A few lessons here re the blog post being referred to:
1. The title "professor" does not confer knowledge, intelligence or wisdom.
2. Know that your online audience is diverse even if your regular readers aren't.
3. If you're in a prominent non-activist position, avoid discussing politics, religion or sex.
4. Never disclose details about your personal life, especially financials, unless you've thought it through and had a trusted and objective friend to review your post.
5. Be careful about making yourself the subject of a blog entry. It's tough to avoid coming off as narcissistic.
And the obvious cliche: Write your emails and blog entries as if they're going to be published on the front page of a very popular newspaper that holds opposing views to yours.
Look at the whole picture. As this man's salary grew he started to add services and dependents and a wife and a lot of other things to his budget. He basically has reached a point where it is unsustainable but now he has convinced himself that he is in a hardship.
Not so different from the general public that believes owning a home, having three or four kids, and driving new cars is a right.
Everyone spends more as they make more money. It's pretty much human nature. The difference is that most people keep some bearing on reality and realize that they have it better than almost anyone else in the world (speaking of wealthy Americans here). They can also probably imagine cutting some stuff out if need be without blogging "woe is me".
6. Before commenting on a hot topic, at least familiarize yourself with the basic. Like how the marginal income tax works. You don't have to be an expert, but at least skim the wikipedia page.
7. Avoid bold, unambiguous statements that are easily checkable, unless you've triple-checked them. It's trivial to map taxable income and what a tax plan will cost you, and saying "this policy will cost me $10,000" is pretty bold and unambiguous.
This is ridiculous. Any American (or Australian for that matter!) who whines about their taxes should come and work for a few years in Europe. In Belgium, on an entry-level salary (for a post-doc academic position) I was being taxed at over 50% (my communal tax was at 8%):
"For 2010, marginal income tax starts at 25%, rises to 30% over EUR 7,900, 40% over EUR 11,240, 45% over 18,730 EUR with a top limit of 50% for incomes above EUR 34,330.
Residents also pay communal and regional taxes at rates between 0% and 8.5% of the total income tax payable. The most common rate is 6%." (source: http://www.expatica.com/be/finance_business/tax/taxation-in-... )
Throw in a 21% VAT on top of that and watch most of your income go to tax.
Mind you, Belgium is one of the heaviest taxers, but coming from Australia, where it is significantly less hard-hitting (top tax bracket is 30% for 180k AUD, then 45% for every $1 after), it was astonishing. I don't think I got what I paid for in Belgium either, to be honest, but that's a different issue ;)
While it may be true that Europeans are taxed more heavily than Americans, that does not necessarily mean that Americans being taxed more heavily is a good thing to happen. Your argument seems to boil down to, "You think that frying pan is hot? Join me in the oven then you'll really have good reason to complain." Thanks, but what if the best thing is to sit near the AC instead? I'm not claiming, by the way, that it would or wouldn't be better to tax American rich more, I'm just saying the argument you made is not a very good one.
Whereas I'm all for experiencing how others live, and thereby gaining a greater appreciation and experience of how the world works :) My argument isn't that Americans should be taxed more, just that Americans should come and see how the rest of the world works before having a good old whinge ;) (which is basically the theme of all the objections to this article -- I'm just expanding it out from rich/poor). 'tis the same with socialised medicine -- if those against it lived in Europe/Australia/Canada/etc. for a bit and saw how well it worked and how well loved it was in these countries, they'd probably have a different idea about it for their own.
OK, I see your point, and I think it is a fine one. Not very practical because of immigration policies and whatnot, but definitely of an idealism that I can subscribe to.
Fellow Belgian here. Left the country 4 years ago & honestly I'm not sure if I ever want to go back. I'm raving mad about the political insanity. Despite the high tax levels, we managed to become a country that is virtually bankrupt & instead of tackling the problems we decided to focus on bullshit politics instead. I am not getting my money's worth and am actively pulling out, even if it saddens me because I used to like the country & the people.
I live in Norway and only pay 33% of my salary in taxes. If I had bought a house instead of renting an apartment, I would have been able to deduct a lot more from my tax.
To a certain extent this guy has a point. You are rich if you can afford a good lifestyle without having to work for a living. These people have a high income, but they also have high level of spending and they have nowhere near the assets to support their lifestyles.
So, rather than being rich, they are wage slaves with high incomes.
When you have enough money to stop working and still have the lifestyle you want, your life is completely different. It buys you the one thing that is really precious - the time to do what you want with your life.
Although I am not extremely wealthy, I have enough savings to stop working and to spend my time the way I want.
The other interesting aspect of this case is that it is a classic example of the hedonic treadmill. No matter how rich you are, how successful, how productive, after a while the joy wears off and you think: If only I had a bit more, then I'd be happy. The millionaire thinks he or she needs $10m, with $10m you think $100m, etc. "The only way to win this game is not to play".
As somebody who stands to get clobbered by this high tax bracket, I sometimes feel like I'm the only one out here who thinks it's just fine.
I've always been in favor of a flat tax with a lower bound. So, say 50% of all income above $20k. Let the regular folk (like me last during the last couple years of getting a bootstrapped startup off the ground) get off without paying any tax whatsoever. Take up the slack by making those with plenty (like me now that things are going well) pay our fair share.
I mean sure, losing half your income to taxes is a problem, but it's one of those good problems, because to get it you need to be making four times what everybody else is making.
As long as you figure out what your actual means are and live within them, you'll still do fine.
>I mean sure, losing half your income to taxes is a problem
This is a big issue I see in America (being American myself). Money spent in taxes is always considered "lost" [1]. Consider somewhere like Sweden. Tax rates go above 50%, but for that money they get health care, college for as high as they're capable of going (even room and board while they're attending!), etc., etc. So those are all things they don't have to spend their own money on. At the end of the day should we care about how much of our money the government touches, or about the quality of life we can have?
[1] Of course in America there may be some truth to it given the kinds of things money gets used for by the US government.
Sweden has the world's highest taxes, but lots of the common functionality works badly.
For example, it is really hard to get a doctor to put work into diagnosing any problems you have. There is IMHO a business opportunity for a travel agency to organize vacation trips for this...
(I had knee problems for half my life -- this did lower my life quality. The private doctor that in the end diagnosed and cured it (easily cured, by the way...), said that he'd seen quite a few cases of that problem uncured for decades!)
Also note that if something isn't solved by the one-size-fits-all state systems and you end up paying privately -- you have little money left over after you've paid the world's highest taxes.
(Also, room/board isn't free for students. They generally take loans. Remember that part about having little money left over after taxes..?)
That said -- the US health care system seems worse than anywhere else in the western world.
>For example, it is really hard to get a doctor to put work into diagnosing any problems you have.
As opposed to the US where you'll pay substantially more money for it? In my experience doctors tend to check symptoms and form a matrix in their head of possible causes, applicable medication, removing medications that conflict with each other and just give you the whole remaining set. You'll be paying for all that medication, btw. If it works, they can't know for sure what it was or what fixed it. If it doesn't you enter round two, a subset of the previously excluded meds. Get out your wallet again.
>Also, room/board isn't free for students. They generally take loans.
Is this new? I used to hang out regularly with about 20 different Swedish students (an online game) and this is how they told it me worked. As far as I know none of them were working, just going to school.
It might be Denmark this year. It is/was a hard battle for the "top" position between them.
>>As opposed to the US
Hrm...
I did also write: "That said -- the US health care system seems worse than anywhere else in the western world."
Finding health problems is afaik internationally acknowledged as the problem with Swedish health care.
Edit: I might add that from what I've heard -- when they've finally find a serious problem, the system is thorough. Just hope it isn't too late if/when you get a diagnosis...
>>Is this new?
You seemed to say different in what I commented?
No. It isn't new. I studied there twice (in different decades).
Generally, students take loans to cover living expenses during studies. You get subsidies, but today most students have to work extra because the loans/subsidies don't cover living expenses.
Edit: If you're young and going to study, it might be worth the trouble to do it in Europe. There is some minor cost to study at Swedish universities for non-EU students (new this year), but imho -- avoid Scandinavia, it is probably too similar to Canada from your viewpoint. Go for Germany or something.
>>In my experience doctors tend to check symptoms and form a matrix in their head of possible causes, applicable medication, removing medications that conflict with each other and just give you the whole remaining set. You'll be paying for all that medication, btw.
(On consideration, I don't think I was clear enough on this point. Another attempt...)
For a Swede, that sounds like heaven.
The problem locally is that you can't get that done in Sweden for money. You go to doctor after doctor that don't care. They tell you something and kicks you out the door. If they don't know, they generally won't send you to a specialist.
I don't know the reason for this. Probably because the administrative burden of the centrally planned system takes up half the time of the doctors.
Right now I know two people with debilitating problems that are hard to find -- and they can't get doctors to try finding the real background.
There is a Swedish saying that you're in real trouble if you're too unhealthy to raise bloody Hell, because without a ruckus doctors aren't motivated to try to find the problem just to get rid of you.
The left wing parties are "married" to the system and makes a principle about it -- "It is wrong to earn money on people's health". They don't care if their principles work or destroy people's lives -- as long as they can sell the message to the Believers among the voters. (Or maybe they like people chronically ill, because those tend to vote to the left.)
I don't know what the rest of the incompetent f-ckups in the other political parties are doing with a perfect opportunity to sell a question to the voters.
There is imho a good lesson here about life and political systems.
Sure, but you're leaving out FICA (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%). This bumps the brackets to 40.65% and 42.65% (or 43.65% and 47.25%). After local taxes this can easily top 50%. Suppose you earned $357k gross in Rhode Island. Your total tax liability would be in the area of $189k, or 52.7%.
All of this also ignores the employer FICA contribution.
FICA phases out around $100k, but there's also the future ObamaCare 3.8% tax (unearned income) 0.9% (earned income) as well (currently legislated to begin 1 JAN 2013).
The amusing thing for me is that there are certain incomes where the marginal rate actually goes down when income goes up (although absolute taxes paid always go up), due to phase-outs of deductions, various regressive taxes like FICA, local, etc.. It's actually quite complicated -- someone did a table on Quora, which I can't readily find right now, and it looks like the marginal rate peak for a single person was usually around 180-220k. From a purely efficiency standpoint, it seems like one would want the marginal rate function to be as smooth and ideally monotonic (if not strictly monotonic) as possible.
There is if you count state and local taxes. In California you can be paying 9.3% + 1.0%, and in other places (NYC) it can be even higher. At 39.6 + 9.3 + 1.0, you would be above most countries in the world.
That's funny, because on my federal tax return there's an entry where you deduct your state income tax. Sales tax, of course, is entirely different from income tax.
Something being deductible on federal is nowhere near the same as a tax credit. You don't get a tax credit for state/local taxes. You get a deduction (which doesn't apply under AMT). So, if you're in the 25% bracket, you can deduct your 10% state taxes, which reduces it from 25+10% to 25+10-(0.25*10).
California's 9.3% is the top regular marginal income tax rate. There is also an 8-10% state/local sales tax. There is no way around the analysis that California and New York are relatively high tax states compared to Nevada and Washington.
I know this, and am not trying to claim that high taxes don't exist - I live in California myself, and think we need to trim costs to become more competitive. But I see no value in exaggerating the impact of taxes either.
Call me a pedant if you like, but I'm just tired of seeing economic debates where people begin with best/worst case arguments, eg throwing out numbers which don't take inflation into account or suchlike. I felt the message I replied could have acknowledged that one number does not tell the whole story.
Lost in the bashing of this professor who had the temerity not to want to pay higher taxes, is the fact that he had to invest lots of money to be able to earn his big salary. He probably has at least 7 years of higher education. His wife, as a medical doctor, probably has at least 8, if I understand correctly how med school and internships work. They sank a huge amount of money -- maybe close to $500,000 -- into investing in their careers, while most people in the lower income brackets have spent little, if anything, in that way. And the cost to the professor and his wife is even greater if you factor in the opportunity cost of not working high-paying jobs all those years they were in school. Call it a cool million sunk into their education and training, easily.
So it's hardly greedy of the guy to want to be able to at least pay back his wife's student loans before Obama hits him up even harder to help finance a new era of government expansion. There's a difference between revenue and profits, after all.
As for saying he shouldn't have bought a million-dollar house, that's hardly an unreasonable price for a couple with a combined annual income of roughly half that amount. As a multiple of their income, it's comparable to a couple who makes $125,000 a year buying a house worth $250,000. That doesn't sound so crazy, does it?
I think you're living in la-la land. If he had $500,000 to spend on education in the first place, then he started rich and just keeps getting richer. If he'd foregone the education and invested the $500k in something else, then he'd still be rich, and (presumably) he'd still feel hard done by.
From the original article, which you may not have actually read:
"My wife has school loans of nearly $250,000 and I do too"
They made the investment in their education and future with borrowed funds, just as I (and many others) have. It's not like he broke $500K off some trust fund he was born with...
> Perhaps Henderson's outburst should be chalked up to the influence of degenerate white culture
This would be unacceptable to say about any other ethnic group - I've got to say, if you're Caucasian you should get upset at general hate speech and slapping "white" on something like it's a bad thing. I keep the company of people of all color and background, I'll do business with anyone I like, but it's time white people stop taking abuse like this passively. Any other ethnic group would be up in arms, calling this guy a racist asshole, and writing off his credibility permanently.
Will you be talking about degenerate black, hispanic, asian, whatever culture any time soon? Didn't think so. Fuck you.
Posted by: Todd | September 20, 2010 11:21 AM
#2
Dear Todd,
I think you will find MtM was making a not very subtle point about other peoples' judgements with his "degenerate white culture" swipe.
Namely, in case it has to be spelt out, that a lot of people do attribute all sorts of moral failings to "degenerate [ethnic] culture".
Kinda stings when the reverse case is made, however sardonically intended.
Posted by: Steinn Sigurdsson | September 20, 2010 1:45 PM
You know, I have to say, I read both of the blog posts and this guy has a point. This is basic financial literacy, if you have $500,000 in student loans, perhaps you should rethink the wisdom of buying a $1,000,000 home.
Being in a similar economic cohort myself, I see a lot of people like this. Believe it or not, I am often accused of living 'beneath my means'. Am I living beneath MY means, or are you living beyond YOURS?
So I think it is fair to label that sort of attitude as the 'degenerate' part of white culture. Just as it is fair to label gangsta rap, absentee fatherism and a myriad number of other issues the 'degenerate' part of black culture. Just because black people will say 'HOW DARE YOU?', does not mean that we should stop speaking the truth in this regard. Neither should we stop speaking the truth simply because whites may be offended.
What whites and blacks need to understand is that this is how progress is made. Failing that, they need to understand that this is the United States and it is their right to be offended...and my right to offend them.
Many people would be offended at the statement because it seems as if he's calling "white culture" (whatever that means) degenerate. I took it the way you did. I assumed he meant it as a bad segment of the all encompassing white culture...lol.
EDIT: I mean that white culture is such a broad-sweeping statement that it loses meaning. Sorry for the lack of clarification...
That is because the other ethnic groups are not the dominant ones in society, and are typically disadvantaged on the whole because of their race. My personal view as a White person is that I have enough advantages by my White male-ness that I do not need to demand more, or do anything to offset whatever minor inconveniences might arise from the same. Doing so would seem petty to me if I walked in another man's shoes.
Is this racist? Yes, I suppose. White privilege is real, though. A recognition of this fact requires some ability to discriminate between race when observing the state of society, so perhaps "racist" should not be the bad word. Instead, "racial oppressivism" might be a better thing to demonize.
I think what houseabsolute is saying has real validity. As a Chinese American, I've been teased at school for having a last name like "Hung," for speaking a language other than English. We haven't reached a world blind to color, and the faction on HN has a much better understanding of different cultures, skin colors, etc. than the average white American, especially of those in the South.
It's a bit of a catch-22 situation. People make generalizations, because it's a very human thing to do; when we write code, we make generalizations when developing our algorithms. And the reason that the White group is at times marginalized is because a large percentage of that group still has a very poor understanding or acceptance of other races. If you go down to Atlanta, Georgia, you will see two worlds: one white (or honorary white, if you're Chinese, for instance), and one non-white.
While it's of course in accurate to say that all people in the White subgroup are like this, a significant number have triggered a Bayesian rule that generalizations about White group are made, and the generalizations are usually made about their lack of sensitivity to non-White culture.
And there is still hate. My girlfriend, for instance, is Japanese. When she was at UNC Chapel Hill, however, someone pooped in her dorm room and wrote, "Get out you dirty Jap!"
Kids tease other kids about ANYTHING. If it weren't about your name, it would be something else. Doesn't mean white society is conspiring to keep Chinese people down.
And that UNC Chapel Hill thing is just disgusting. Not sure someone who would do something like that is a good representative of the attitudes of white people in general.
If you read again, the person you're responding to mentioned being "honorary white". The notion of US whiteness evolves; take for example 19th century racism against the Irish. Blacks were called the "smoked Irish," and the Irish were "niggers turned inside-out". Now of course, Irish-Americans are just normal privileged white people, while African-Americans... well, they're obviously not doing as well. They're heavily imprisoned by the country with the world's highest jail rate.
The white upper middle class are always doing fairly well. Yet poor whites are the ones that are double screwed.
They are discriminated against in many countries ("black economic empowerment") and they are loathed by upper middle class white people. A white person with the same economic situation as a black person is screwed.
So, poor whites became the punching bag of society. By upper middle class who dislike them (and like someone to pay for their sins) and disliked by black people.
Here is a solution: How about removing all legal economic disadvantages from poor white people? (e.g. they are not viewed as "white" on application forms for employment equity purposes), and applying it super hard for the white upper-middle class?
"A white person with the same economic situation as a black person is screwed."
Can come off a bit wrong as well... I think you mean an extremely impoverished white person is worse off than an extremely impoverished black person. Because all blacks aren't poor..(I know you didnt mean this... but it can be read that way)
My stance is the opposite, as the white person in the extreme situation has more work opportunities, as well as the added benefit of not always being feared by society as the minority in the extreme situation can be.
-No imbred fear of inferiority.
-Acceptance all across the nation if not the globe.
-Inspirational historical role models that you can relate to taught by default(save for february...lol)
-Less chance of long-term jail sentencing for proportional crimes
-etc... the list can go on. This is not to say that you should feel bad for having a slight advantage, but not to recognize it can be confusing to those who have lived with the disadvantages.
Interesting - at least two of the disadvantages are entirely self inflicted (inbred fear of inferiority, unwillingness to be inspired by people of a different race).
I'd be curious to see numbers for the jail sentencing claim. It sounds plausible, but numbers would be nice.
Edit: Obviously this argument isn't going to get resolved and it's unlikely anyone's mind will be changed. I'll bow out here, leaving my opinion that his conduct is hateful and inappropriate, and my opinion is if you're Caucasian you shouldn't have to accept that passively. Others may have other opinons or think it's okay - if so, we'll agree to disagree.
I don't really expect you to see it any other way. You too are part of the advantaged White race, and it's far easier to turn a blind eye to the advantages you receive over Black or Latino people than to recognize them and deal with the fact.
Of course, you may actually recognize those advantages and just choose to deal with them differently than I do. I also see nothing wrong with that. I'm not trying to say that all White people should behave the same as I do. I'm just offering up one possible reason why some do.
> . . . upper middle class sanctimonious bullshit.
Those of you who are downvoting it should be ashamed of yourselves. If you disagree, you should explain why, not use your privileged position to censor.
Maybe you're right that this is racist. But I'm pretty sure that well over 90% of people making the argument that $450k is not enough money are indeed white.
If the article was about gangster rap I don't know if it would be racist but it would be accurate to call it a degenerate black culture.
"But I'm pretty sure that well over 90% of people making the argument that $450k is not enough money are indeed white."
Citation needed. I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with your opinion, but stating claims like this without some kind of reference seems questionable.
What's with all the class warfare in the US lately? There isn't anything wrong with making money. I'm no where near the 450k/yr earnings range, but I certainly don't begrudge anyone who is. Some people seem to have the perspective that your earnings are the government's money, and they, through the goodness of their hearts, let you keep a percentage of it.
I think people don't (at least in the US, and probably globally, generally) begrudge people what they view as "fair" rewards, especially if they themselves might have a shot at them. Most of the political supporters of low taxes in the US are actually not incredibly high income, but people who think they may have high income in the future.
If you view most wealth and income as coming from fraud/crime or deceit, then it is much more reasonable to want some kind of confiscatory taxes. I think in the past, most Americans with relatively high incomes (doctors, small business owners, etc.) were well respected for contributing more value to the community than they took out in salaries. It is a lot harder even for me as a libertarian to defend those who make huge amounts of money from wall street, government regulation, etc.
In most third world countries with pretty open class warfare, the rich have largely made their money from extractive industry or other exploitation. I'm not sure if this is cause or effect -- there's a strong argument that living in a country where wealth only comes from that kind of thing actually turns your country into a horrible place to live, any where anyone who would otherwise be productive would then want to flee to be productive elsewhere.
Our combined income exceeds the $250,000 threshold for the super rich (but not by that much), and the president plans on raising my taxes.
As for the author's premise, it all depends on what you're willing to put up with. I have a rusting 25 year old car and a dead front lawn (no gardeners, scarce water, no time to landscape myself). There are likely people who disdain this, and I posit the author may be one of them. But I have a family of six in an expensive area for well under half of the money he describes.
To the people with plenty of money, gardeners and private school are simply part of the cost of doing business; non-negotiable. But they remain optional, just as my choices of four kids an an expensive area are also up to me. There are others who would call me wealthy with my spending of money on such things. And they are right, in their way.
While it does piss me off to read someone who makes so much money complain, I don't think it's ridiculous for someone who already looses nearly half their income in taxes being concerned about a further hike. Suppose that last year I made $10k. Someone, somewhere, thinks that's a hell of a lot of money. But I bet most people on HN would not condemn me for being concerned about the government taking a few extra thousand.
His closing comment:
>The problem with the president’s plan is that the super rich don’t pay taxes – they hide in the Cayman Islands or use fancy investment vehicles to shelter their income.
seems like it might have some merit as well, although I am not in a position to actually know for certain.
Although, I have asked my father in the past what he pays for taxes, and he has told me well above 50%. He makes nothing like this man's wages, which makes me wonder how this man is getting away with less than 50%...
Very few occupations lead to a cash salary of more than a few hundred thousand dollars, tops. All the rest of their income (interest and other gains from investing, appreciation of assets, etc) is taxed at lower rates. Long term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, for example. So the richer you are, the lower your marginal tax rate can be as the proportion made up of ordinary income becomes smaller.
This article irritates the living hell out of me. I was extremely poor as a child, yet there are sensible ways people act who are in poverty and ways in which poor people act that causes poverty.
> Because personal responsibility should not be the sole purview of single minority mothers.
The popular idea (in the USA at least) is that once a person is a “single mother” they are somehow special and everyone has to pay their way. Popular politicians (Hillary Clinton) say things like “it takes the village to raise a child”. This is against the normal notion of the father and mother paying for the child and raising the child. Most single mothers probably do not know the father of their children.
This is utter bullshit - a poor (and rich girl) is not supposed to get pregnant out of wedlock – that is insane stupidity. This has nothing to do with poverty. Getting pregnant does not entitle you to a big chunk of another’s money.
> Being poor is going to the restroom before you get in the school lunch line so your friends will be ahead of you and won't hear you say "I get free lunch" when you get to the cashier....
Nice. I didn’t get lunch at school.
> Being poor is feeling the glued soles tear off your supermarket shoes when you run around the playground.
Hmm… fair enough. I only wore shoes since 8th grade (because it was mandatory). In any case, running around barefoot makes you faster (almost everyone did that). Gluing is a bad way to fix shoes – the better way is with a thick type of needle and twine (don’t exactly know what this is in English).
> Being poor is relying on people who don't give a damn about you.
I never had a problem with people not caring about me. Of course you will not be the most popular guy with the girls or have fancy clothes (you know that group). But that doesn’t mean that people do not care about you.
> Being poor is not talking to that girl because she'll probably just laugh at your clothes.
Or having extremely bad acne+teeth but no money for medicine? Been there. Still doesn’t entitle you to someone else’s money.
> Being poor is your kid's teacher assuming you don't have any books in your home.
You know what many teachers like? People who do well and work hard. All the money of rich kids cannot (usually) buy them good test scores. Fair enough, they have fancy scientific calculators and computers while you must do with a hand-hand-hand me down. But that doesn’t help them that much. More often the privilege that rich kids experience set them up for failure later in life.
Here is what I have found with parents that are different:
1. Became super conservative – everything is saved, nothing is wasted. Even now, when my parents are doing well, my father still can’t throw away glass bottles.
2. Obsession with cleanliness (my mother used to say: “We may be poor, but we are not dirty”).
3. Obsession with education and forcing children to work extremely hard.
4. Extremely socially conservative. My father forbade dancing, alcohol. Even forbade my sister from watching television soaps, etc…
5. Extremely strict.
6. Obsessed with being successful. My father has a successful business now, but still work 15 hours a day.
I wish he could lose his job for being so ungrateful and out of touch with reality and learn how truly privileged he is. This guy needs a wake up call ASAP.
Also, look at how disgusting some of the comments are on the cache, truly disgusting: "The poor are inferior to the rich in the U.S. The ones who are rich have used the system to generally move up, not manipulate the rest of the population as the liberal biters/haters would have you see the world you created."
Hopefully he will keep his job if he is good at it. No sense wasting that education when lawyers can learn good practice from him, even if his politics suck. You are basically advocating employer censoring of employees' private political opinions and expression, which is a dark road to advocate if there ever was one.
We earn over $250k so we're considered superich though that's not fair because we're not really rich because we spend all our money on normal stuff like house and groceries and richer people evade taxes offshore but we're not rich enough to do that and we could evade taxes by pretending to be divorced but we're too moral to do that and if you tax us we'll have to fire our gardener and cleaner and sell our house and that's not good for the economy and who said that you can spend money better that me anyway you Marxian.
As much as I sometimes differ with Obama's policies, you do not seem to understand what Marxism is at all and would do well to read up on it before trying to say who is or isn't a Marxist. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism. See the part about the proletarian revolution? Not exactly something Obama is pushing for, among many, many other differences between his policies and Marxism.
Among other things, you've failed to demonstrate that Obama believes Capitalism is inherently exploitative. Even if you'd managed that, you'd still need to prove that he also supports the other tenets of Marxism, like the one I called out in my comment.
A person is not automatically a Marxist merely for having some affinity to any part of the overall philosophy. Instead, one is a Marxist if the overall body of their philosophy matches. Obama has never advocated the a revolution of the proletariat, one of the core ideas of Marxism. There is also no evidence that he sees Capitalism as inherently exploitative, nor that he endorses the view that a person is exploited if they produce more than they consume. To the extent that he has supported policies to enhance equality of well-being, they have mostly been aimed at shoring up a necessary minimum level of well-being via taxes, not by transferring the means of production from the bourgeois to the proletariat.
For these reasons and many others, it is completely misguided to call him a Marxist. Say rather that he has implemented some economic policies that would be vaguely similar to a small subset of the policies that a Marxist leader might implement. Better still, say nothing at all; you have demonstrated that you are not qualified in either duty to truth nor possession of knowledge to comment.
The commenter you were replying to was just a troll, and they were just using the term "Marxist" as an epithet. Here's an incomplete list of other "red-flag epithets":
communist
socialist
liberal
democrat
muslim
islamist
apologist
So you're saying a very popular news station in the US is actually a collection of trolls? :) I don't know if that should make me feel better (at least they don't believe what they're saying) or worse (so many viewers do).
Actually, yeah. I know it sounds horribly cynical and conspiracist and so forth, but they have gone so absurdly out of the way of simple, verifiable facts, that it's impossible for me to accept that they really believe what they're saying.
They're just taking advantage of people's anger, and doing it well, and getting rich in the process.
Maybe so. He deleted his comment, which leads me to believe he at least as some capability for shame. Anyway, it'll be nice to have that written down, though, so I can refer my non-troll conservative friends to it when the idiocy builds up. It can be hard being a Republican. :(
But sometimes I get so god damn frustrated with the meta-comments ("uh, so this is why you shouldn't discuss politics when attempting to increase your social network influence") and the quiet acceptance of provable idioicy that all I want to do is to tell someone that they are either ignorant, stupid, selfish or evil.
Now, just because the original poster's historically and politically ignorant comment contained more words than mine, doesn't make my expression if exasperation at his (?) idiocy any less valid.
Don't be duped by rambling idiots. c.f. Occam's Razor
1. The title "professor" does not confer knowledge, intelligence or wisdom.
2. Know that your online audience is diverse even if your regular readers aren't.
3. If you're in a prominent non-activist position, avoid discussing politics, religion or sex.
4. Never disclose details about your personal life, especially financials, unless you've thought it through and had a trusted and objective friend to review your post.
5. Be careful about making yourself the subject of a blog entry. It's tough to avoid coming off as narcissistic.
And the obvious cliche: Write your emails and blog entries as if they're going to be published on the front page of a very popular newspaper that holds opposing views to yours.