maybe I am naive but...Follow

Um... Wow! You talk about me making assumptions. All I've got to say is: You are soooooo wrong.

My mom found out I was having sex with some girl I was seeing and kicked me out of the house at the age of 18 (Did I mention she is strongly religious?).

I lived in my car off and on for about a year. During that time, I worked odd jobs.

I saved up some money, and got a cheap apartment with a friend of mine.

I scrimped and saved for about a decade. I went to classes at the local community college when I could afford to.

Most importantly, I made friends with people and established a circle of "close" friends and relatives my age in town.

I also started teaching myself how to work on computers. Realize, I was still dirt poor this whole time. I bought my first computer (a 286) from a swap meet for about $250. I then bought bits and pieces and upgraded it myself over several years.

The skills and contacts I made evertually paid off. I got offered a job at a local company that was small, but growing. At the time, they made satellite radio system for fleet trucks.

I worked my *** off. I started as a temp doing entry level computer tech stuff. Basically, I pushed a cart with monitors on it for about a year and a half. But I also learned everything I could about unix computer systems along the way.

I argued for a new support system that aligned the techs according to the departments instead of in general. The idea being that different departments would have different needs. My boss agreed and since I was still the "new guy", I got the department that no one wanted. This small, yukky group, with outdated computers and really annoying requirements. They called themselves the VLSI group and were working on some new experimental cell phone stuff that didn't seem to have any place in the market (and no one thought would work anyway).

Well. I could have just done the minimum, but I didn't. I continued to work my *** off. I worked hard to make friends with the people in thie department and figure out their needs. I taught myself how to automate installations according to the image they wanted. I eventually convinced them to upgrade their systems to something that had been built in the last decade. During this time, I got a promotion to "intermediate tech". The new systems allowed them to do their design work 30% faster then before.

Overtime, this department grew, and more IT folks came over to support it. It seems my idea of aligning techs to departments had caught on, and higher level folks (engineers in IT) were moving to their building to support them directly. We implemented a number of improvements, including a couple platform upgrades, new fileserver systems, improved network. The works. During this time, I got promoted to associate engineer for my efforts.

Meanwhile, apparently the technology caught on. Turned out that it really did work after all. We were able to support a growth that went from taping out a new design maybe 3 or 4 times a year, to taping out 3 or 4 times a week. Huge growth. Huge design problems to overcome from an IT standpoint, but we did it, and I was there from start to finish (ok. We're still not done).

Oh. Once I became a full time tech, I could join the stock purchase program. I did. That and 401k. I put 20% of my income collectively into it, even back when I was only earning about 25k. It seemed like the right thing to do. And I was given options when I made *** engineeer and later when I made engineer. Turned out that the stock that I had been buying for $6 a share for several years went up to $200. Very nice. Seems everyone wanted to buy our cell phone tech. Even the folks who a decade earlier said it couldn't possibly work.


Ok. That's my story. Sure. I got lucky. But my point is that the breaks I got only became big things because I made the right choices at the right time. I didn't have to put money into the stock plan. I certainly could have used the extra cash back then. But I didn't. The moral is that while you can know exactly what you'll get from an investment, you do know you'll get absolutely nothing if you don't invest. Also, hard work may not always pay off big, but a lack of hard work will never pay off.


I worked for everything I have. I put myself in the position where I needed to be, and I did the work that needed to be done. I've been rewarded for that. But if you just sit there and collect a paycheck, and that's the extent of what you do, then that's all you'll ever get. I totally resent someone who tries to say that you must have been given some advantage in order to succeed. I'm living proof that that simply isn't true. In one lifetime, I've gone from living out of my car to living in one of the nicest neighborhood in the county. Again. I got some good breaks. But without hard work those breaks would not have happened. We make our own forture. All of us.

dude, you guys are getting pwned by gbaji.

Claim? Sure. I could be lying my *** off for all you know. I'm 35 years old. I started work at my current job in 1996. Prior to that, I never made more then 15k a year at any employment. Do the math.

How long it takes is irrelevant. What matters is that you will never be wealthy if you don't change your spending habits. I made an active choice to set aside some of my earnings and invest it. That's the choice that paid off. I could have kept 100% of my salary if I'd wanted. I chose otherwise. Looking back, that was by far the wisest choice I've ever made in my life. Even if I hadn't gotten lucky, it still would have paid off. I also pay into a 401k. It's done pretty well over the same period of time. Well enough that even if my stocks had completely lost all value, I'd still be looking at a comfortable retirement down the line.

I'm simply giving you some advice. You can chose to take it or not. But then don't sit there and cry that there's no way for you to be wealthy when you're the one choosing not to even try.


Heh. Totem. That's "associate engineer", and "stock options". Bah! Get yer mind out of the gutter man!

so lets see if I am summing this up right you busted your *** for about 6 years got extremely lucky and now want all the lazy asses to know that its not that hard and they can do the same if they scrimp and save for 36 years. WOW

Ok, to bring this topic back to the issue of taxes I found this tasty little quote which I believe is quite apropos:

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

Succinct, yes?

Totem

I've read the counteragruments presented. There isn't anything magical about holding stock for 5 years or whatever the minimum is now which warrents the stupendouly low tax rates. Look at the history - the tax rates were very high during robber baron days. It didn't stop them. I fail to see any connection. Sure, if you build the company and sell it that is one thing, (or if you build and improve your home, ranch, breeding stock of cattle, et. al.) and we can argue the merrits of this, but just holding stock is nothing like that. You understand 15% is the maximum rate? It is insane to lower this kind of tax without restricting its use to people really creating wealth.

Yes. You are correct. There is nothing "magical" about this. However, it does represent some sum of money (and a very huge sum when you add up everyone who invests) that's going to be held in those investments instead of pulled out at the first sign of a market downturn.

This is part of my whole point. If it's so "easy" to do, then why does Flish absolutely refuse to do it? I'll say it again. The difference between the haves and have-nots in this country is purely based on the individual's willingness to actually invest money instead of just spending it at the first opportunity.

I find it monumentally stupid for folks to argue that since there exists a way to take money you have and very efficiently turn it into more money down the line, but because I personally don't have the personal willpower to do it, I'll just change the tax structure to ***** over those who do. That is the essense of the argument for increasing capital gains tax rates. I think it's lunacy.




Thank you! That's exactly the point! High tax rates did not "stop the robber barons". Know why? Because with high rates (no capital gains benefit), there is no reason for the wealthy to invest in anything other then their own personal enterprises. By introducing lower tax rates on investments (whick kinda by definition are in someone else's enterprise), you encourage cross growth of the economy. You also allow *anyone* to invest, not just the wealthy. You don't need to have eough money to buy your own factory in order to make money "in business". Back then, you did.

That's why lower rate capital gains taxes are a good thing.




Yes. You're correct. It's "nothing like that". Go back and read what you just said. What do all those thing you listed have in common? Yup. They all cost *large* amounts of up front money. They are the "sole proprieterships" that you probably read about in an econ class at some point.

"holding stock" is something anyone can do. While your specific stock does not represent a huge personal ownership in anything, it is a representation of a partial ownership in a business. The system allows the average joe to take part in business investing just like the wealthy. That's the point. Take away capital gains, and you seriously put a dent in the ability of the average person to ever take part in that area of our economy (which incidentally decreases their chances of ever being wealthy themselves).




Gah! How many times do I have to explain it to you guys before you get it. There is no "maximum" rate. The "maximum rate" on capital gains is what's called a short term capital gain. It's taxed exactly like income (up to 50%). When they talk about "top rate", they don't mean it's the highest tax rate. They mean it's the "best" (ie: lowest) tax rate. You start at income rate, then gradually get a better rate the longer you hold the investment. That's how capital gains taxes work.

Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is either misinformed, or is deliberately misusing terms to attempt to confuse the issue (generaly for political reasons).


Ok. One more attempt:




Ok. Fine. So, because every investment opportunity isn't guaranteed to earn you a million dollars in 6 years, there's no reason to bother investing in anything at all, right?

If you honestly believe that, then there's really no hope for you. It's not about the details of what specifically you can make (or will). No one can tell how well an investment will go. But, if you don't invest something, you cannot possibly make any money in the long term. I simply pointed out a very safe investment you can make as a counter to the idea that no-one but the wealthy can take advantage of capital gains, and the idea that no-one but the wealthy can accumulate a million dollars. I happened to get lucky and get that wealth faster. But the money isn't an end goal (else I'd just blow it like the lotto winners). My "goal" was never to make a million dollars. It was to expand my wealth as much as I could. The process I'm using right now is the exact one I've advised to you (I have a bit more divesified portfolio though, but I was keeping it simple). It's that change in approach to money that matters, not whether you get lucky or not.


I'll say it again: If you always spend as much as you make, you will never be wealthy. It doesn't matter how much you make. You have to actively change your mindset about money in order to become wealthy. Until you do, you'll always be sitting there ******** because your bills eat up all your income, and you have nothing left over. You can improve your life in the long run. It's completely up to you. But if you absolutely refuse to do anything to help yourself, then please don't ***** and moan that you have no opportunities. They're there. You just refuse to take them.

Lol, there really is no hope Gbaji, you hit the lottery and won and are now preaching like you busted your *** for 40 years to get it, but expect everyone else to bust theirs for 40 years to catch up with you.... Guess what that makes you a hypocrite.

Sorry pal not true unless your home is worth more then 250,000 and are single or 500,000 if married gotta thank Clinton again for the 97 tax relief act

It does when he claims that anyone can do it by his sound financial planning of only 36 years or maybe you dont know the meaning of the word.

$250,000? Yeah, well that buys you the lot for the house to sit on around here. Like I say, capital gains savings are something most everybody benefits from. It's not my problem you live on Baltic and Mediterraean Ave., buddy.

Totem

"And even if his stock option didn't increase the way it did ($6 to $200 is pretty incredible) even a moderate rise would net you signifigant gains."

Never said I didnt save money, just saying that the anyone can do it after you have won the lottery is the same type of propoganda that keeps millions of poor people paying extra taxes by playing their favorite numbers every week.

Sure saving money is good of course it is and I do it as much as I am able. But to be casual about obtaining it means that you really didnt work as hard as your claiming you did or you have been captivated by the propoganda that you too can get there when your young enough to enjoy it. You have to work for it that is the key, the "Gbaji" aka winning the lottery method happens to very very few people, and the accumulation of a million dollars, which goes back to my orginal point, is a lot of money for like 95%+ of all Americans and more then that if looked upon globally.

Lol. The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. In the long run, you are vastly better off taking the money you are spending on tickets and just putting it in a savings account. Really. You are. By a factor of about 4 or 5.

Flish. Yes. There is "luck" in investments. You can get lucky. However, most investments are virtually guaranteed to gain money over time, quite unlike the lottery. Sure there's risk. But all of life has risks. That's what makes it interesting.

There's no hypocracy here. If I'd just made a moderate amount on my investments, I'd still be arguing the exact same point. I think your basic problem is highlighted when you say things like "making money while your young and can still enjoy it". Um... Yeah.

See... It's a funny thing about life. When you are 20, you can't imagine what it's like to be 30. To you, right now is all that matters. Why put money into a long term investment when you wont get anything back for 5 or *gasp* 10 years? However, when you do hit 30, you're still thinking you're a young kid. Heck. I've recently come to the shocking realization that I'm only 5 years away from 40, yet I don't think of myself as being too old to enjoy my money. I probably wont think I'm to old even when I'm 50.

Why do you think it's soo much more important to have and spend money when you're "young"? Trust me. You will probably never think of yourself as "old", and certainly wont think of yourself as "too old to enjoy it". However, that small amount of money you'll blow on something really stupid when you're 20 could have been invested and will become enough money to do all sorts of "fun" stuff when you are older. But you have to have the foresight and discipline to think that far ahead.


It's really amusing that everyone's talking about Social Security right now. You'd think it would be important to come up with a way to ensure that you're nice and comfy in your old age. I've just given you the answer. Are you willing to take it? Or will you continue to do the wrong thing, and then turn to your vaunted government, arms stretched up like a small child, and ask to be carried?

You ask what the difference bettween Rep and Dem thinking is? That's it right there. You ask why Bush said the Dems wanted "big government?". That's it right there. The Dems want their government to provide for them even if they don't do anything for themselves. That way, when they reach their arms up for help, their governent is big enough to carry them, and has enough arms to carry everyone.

If you like that idea, then by all means continue voting Dem. But at least admit to yourself what exactly it is that you are in favor of. What's hypocritical is the Dem who sits there and argues that his party isn't about increasing government. There's no way to socialize medicine, and schools (already done to a point), and increase wellfare, and increase social security, without increasing the size of the government that must do all those things.


But one other factor I've noticed about the Dem party is a focus on the benefits of all the programs they want to create, with little to no emphasis on the cost. You scream bloody murder about a deficit increase that will cost us 42B a year until we pay it off, but I'm betting you wouldn't blink (probably wouldn't even be aware of in fact) a Dem program that'll increase non-discretionary budget costs by 50B a year *forever*. But it's easy to ignore costs when you've got some tear-jerked "cause" in front of you (it's for the children!).


Look. I'm done with you. I've said my bit. I think I've even said it well. If you are completely unwilling to even make the slightest attempt to improve your own life, then it's really not my job to do it for you. All you've accomplished is to further reinforce in my mind that there really are folks who will do nothing to help themselves, in favor of just increasing taxes on those who do so they can ensure a better life for themselves via entitlement. I think that's bogus. I think it's cheap. And I'll always argue against it (and vote against it as well). Nuff said.