<p>I didn’t read what he/she was saying that way. The OP said that children are disadvantaged by being raised in a high consumption environment. I happen to strongly agree with this statement. In fact, in China there is a saying, “If you want your sons to be successful, raise them poor.”</p>
<p>The OP also says that focusing on wealth rather than income can lead to lower taxes for the individual. This is simply true.</p>
<p>" think the OP was actually criticizing his/her peers who aspire to make big incomes only to turn around and spend it all."
-But it is very good when people spend lots of money. that means that they appreciate the products of somebody else’s labor, they give income to people who work hard and they give these people the cahnce to support their families. I never understood why is it soooo noble to give to charity, but so bad and lookeddown when people spend their money on something that was produced by somebody else’s hard labor. I feel totally other way around and blame myself for being a bum not to shop and not buy many things, just because I am very lazy and hate shopping, even for cars. I applaud to anybody who spends, kuddos to them, it should make everybody else happy as these people support economy and keeping unemployment somewhat under control.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not a sense of entitlement? Parents often try to give their children a better life than they had, but they sure as hell don’t “owe” it to them.</p>
<p>The OP’s got another thread going about how to pick up college girls. Helpful bit of advice #1’s gotta be that talking about income taxes and wealth management is not good undergrad party conversation. ;)</p>
<p>Not sure why a Columbia student would be spending their time arguing economics and tax policy here on CC when they’ve got a whole big wonderful university full of people to discuss economics and business.</p>
<p>One of my favorite curmudgeons has an axe to grind about Rich Dad Poor Dad.</p>
<p>[John</a> T. Reed’s analysis of Robert T. Kiyosaki’s book Rich Dad, Poor Dad](<a href=“http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html]John”>John T. Reed's analysis of Robert T. Kiyosaki's book Rich Dad, Poor Da)</p>
<p>He is blunt, harsh, and not often wrong.</p>
<p>But it is very good when people spend lots of money. that means that they appreciate the products of somebody else’s labor, they give income to people who work hard</p>
<p>Without extreme vigilance, you would likely be spending on goods made outside the US, probably not supporting your neighbors. </p>
<p>And, no we don’t “owe” our children a better material life. Perhaps we owe them the sense of balance and perspective we should have gained over the years, some of our appreciation that a good life is more than what we own. (I did say balance.)</p>
<p>“Also, please read “Think and Grow Rich” by the respected Napoleon Hill. The people who truly believe their success and destined for it. ‘Success requires no explanation, failure allows no alibis.’ Please do not judge someone else’s ambition.” </p>
<p>My writing contains plenty of typos with resultant non sequiturs, so I won’t criticize your proof reading of that second sentence, only the content, which appears to be saying something about believing in your success destines you for success. It was a charming notion in “Field of Dreams” - “if you build it they will come.” You seems to believe that we are the authors of our own success or failure, that everything depends upon the virtue and belief of the individual. If you want it bad enough, and work hard enough, you will inevitably succeed, and those who fail have no “alibi.”</p>
<p>So, the young entrepreneur on her way up who is brain injured by a drunk driver has no “alibi” for her failure? Enron required no explanation for their success? The arrogance of the belief that we succeed or fail solely by our own merit, and that no one should consider the actual circumstances attending both, is frightening. While attitude and ability are important and assuredly have a lot to do with success, so do luck and and a stable society that gives people the opportunity to prosper rather than to struggle just to survive. </p>
<p>Success may require “no explanation,” but those who recognize that their success was achieved through the contributions of many, and who acknowledge those who lent a hand, understand reality better than those who claim all the credit for themselves, offering no explanation. New discoveries inevitably depend on the ones that came before, which is why the humility of scientists realizing that they “have stood on the shoulder’s of giants” rings true. We are linked with many others in the chain of success and the bonds of failure.</p>
<p>There are some other quotes that you should consider other than those self-help gurus and hucksters. You seem to be living in “a room full of mirrors” where you can only see yourself - if you take your spirit and break the mirrors, “the whole world is there for [you] to see.” (Jimi Hendrix)</p>
<p>I do agree with the sentiment that we are raised to consume excessively.</p>
<p>Do you see any irony in asserting that “success requires no explanation, failure allows no alibis,” and then asking posters, “[p]lease do not judge someone else’s ambition”? Ambition is a neutral concept, whether it is good or bad depends entirely on context. White collar criminals are often quite ambitious, as are unscrupulous politicians. Attentive parents who attempt to instill civic virtue in their children to try to improve the world a few people at a time are ambitious too. The idealists who rode the Freedom Buses in the 60’s were ambitious. I tend to admire ambition to improve society and to reduce suffering in the world more than I admire ambition to accumulate as much personal wealth as possible.</p>
<p>To critique is to judge. If no one here were to judge, there would not be a thread. We critique, or judge, other people’s ambitions and ideas constantly on CC. My concern is not that you have ambition, but what the apparent aims of your ambition - personal wealth while contributing as little as possible to society through taxes. You sound like an “Objectivist” trying to assert that selfishness is a virtue. I hope that I have misunderstood the ambitions of the OP.</p>
<p>nobody can put their head on others’ body, everybody lives under their own set of values. All these arguments have no meanning, some love money, others love to spend, and third’s goal is to have better life for their children, forths is living everything to charity…we can go on and on, at least, I am not for government that tells me how to spend my money after I pay taxes, so we should all feel priviliged not to have such a government and to be able to decide ourselves. Other than that nobody will convince anybody in anything, including the smartest books out there, I do not see any point except for pure entertainment.</p>
<p>Even money spent on goods from overseas benefits the US in the big picture if we have goods that are more competitive to sell to the now richer overseas customers. I hear GM cars sell well in China for example.</p>
<p>^Not only that. it also workd another way. if you buy VW, it might have come from TN, they just built the plant there. The same goes for Honda, Toyota,…many American workers are working for foreign or international companies, while living and paying taxes here. So, “buy American” has no meanning any more except for political slogan for very uneducated who are the least likely to vote.</p>
<p>Don’t GM cars sell because that’s part of a compromise in effect to make up for our losses? Not a free-market miracle. Incentives in place for the foreign states to allow those goods to come in, reduce excise taxes and etc, to keep prices competitive there?</p>
<p>Folks, this is not a simple matter. Everyone’s got an “opinion.” </p>
<p>Btw, “Buy American” starts with the concept of products made by US folks who get paid to make them. Yes, the rich VW exec may be in another country. Not a good enough reason to buy products made overseas. But, as noted, complicated, multi-faceted issues.</p>
<p>I don’t even know where to begin responding.</p>
<p>On the issue of a sense of entitlement/ high ambitions: Are we WRONG to have high ambitions? Is it the desire of everyone here that our kids in the top schools become followers rather than leaders? To become simply average? The next generation of wealthy people has to come from somewhere. If there is a will, there is a way. I am simply concerned about the problems that arise with their success.</p>
<p>@Geomom. Thank you for your suggestions. I have indeed read both. The Millionaire Next Door with dispel many many myths that most Americans have about the rich. The best guard against ignorance is with cold hard numbers.</p>
<p>On the issue of consumption: Sure it sounds all nice and dandy when everyone “buys” American and saves 0% of their income… until inflation comes in and the government forces a recession to lower inflation, only to find the citizens to be unable to cope due to 0% savings. Economics dictates that elevated demand cannot be sustained. High saving rate = High Investment rate (that money has to go somewhere. You put it in bank, bank invests it).</p>
<p>“Buy American” is also economically destructive. It simply is cheaper for us to import goods that we cannot make efficiently. Instead of spending all that time doing something the Chinese can do for half the cost, how about we make the computer chips that they can’t? I don’t understand why 350 years of economics still can’t convince people of this fact. See “Comparative Advantage.”</p>
<p>Investing is the key word. Pay for your future first before spending on yourself. Don’t buy fancy and buy the cheaper alternatives. Diversify your investments, but have about 70% in the Stock Market. Remember, be brave when others are fearful. Go in and buy up stocks when the market is doing bad. Buy low and sell high.</p>
<p>^^^^ This is what all children should be taught in second grade instead of the crap they learn in the joke school curriculum.</p>
<p>Exactly. Everyone wants to be rich but only the poor spend the money before they have it. Rich people get the luxury import vehicles and $3mil+ mansions after they are rich. Doctors and lawyers + other professionals do it when they are poor. (someone please explain to me how doctors and lawyers can earn >$500,000, buy a $2,000,000 houses, and have a net worth of like… $200,000).</p>
<p>500K? Even if 80% of your money went to uncle Sam you’d still be living a decent life.</p>
<p>Depends on your vantage point. A poor family has only known the world from those lenses. Too much money causes its own set of problems, much like too little money.</p>
<p>Assume this following scenario: 500k income. 250k taxes. 150k mortgage (calculated the interest deduction in the taxes already). That leaves 100k to pay for your cadillac and wife and children’s expectation for a lavish lifestyle. That’s what they are accustomed to. Clearly the person is understand severe financial difficulties that are identical to those of the poor. The problem is just scaled up to factor of 10X.</p>
<p>If people knew the inner workings of the working person in the described scenario, people would be less envious of his lifestyle</p>
<p>The original post is what I would expect from an immature child who read and is excited to share the “knowledge” that he can neither contextualize nor understand.</p>
<p>Other people have pointed out the various places where you are talking crazy, but the following struck me:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. It is also not the desire of everyone here that “our kids” become leaders rather than followers, however you want to define that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being a follower is not being average. And I think that you have a very skewed sense of what metric should be used in judging people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>^^ I understand condescending responses 1-3. Please elaborate on condescending response 4.</p>
<p>If someone locked up the worlds scientists and told them to create a time machine to bring back lavish parties from the 1920’s by threatening to kill them, it would happen. The effects of burning desires should not be underestimated. Those who fail in their undertakings simply did not try hard enough. </p>
<p>Case in point. A: Kid wants to go to harvard, gets reject, and cries.
B: Kid has BURNING desire to go to harvard, studies 5 hours EVERYDAY, does research/music/whittle wood as a craft 5 hours EVERYDAY without exception. Never gets rejected.</p>
<p>I am simply defending the ideas of Napoleon Hill</p>