I notice most of the “self made” billionaires today have something in common. They didn’t play by the rules. No wonder those of us who try playing by the rules aren’t successful. Instead of breaking the rules and being successful we’re listening to those who already got theirs saying we should keep following the rules. It’s not that they don’t know the rules have changed, they just don’t care. They already got theirs back before the rules changed and now they don’t have to play the game anymore.
You got to show the lotto winners holding that big check so all the suckers will keep spending their money even though they are more likely to get struck by lightning.
Let’s also pretend that there is no such thing as market saturation or limited availability of positions. Everyone can be $10K a day CEO.
Yes it does, or at least it does not hurt me. The same 2018 Tax Bill that cut corporate taxes also cut my effecttive tax rate about 19.5% (from 12.3% to 9.9%) and saved me almost $2800. They still paid a higher effective rate than I did, so why should I complain if the percent of their cut was bigger than mine?
Stop thinking that your life is ruined because money has influence on legislation.
And you don’t hold all the great truth. Not everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a “brick wall”.
Remember when Democrats under Clinton enacted a luxury tax on such things as yachts and corporate jets? The result was, the rich went over seas to buy such items to avoid the tax and domestic companies that build those items laid off employees because of the severe downturn in sales.
Exactly how is your opportunity any different than Doug’s? Obviously Doug made choices that benefit him in retirement … choices he began making many years ago. You should be asking his consul, not criticizing him.
Doug made choices that resulted in a pension? Where’s my pension? I’ve worked nearly as long as Doug has. Companies don’t give pensions anymore. Nothing I can do about that. Wait lemme guess, this is where you tell me I just need to find a better job.
You just provided a classic example of what I call trickle down. I’m wondering if we are using different definitions?
When I say trickle down, I’m referring to any wealth creation activity that trickles down from a larger activity. Thus, the rich’s indulgence translates into wealth opportunities for all of those that cater to them. That is what I refer to when I describe trickle down.
I’m attacking your statement that you were going to ensure the data is properly interpreted. I’m stating as fact that there is no single way to interpret the data. So your statement is not accurate.
You are providing your interpretation of the data. That is a fact.
Everything else you are blabbing on about is inconsequential. I tuned you out when you made your absurd claim that you would properly interpret the data.
It really is about choices. My company stopped doing pensions years ago. My retirement doesn’t depend on a pension from that company.
As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, I’ve made choices in my life that have worked out well for me. I’m six months away from having a comfortable retirement without a pension from the company I’m currently with.
As you point out, many companies have done away with pensions but there are other avenues to save for retirement.
Its all about choices. If someone chooses not to save for their retirement, whose fault is that? Really?