America would suddenly start to argue that the best way to help the poor is to develop the economy in impoverished nations?

Regardless of whether you're talking about the poor in a community, city, state/province, country or worldwide scale the goal should be to strengthen the economy to support more people and to raise their standard of living; and (hopefully) result in improvements in the absolute measures of poverty including inadequate access to the basic necessities of live (food, clothing, and shelter).

As a poor person I already go to the dentist, doctor, and optomotrist for free. Neither I nor does my family pay for healthcare. That is enough. These services are paid for by the taxes of others predominately, which I feel quite guilty about. I'd much rather pay for my health services and feel proud that I can provide for myself than rely on other people in a collection of states that does not form a nation, per its original definition. Socialism only works in nation-states where economic distinctions are minimally affected by other socioeconomic factors, such as ethnicity, religion, education, or even race. Obamacare, for example, will make healthcare much more expensive for the poor, and forceful on the middle-class, ironically.

Which is why I mentioned the context of the United States and first world countries with free-markets and relative freedom of government power over the economy.

Ok here is an Aussie perspective.

Granted she inhertied her forutne from previous generations, but she does invest a lot of money into this country and all the mining people are paid good wages. So she must have some sort of brain on her head.

She is right in what she says to a degree about spend less time smoking and drinking would help people not remain poor. Note she never said they would become millionaries.

In Australia there is this mentality that you have to piss up all your pay. Which means spend most of it if not all on drinks.and worry about bills later. On minimum wage they spend aeound $300 a week on piss and smokes. The people that fit into the category are what I call clock watchers at work. They wait for the clock to hit the exact time and run out the door, go home call over friends and drink all night long, then come in to work with a hangover or take a sickie (meaing skip work because the too hang over to work).

The worst part about it is once they had their good time getting wasted, when a bill arrives they go to the local charity expecting them to bail them out.

To simply put their money is being missmanaged, not that they are poor to begin with. The people on the dole (welfare, those who are their because they want to be), are just as bad. They refer to their government handout as a paycheck for the pissup on the weekend. There kids usually get neglected and become the next generation of usless people in soiciety (i feel for these kids and wish they could be taken away from that environment and given an opportunity in life).

Now you may think I am being harsh but the matter of fact is I am not. My family was on that side of the fence. We come to Australia 20 years ago with nothing except some clothes as we sold all our asserts to pay for the flight costs to migrate. Becauise my parents could not speak englsh, the best jobs they could get was, cleaning jobs,factory work etc. (aka minimum wage). They had to work two jobs at a time to try and give me an education so I would not end up like them. ATM they are in their 50s and still working in a factor doing 12 hour shifts.

Do they smoke and drink? Sure do. But gues what they CONTROL how much they spend on these. Rather than 80% of their wage going on these luxuries, they spend about 10%, then at the end of the day they still had enough money to pay for bills, my education and even to save up for a house. I am greatful for what they did for me as I now myself have an awesome well paying job. SO it is possible to break the cycle, provided you are given the opportunity and want to.


The tax system is a whole thread on its own haha. In a nutshell the more you earn the higher tax bracket you fit into. This I do not mind as my taxes should go to funding essential services. What people mind is the small BS taxes around the main tax. In essence the harder you work the more penality taxes you have to pay like:
- excess if you do not have private health cover. should this not be my choice if I want private health? or to use the public system which my taxes already pay for?,
- flood tax becuause morons keep rebuilding in known "flood plains" knowing well that a flood will happen there again. Hell the banks will not even insure or give a loan for your house if you build there, so why does governemnt allow them to build there?
- and finally being taxed on your savings, which have already been taxed when you earned the money initially. why should I be penalised for being smart and saving my money to earn inteerest? does the gov want me to join the people who spend all their money on drinks, instead of be responsible?).

I don't disagree that giving each person $20k would have been "Better" in the fact that the TARP funds were useless. But still, the best way to go would have been to simply let the banks fall, give no bailouts, and instead try to tackle the debt which will cause vast amounts of inflation in the long term.

But I digress, if your argument is that raising the minimum wage destroys the value of what you earn, then what do you think that absolving the minimum wage would do? By your logic, it'd mean 10 cents for bread, and 5 cents for a hamburger.. Which may not be too far from the truth.

Its not free.

You always pay for it, one way or the other. The question is if the system that you are in is efficient or not.