posted April 02, 2004 11:42 AM            

Now to Taxes and Tax Cuts:

Explanation of tax cuts

Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that
everyday, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If
they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go somethinglike this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2?! The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something mportant. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

"Once we moved like the Wind"

posted April 02, 2004 02:06 PM            

*****
I also looked up Professor Joseph Olsen because I thought it curious that someone would invest the time in figuring out that sort of thing. Did you know that he's also a prominent gun rights activist? http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/living/education/6231634.htm

posted April 02, 2004 02:29 PM            

YUCK!! I will edit the post. Hmmm, I hate when that happens, but thank you for being so gracious at to point it out without adding any attacks.

posted April 02, 2004 03:50 PM            

I understand where you are coming from. I don't want to see anyone starve - I don't think any conservative does. I would like to see everyone get the assistance they need and for the abuse of Welfare, Social Security and the programs to stop.

We need to cut some of these over burdened programs and get the money to the people. It sickens me to see we spend Millions on study after study to see the affects on the study of how poor people will be better off with a $10 voucher for food. I say DAMN IT 'get rid of the over priced commission and feasiblity group and give the money to the person. Only a moron wouldn't realize that any money provided to help someone will benefit them.

In a perfect world people out of work would be trained and money would be provided to help the family in the interim. At the same time, money should go to a middle class or even upper middle class family that has been laid off or suffered a terminal illness to get them through that time. No reason they should lose everything to become destitute in order to qualify.

In a perfect world, people wouldn't file workmans comp in order to get a free pay check from the government. Nor would they get so fat they can't move so they then qualify for SSI and spend their gov issued checks running from Burger king to McD's.

I would just like to see the abuse stop. I saw in it memebers of my own family ( that ended up being given the cold shoulder because we all knew they could work instead of sitting on their ample butts collect gov money). I saw it in Portland - with student abusing the food stamp system, or my favorite watching people at the discount grocery use food stamps for top quality food, and cash for beer and cigarettes while my college roommies and I pooled our money for discount day old stuff. LOL...but we all agreed that while we could qualify for food stamps, it would be abuse and take away from people that really needed it.

So I am torn. I get tired of the woe is me arguments that the rich are starving the poor and I get tired of the "pseudo poor" thinking it's okay to live off the system. At the same time I get tired of the "rich" with a heart type of people decrying the "other rich" while not donating a damn penny to help anyone else.

posted April 02, 2004 05:29 PM            

They WORK HARD and they WORK SMART for it.

Why should I have to pay more tax than the guy next to me who CHOSE to go to say, a trade school to learn a job where the top max income is 50% less than mine? What about that same guy, if he uses his entreprenurial sprit to make 50% MORE than me, why should he have to pay more tax?

That my friends is called penalizing someone for success.

I'm not talking about the Bill Gates' of the world that exploit and act unethical (the Tycos, the Enrons, et al), who are actually a minute percentage of individuals on the planet, I'm talking about your average guy who is considered rich because he makes low six figures (in an expensive city like NYC, for ex.), has investment saavy, is frugal, etc...

And lemme tell you, rich is highly relative. Compared to my relatives in Nebraska, I am rich because of my income. Hell, according to the federal government my husband and I are rich. And you know what? We can't afford to buy a house in this area because the shittiest house STARTS at $300K. Sure, in Nebraska we'd be rich, cause our money would buy more, but in the San Francisco Bay area, were I single, I would actually qualify for Section 8 housing in some counties, despite making fairly decent money.

So someone in Iowa might say, "Hey, they make 40/60/80K (whatever), they're rich, you ******* ", because in Des Moines they could obtain low-end bling w/ that kind of money, but in New York, Miami, San Francisco, where a studio apt is 1000+ (unless you want to live in ghetto), and a house w/ crap all land is $410K and UP, with high insurance, gas, food, clothes, etc, they'd be one paycheck away from the welfare line.

So before people buy into the mantra of "tax cuts for the rich", get some perspective. Define "rich", and then do the research to see what the real numbers are. 'Cause I'm rich by their standards, and I have to move 40 miles away from where I currently live to afford a (crappy) home.

[RANT]
Maybe if I had more of my tax money available to me instead of spending it so that a crackhead can eat (for free) at a county-sponsored shelter then go buy crack and Schlitz w/ his welfare or SSI check (two programs which this individual likely paid little or nothing into via work), or so that illegal immigrants can come here and enroll in public schools w/ TB (which will end up being treated for FREE at a county hospital when I have to bust my ass for health insurance), then maybe I'd also have more money to give to charities for these sorts of things...and maybe I'd have a better attitude.
[/RANT]

Something a friend of mine's father told me in my early twenties, when I was a liberal, he said, "it's all fine and well to want to share everything, until you're the one having to bust your ass to make it, then you tell me how much you wanna 'share'" Meaning, share it with people who won't work, can't hold a job, spend their money on weed or partying or whatever, who would rather sell crack than get a job, etc etc etc...

To penalize someone for striving for success, is to remove the incentive for innovation and brilliant creativity that we are known for, the very things that make America so great.

The constitution doesn't guarantee the right to "bling", it guarantees the right to pursue the "bling".

posted April 02, 2004 07:37 PM            

******

Isis
I have read and reread the posts previous to yours and nowhere did I read either of us saying that rich people inherit their money. In fact, how and why they became "rich" was a topic we never touched upon. I am well aware of the fact that there are many people who make a lot of money that actually earn it. I never said otherwise, but I thought I'd clarify my position just in case.
Do you know how many people work hard in highschool and still have to end up going to technical schools afterward? Not everybody has a money umbrella dangling below them, just in case financial aid doesn't cover all of their needs. The cost of higher education is skyrocketing as we speak and believe me there are plenty of people who cannot afford it. See, instead of being able to mooch off their parents for four years, they actually have to work in order to pay for the car that they bought and the insurance that they pay. Not only that, they have to pay rent at home in order to help their parents make ends meet. Of course, their own personal expenses, like food and toiletries, are also their own responsibility. If you have any money left over after working full time at a minimum wage job, then you might be able to go to a movie. You don't believe me? I'm one of them. I have countless, COUNTLESS friends who are going through the same exact financial troubles. And, btw, I graduated top 10% of my class, with gifted/honors and gifted/AP courses to my name. Why couldn't I just go to college? Well, working a full time to job to make ends meet while trying to take a full load of classes (a nice chunk of which is still my responsibility to pay) because the scholarships I was eligible for would only kick in if I was enrolled full time was just not possible. So I went to a technical school in order to have a better job and save up so that one day, perhaps, I could actually afford to go to college. Maybe I shouldn't have bought a car? Yeah right, you move to Miami and try to get a decent job without transportation and see how far it gets you. Believe me, I spent alot of my life riding public transportation and (in Miami at least) it is a complete waste of time and money. Seriously, I tried going to school and work on a bus. Wake up at 5:00am to catch the 5:45am bus which takes an hour to get you to the next bus so that you can get to school at 7:30am or else you'd be late and show up at 8:30am. Then take the bus home at 1:00pm (though you were out at 12:30pm) and make another bus transfer to get home at 2:45pm (mind you, not to mention the amount of walking you need to do to get to the different bus stops). Then you try to eat and do some homework only to have to catch another bus at 4:00pm in order to be able to get to work at 4:45pm and run over to your job. Of course, by the time you get out of work at 11:00pm the buses don't run anymore and you have to beg family, friends, and co-workers for rides home. Hopefully, you're home and showered by midnight and then it's time to finish your homework. You pray that you'll be able to get some sleep before the alarm goes off. Yeah, now imagine all that and add in the fact that the buses usually (about 70% of the time) tend to run late and sometimes never run at all. I'm sure that's very feasible.

Of course the amount of money is relative to where you live. That's why everything else is also more or less expensive as well. I know many families in Miami who would be considered middle-class in the middle of nowhere Iowa. In Miami, however, they still have to be very, very careful of how they manage their money and no, they can't afford to live on South Beach or Coral Gables. However, there are also plenty of rich as all heck folks living in those places and others like them who have money to burn. They lease top of the line cars and have a new one every year. Their houses are considered "starter" homes at $500,000. Sure they earned their money. That's great. I have to listen to them joke about losing $30,000 dollars gambling on a boat while I help them around a retail store, being cat-called and snapped at as though I were some sort of slave. I've worked for the rich who rant about how poor people are poor because they deserve it while I'm working my rear off under their noses for minimum wage, meanwhile they're balancing their check books and making plans for their next trip to the Hamptons. And I know for a fact that they never donated a single red cent to a charity because they would boast about it with frequency. I would just smile and remember that what goes around comes around.

You mention ghettos. Have you ever lived in a ghetto? I have. So have a lot of my friends. You know, aside from a few druggies living here and there and the usual crime of any big city, the majority of the people that lived in my hometown were just poor. POOR. Including my parents. They may have been immigrants to this country but they are entirely legal and naturalized citizens and have been so for years. My mother worked 6 days a week and my father worked 7 days a week, both performing menial jobs to scrape by. We missed qualifying for welfare and food stamps and medicaid by less than $100 a month. I was born here in America and do you realize that I grew up without health insurance and little to no medical attention? There are hundreds of thousands of people like me. I've known a few 100 myself. We grew up together, went to school together, struggled through "jobs" together. We are not all drug-addicts or alcoholics. We are not all criminals. We are not all disease-infested illegal immigrants who come to this country to cheat the "saintly white man"*. I say "not all" because I'm sure you know thousands of people like the ones you described personally, and are not just assuming these things about them, because I would hate to think that you are just another prejudiced person with preconceived notions, a chip on their shoulder, and an attitude.

*This is an exaggeration, of course. Not all white men are saints.

****

posted April 02, 2004 10:32 PM            

I don't pull statements out of my rear end, so therefore it's safe to assume that I know a bit of that which I speak - nor did I mean to imply that I think all immigrants have TB, nor that all those on SSI are crackheads. I presume you have met thousands of mean-spirited rich people who revel in the concept of poor people languishing in squalor through their lack of charitable contributions?

I do find it ironic that someone who just went off on a tirade about how tough their life is/has been, can say, "because I would hate to think that you are just another prejudiced person with preconceived notions, a chip on their shoulder, and an attitude". No offense, but you are the one who sounds as if they have a chip on their shoulder.

I too am a f/t student, I know firsthand how difficult it can be.

Do you think your parents (and by extension you) would have been better off where they came from?

posted April 03, 2004 12:00 AM            

I went to a $20,000 a year private university. I worked my a$$ off for grants, scholarships and took out $40,000 in loans. I also worked in the school labs as an assitant, then supervisor of the assistants and finally I was able to teach the microbiology lab classes. I did it all while majoring in Biology AND chemistry at a private liberal arts uni that busted our butts to make us know every aspect of life...from humanties, art, drama, writing - things that had nothing to do with me being in science...Thank God they did that...

At any rate, to some I may be rich because like Isis said our salaries are higher than people from other areas - but I can't buy a home here. Even a town home is $200,000 min in a decent area. So I am a Sr. Research Assoc. / Product manager with a huge student loan debt and I am considered rich by some standards.

Now about school - do you know why I don't feel sorry for everyone...because I came from a family where my father was child 10 our of 13 kids. His family fell on hard times as American Indian / Spanish folks did in the 50's and had to pick fruit, veges and cotton. Yet he never felt sorry for himself. He went into the military, then to school then to becoming a cop.

I see people that don't want to work and they want MY money...like I owe them for working hard.

College is affordable - you just have to make certian sacrifices. You have to open your mind that you will be straddled with a possibly big debt. BUT....I absolutely LOVE writing those checks to my student loan company...because I EARNED that degree. I have also managed to pay all but $10,000 in less than 8 years (with interest my loan was around $55,000).

Isis... I know what you mean. I was born and raised in Irvine and Laguna Hills....all of my immediate family left because it became unaffordable. My dad was making more that $100,000 but after taxes and everthing else...well...not much left and he could live better in Phoenix and mom could live better in Nevada.

posted April 03, 2004 01:46 PM            

Do you realize how many people live in Miami? My highschool alone had over 5,000 students. Yes, I have met thousands of people over the years, rich and poor and in-between, and I can count on my fingers the generous rich people I've met. However, your response clearly indicates that you misunderstood my comments. From my personal experience then, yes, I have met many rich people who believe that the poor are poor because they deserve it ... because they're lazy, etc. I've also heard these people talk about how proud they are that they don't donate money to charities because they believe that giving poor people money is what poor people want, since they obviously don't want to work for themselves. However, I never said that "rich people ... revel in the concept of poor people languishing in squalor through their lack of charitable contributions." Big difference. Obviously, there are many generous rich people (the majority of which I will gladly admit I have not yet met) in America, otherwise there wouldn't be as many charitable organizations and scholarship associations around.
"Maybe if I had more of my tax money available to me ... then maybe I'd also have more money to give to charities for these sorts of things ..." I guess you're not one of these generous "rich" people, then?

Clearly, you also misunderstood the entire point of me relating some of my experiences. Perhaps you have a fear of poverty, and it is clear that you have negative feelings about poor people in general, but I was not complaining about my life nor was I hoping for sympathy for it. I'm not asking for handouts or charity. I'm not asking for some kind of trophy for having a challenging life. My life is what it is and, like Sophia Loren, I can safely say that, "The two big advantages I had at birth were to have been born wise and to have been born in poverty."

FYI The "preconceived notions" was because of what I explained at the beginning; when you make fairly ignorant generalizations like the ones you did (without allowing for a possibility that the views you are expressing refer to a minority within that group) then the idea of whether or not you have any personal experiences or facts to support your comments is quite questionable.

As far as the "would hate to think that you are just ...", I was actually being sincere and if you had paid close attention, you would have noted that I wasn't implying that I already felt that way. I WOULD hate to think that, even though you still have given no reason to refute that impression based on your previous post. If you "don't pull statements out of your rear end" then where do you pull them out of?

As far as having a "chip on their shoulder" I find it really hard to see how you would think that I would have one. Again, maybe you see my experiences growing up poor as something to be ashamed of or maybe you felt that I was playing the victim or would have reason to, but I am very thankful that I learned on my own what true value is. Maybe if you had grown up the way I did you would have a chip on your shoulder, I don't know, but the reason I mentioned it in the first place was because of your whining. Shouldn't it tell you something about just how poor many people really are if you, who make enough money for the federal government to label you as "rich", still consider yourself to be at a disadvantage? If you can't buy a house somewhere "nice" then doesn't that make you think about how many people can't afford to own a trailer home? How many people can't afford to pay rent for a one bedroom apartment in the ghetto? I'm not saying that you (or any other "rich" people) are responsible for this, but your problems seem not quite so huge in comparison to the plight of many others.

As for being a f/t student, I'm assuming you mean working full time and going to school full time. If you can work full time at a minimum wage job, pay for rent and all the other expenses that go along with being independent, have no one to back you up in case you can't handle it, and still manage to study full time at college and get excellent grades, then kudos to you!

As far as my parents are concerned, I have no idea why you would ask such a question. Maybe it's the same reason that I've heard the majority of the "rich", non-minority people I've known throughout my life give when they hear that immigrants are struggling to make a living ... the whole "why don't you just go back to your country if it's so awful here" argument. Here's a clue: my parents have never once complained about this country. In fact, they are very grateful to be here and have the opportunities that they have here. There's a post in the Free for All forum (in the thread about surviving the police riots in Miami) where I wrote about the ideals and great respect for my country that my parents instilled in me, if you're actually interested. My parents are some of the biggest patriots I know. I don't know why so many people assume that when immigrants talk about how they've struggled to make a living after coming to America, they automatically assume that they're whining or complaining or ungrateful. Maybe it's a common idea among Americans whose families have been here for a long time (since in reality, we're all immigrants) that working hard to survive is an awful thing or something, I don't know, but that certainly isn't the case with the many recently immigrated families I've had the pleasure of knowing. Most people come to America looking for work, in case you didn't know, because there is very little work available in their countries that pays enough for them to even be able to eat. It makes no sense to me why this question is always thrown out there for discussion. Obviously, if immigrants thought they'd have a better life staying in their native countries, then they would never have immigrated.

How about this question, if you had grown up as a child of recently immigrated parents, living in the ghetto, do you think you'd be making the same amount of money you do right now, enough money for the government to be able to label you as "rich"?

*******

Pidaua
You know, in highschool, I really thought that going to college was as easy as you say. Seriously. For some people it probably is. I say easy because I would have no problem working hard and ending up in debt up to my ears in order to go to school, if it were possible. Believe me, I talked to my counselors, was granted loans and scholarships, yada yada yada. The fact is, I had to work to survive and to help out my family. The loans weren't enough, the scholarships weren't enough. Even assuming I had no school bills to pay at all, being a student with a full school load on top of a full time job (which was entirely necessary whether or not I wanted to go to school) just wasn't feasible. I'm not saying that I'll never go to college/university or be "successful". I'm just saying that it was not an option for me right out of highschool, nor an option for a lot of kids. In fact, the only kids I know who actually were able to go to college, public or private, where those who didn't have to work and who were freeloading off their parents. I'm very happy for them. Sure, they may have worked part-time jobs to have some spending cash, and maybe had to take out some loans, but for the most part, they didn't really have to worry about bills and money while they were studying. And even from that group, I only know one girl who was able to go on to pursue her Master's degree immediately after graduating. Why? Because her parents are supporting her entirely under their roof ... they pay her car, her insurance, her personal expenses, and her loans. We threw a party for her when she enrolled for classes because we were (and still are) very happy for her, and very proud of her. Nobody there was griping about their inability to do the same, nobody was holding her great fortune against her.

I realize that the amount of money somebody makes is entirely relative to where they live. $100,000 a year certainly isn't enough to own a home on Star Island. However, $15,000 a year isn't going to get you a home anywhere at all. And again, I am not saying that "rich" people are responsible for the fact that there are so many poor people. I'm just saying that poor people are poor whether you tax them or not, whether they are hardworking or not, whether they are educated or not, whether they like it or not. IF any kinds of programs are going to exist to help poor people increase their standard of living, then certainly those same poor people aren't going to be able to foot the bill. It isn't as though scholarships and charity organizations are paid for and supported by contributions from people who live below the poverty line.

posted April 04, 2004 11:42 AM              

Like most knowflakes, I have gravitated to one or two forums and rarly visit others in this very rich, loving environment. This forum is generally an exception for me, but some threads do move me in a profound way, as this one has. I apologize if my intrusion is bothersome.

Least I be remiss, I would also like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Randall and all the moderators for their wonderful hospitality.

Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of this internet medium is to translate a life experience into typed words on a page. This difficulty holds true from the most ordinary experiences to the purely exestential. Perhaps this translated contribution will fall short as well.

Poverty in the West is a very ugly experience. The culture and society are not designed to accomodate those who come from ghetto life. This is not the "fualt" of the rich. It is not the "fault" of anyone or anything in particular. When and until we move through fault, we are trapped in a deceptively comfortable prison.

The word "poverty" is deceptive as well, so perhaps we should define these material terms so that clear communication is possible.

Poverty - The experienece of hunger and/or lack of shelter (basic human needs not met)

Poor - The experience of hardship in ordinary life (needs met with difficulty)

Comfortable - Little experience of practical hardships, some exestential struggles (neither this nor that)

Well off - No practical hardships, most struggle exestentially orientated

Rich - Unarticulated and unarticulatable hardship.

So, where shall we begin to say "who" is worse off in these various catagories? Certainly, each hardship particular to each catagory would feel the most put upon and would experience a distinct flavor of hardship. Arguments between the groups are essentially arguements about the "taste" of hardship. What is "bitter"? Arguements between the gropus are essentially arguments about the "color" of hardship. What is "purple"?

In the realm of the spiritual, the distinctions are much easier.

As long as one stuggles for basic human needs, there is little to no karmic activity. I do realize that this may trod on a few sacred cows, but the lights at lindland have been generously indulgent with me in the past, so I shall take this chance

As material needs are met, and to the degree they are met, spiritual responsibility or karmic activity play a larger role in existence.

If we understand this, we will also understand why The Christ described the rich as those least able to attain the kingdom of heaven (not to be confused with the notion of "heaven").

My apologies if later responses to this thread are delayed. I am traveling and my internet access is limited.

posted April 04, 2004 06:08 PM            

Randall
Thanks for the input. The situation I presented is entirely hypothetical, of course. I don't know exactly how the numbers would figure, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that if all the people in America made "middle class" wages that there would be enough "tranistional" workers left to keep the majority of minimum wage industries alive and well [considering we ignored the time gap between when someone waved a magic wand and made it so, and when these people's children reached a transitional working age (highschool/college)].

I don't think it's a matter of liking being "rich" or "poor". I just think that some level of poverty has so far been a necessary evil of American society (I am not, however, saying that this is so only in America), which is unfortunate.

Certainly, I like having my basic needs met and still have money left over to save and spend on extras. However, were I to become rich someday, I think I would enjoy it far better than someone who was born into a comfortable economic situation and had to climb to the top of the ladder from half way up instead of from the bottom. (Granted, feelings are subjective, but nevertheless, that's how I see it.) Also, I don't think I'd be able to turn a blind or contemptuous eye towards the poverty/low income situation that would still exist, even though I was much better off and wasn't directly affected by it.

And I definitely think that everyone can become what they wish to be. The difference is just in how much work and dedication it's going to take to get there. An extremely awful example would be this: Imagine that the economic situation was like a grading system. Let's say that the people who are born rich start out on the school of life with an A and that the ones who are born into poverty start out with an F. Certainly, all the students have equal opportunities as far working hard, studying, and doing extra credit to get good grades. However, bringing an F average up to an A average is going to be harder than simply maintaining an A average. I'm not saying that the persons who start out with an A average don't have to work, I'm just saying that it isn't as hard to maintain an average as it is to improve it. A C average student would also have to work hard to get an A, but not as hard as a D average student, etc. Certainly, everybody has to work hard in school, but I think the kid that is going to feel the most satisfaction is going to be that kid who worked his rear off to raise his F to an A. Of course, there would also be many students whose grades would drop or just stay the same. I realize this isn't the best example but, nevertheless, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

*****

Meili Zhiwei
Thank you for putting in a spiritual perspective that I was hesitant to try to incorporate. Don't worry though, that particular sacred cow never made it to my altar in the first place.

I realize that the feeling of hardship or suffering is subjective to the life experiences of the person having those feelings. Sure, all people can suffer regardless of wealth (or lack there of). A person who grew up with all their basic needs met in a comfortable financial situation wasn't free from all "money worries". They still probably worried about/suffered over the things that they wanted, but couldn't have. From their perspective it might've been considered suffering or hardship. I'm not trying to negate that experience at all. I just don't think that same person would have a clear understanding of what it's like to grow up without necessary things, like food or clothing (and I mean basic clothing here) or even shelter. There is no way to quantatively measure suffering or the feelings related to experiences of hardship, but if there was, I'd bet my two cents that the suffering/hardship (as far as finances go) of the upper middle classes and higher would pale in comparison to those of the lower middle class and below.
Think about the Great Depression. When we entered into a tragically deep recession, and even just when the market dropped, who committed suicide? Whose families fell apart because one or both parents ran out on them? It wasn't the poor. They were already struggling to survive and were accustomed to it; it was just hardship on top of hardship for them. (Certainly their situations worsened and they weren't celebrating in the streets or anything.) It was mainly the rich people who lost everything that couldn't deal with the fact that they would be poor and have to struggle to survive. Sure, they struggled in their wealth with a variety of troubles, but it was a stark contrast to have the troubles of the poor suddenly as their own.

posted April 05, 2004 12:11 AM              

"There is no way to quantatively measure suffering or the feelings related to experiences of hardship, but if there was, I'd bet my two cents that the suffering/hardship (as far as finances go) of the upper middle classes and higher would pale in comparison to those of the lower middle class and below."

That is why I noted the quantative difference with respect to spiritual responsibility or, in a more general sense, issues of karma.

As a side, or perhaps not...the rich are indeed "responsibe" for the poor. That is part of their test of this life and a requirement/duty to be met by them in this human existence.

posted April 05, 2004 01:38 AM            

****

posted April 05, 2004 02:21 PM            

Sometimes I wonder(to myself),if that the "rich" like to make people happy by making them or keeping them poor,for they either lost that essence or never obtained it(in the first place)that a poor man in poverty can possess such "richness"!

What is the price that one should pay for the pursuit of happiness and what price is their to pay for the one who finds it?

"If I crossed a million rivers and I walked a million miles,I should be where I started, "bread and butter" for a smile!"

posted April 07, 2004 11:21 AM              

You have heard the saying "The simpliest answer is the correct one"? Well, that very simple statement is only acceptable if you already believe it. A bit circular wouldn't you agree? More accurate is to say "the answer may be simple or complicated, but if there is understanding, we will pass beyond a simple formula for arriving at Truth." A bit more wordy, but infinitely more accurate. So, I presented a general notion and law that regulates material wealth and ties it to spiritual responsibility.

As for the issues of "being sure", it is arrived at through extremes. One who has only experienced a single point will "feel sure" but never actually "be sure". Those who explore any range within a single type of experience will move from feeling to being. With respect to this topic in particular, many live in the first three groups and a few in the last two. How many, however, travel through the range of material life? Of those, how many actually understand the totality of their experience? I would suggest that those who both experience the range and understand the totality are ones who have arrived at "being sure".

posted April 07, 2004 11:31 AM              

The poor are not happy and the rich are not unhappy. The poor simply do not have the time and energy to engage in contemplation of spiritual matters unless it is in some sort of prepackaged form. Those who are more comfortable do have time to go beyond the prepackaging, but it leaves them restless and agitated. May I suggest that happiness can be equated with a state of temporary peace while unhappiness is agitation, both of which are subject to change moment to moment?

posted April 07, 2004 02:31 PM            

..but when you involve a great sacrifice of innocent human lives(just to recieve that 'GREATER HAPPINESS'),yeah,I find that to be A major problem and in spite of whether or not anybody here is either a "Have" or "Have not",there is nobody here that can state that they are the ones that have lost that chance since that very moment in Semptember 11,2001 and the numbers keep on rising over the frivolus intent and attempt under the guise of "the pursuit of happiness" that THEY(the more happier) are so willing to take away from us!