<p>“Btw, “Buy American” starts with the concept of products made by US folks who get paid to make them.”</p>
<p>-yes, exactly. but there is a “tiny” detail that got out of sisight shadowed by politically correct slogan. Lots and lots of non-American goods, including expansive “foreign” cars (VW, Toyota, Honda…) are made here on American soil by Americans in plants that are built here by foreign companies. These Americans get paid by foreign companies to make these cars (and some other goods, that I am not familiar with) and they pay taxes to American Government. Also, some American companies are hired by foreign companies and governments to provide services and goods (some are huge projects) in foreign countries. Because of these businesses these companies are able to survive in tough economy, pay their employees and again provide revenues for American government. Lots of people do not see any of these or keep their eyes shut on purpose. They prefer to repeat popular slogan instead. Well, this is their right, but it does not mean that everybody else should share the same.</p>
<p>My recollection of “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” is that the “poor dad” (his dad) was college educated, had a steady job, a pension, etc. The laughably fictionalized “rich dad” was a high school drop out who became a serial entrepeneur.</p>
<p>So why are you going to Columbia? That seems to be the route to poor dad status.</p>
<p>Don’t you know who’s making those computer chips? And Macintoshes?</p>
<p>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.<br>
Says who?</p>
<p>I wonder if all this isn’t simply theoretical talk- like the time machine. Needs some “real life” thrown in.</p>
<p>when you get to be my age you will realize that the government is not ‘legally robbing’ anyone making $500k-750k when they pay @ 31%. </p>
<p>In simple terms, taxes - even high ones - enable a society to function smoothly, thus avoid turning us into Somalia. So, if you or your $500-750k/year future peers want nothing to do with paying taxes, a move (or visit) to a country like Somalia would help bring the message home.</p>
<p>Taxes are nothing more than insurance that what we have here will stay as it is and we won’t become the next Lebanon. </p>
<p>Incidentally, I have read the book and it is a joke. It is full of generalities, wishful thinking, and rose-colored blinds ideology that money rules. In fact, my years of growing up in Europe have convinced me that we need the EXACT opposite of what the guy suggests, instead of everyone wasting time and energy hoping for a Hail Mary financial pass, that everyone should actually, like, be realistic about what is possible, and go from there.</p>
<p>@ Turbo: The true taxation rate is somewhere in the ballpark range of 55-60% for upper middle class high income individuals. Upper class pays around 20%. When 55% of your paycheck goes to the government, you are no longer working for yourself. Hell, even corporate America pays out 70% of operating profits as employee compensation. The infamous phrase goes: “I’m all for taxes, as long as I don’t pay them.”</p>
<p>On the issue of substence of RDPD, I agree he generalizes and often give unrealistic examples. However, the CORE of his argument is rock solid: acquire assets and watch your neighbors pay 3 times your taxes. It is not hard at all: the average “rich” person earns around $100-120k a year. If they can become aristocrats with $100-120k a year, everyone can become multimillionaires.</p>
<p>@Bagoshells: I choose to go to Columbia because I can. It is fairly cheap after accounting for financial aid and the networking done at top schools is phenomenal. I pay around $100k for a top Ivy education. I don’t pay for classes. I pay to be surrounded by other young ambitious people who will rule the next generation. No other investment gives such a return.</p>
<p>“I pay to be surrounded by other young ambitious people who will rule the next generation. No other investment gives such a return.”</p>
<p>Sorry, kid, but you chose a wrong school - it is a well known fact that the Universe was, is, and will be ruled by Harvard grads. ;)</p>
<p>“When 55% of your paycheck goes to the government, you are no longer working for yourself”</p>
<p>Is it 55% or what is it, really??? What is the monetary value of the things you get to benefit from, directly or indirectly, that the “government’s” collective buying power provides for you (and me as well): roads, police protection, public K-12 schools, NSF grants to fund your college professors’ research, FDA oversight of drugs and medical device saferty, secure borders, etc.? Sure, there is waste (as there is waste in the corporate world), but imagine if you had to pay for the non-waste part of these?</p>
<p>Do tell how one can acquire assets that never lose their value without having any income. I think some of the folks who tried to pull this off are regularly featured on the American Greed.</p>
<p>Adding to BB’s comment, what a waste. First, this supposed environment on campuses is way overblown, and does not exist to the extent that you say or that some people believe. Second, no one can “rule” a generation. Society operates in different spheres – political, business, religious – that intersect but are not congruent. These leaders come from a wide variety of backgrounds. Until Columbia begins to produce as many ministers or rabbis as CEOs and congressmen, its graduates are not going to be ruling anything, if such a concept can exist at all.</p>
<p>Basically, you’re full of nothing. Your entire outlook is totally vacuous, because it is grounded in nothing but results and the embrace of the ephemeral. It should become obvious to you very soon that the life you are describing is utterly devoid of meaning and worth.</p>
<p>uhhh… People at the top of society tend to hail from top schools. These people exert great great influence on the rest of society. The people who “rule” a generation are the top few percent of people. The word choice is perhaps bad so I rephrase: I pay to be surrounded by the socioeconomic elites of tomorrow. This is my justification for college.</p>
<p>Hmm… My outlook is vacuous and I’m full of nothing… yet I am recognized as exceptionally high achieving and predicted to have a bright future by various prestigious institutions (even excluding top schools). How interesting. Personal criticism doesn’t get you far in your argument.</p>
<p>@Bunsen Burner. I agree… as long as I don’t have to pay my fair share. This is by far the prevailing attitude in the United States (see how hard people cry when their tax breaks are on the chopping block). I am simply advocating that the best possible choice is for smart people who earn high income (250k+) to become wealthy and pay 20% rather than 55%. </p>
<p>“Do tell how one can acquire assets that never lose their value without having any income.” Please tell me when I said that… I said you can be at the top of the American Socioeconomic ladder with simply $100k salary and time. It can be done with less and will power. Yet Most people who earn this range have exceptionally low net worth.</p>
<p>I thought getting accepted to, and attending an Ivy League University was the be-all end-all ultimate life goal on CC, and you are telling CCsniper he is at the wrong school, or there for the wrong reasons? I am confused. </p>
<p>The plight of the “barely able to make it on $600k per year” Wall Street professional is the story of Sherman McCoy, well documented in “Bonfire of the Vanities” I wouldn’t necessarily blame our tax structure for this phenomenon, but rather unrealistic expectations of the type of lifestyle we should be able to maintain given a particular income. I have been guilty of this myself (a little bit). </p>
<p>I am constantly encouraging people to be a little more skeptical, especially about what they read on the internet, the findings of the latest scientific study, or what they have read in the latest fad book.</p>
<p>turbo,
'In simple terms, taxes - even high ones - enable a society to function smoothly"</p>
<p>-this is your opinion.So, you should have started stating that it is your opinion. it is by far not fact and definitely not an opinion of very many others. Government is way too intrusive and wasteful and definitely is wasting precious resources that people have worked very hard for. Here is my opinion, which is very different from yours. Government was creted for common protection, meanning army, border control and internal protection in form of police. Government was not created for NOTHING else. All government intrusions are making society less prosperous, not otherwise. It has been proven many times and again and again in many unfortuante historical experiences with devastating results and about 150 mlns dead. But they do not teach this in schools, they do not teach this in any higher education institutions…however, if one wants to get real education, correct historical facts are available and not only on internet. There are people who actully have life experiences, who could tell you what it is to have government that takes care of everything in your life, they will tell you though only if you ask.</p>
<p>*Government was creted for common protection, meanning army, border control and internal protection in form of police. *
Need to go back to your basic history, incl the US.</p>
<p>And, whenever one gets to saying: But they do not teach this in schools, they do not teach this in any higher education institutions…however, if one wants to get real education… then I just know where they are coming from. I call it “I think it, so it is true.”</p>
<p>It’s not far from “I read it in [name it] magazine, so I know.” And, I guess not far from “I am affiliated with x, a prestigious instiution, so…” Still, I find this discussion interesting.</p>
<p>“one can have his lineage be financially independent.”</p>
<p>This goal is worth a pitcher of warm spit as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>The authors of the Constitution would be very interested to learn that the government they created wasn’t created to have courts. I guess they screwed up when they wrote Article III.</p>
<p>First, define “top of society.” Second, prove it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Top few percent?” How do you define “top?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does high-achieving mean? What does a bright future mean? Why should I value the opinion of “prestigious institutions” in the context of a meaningful life? How does any of this even relate to my claim that the life you are describing is totally vacuous?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not realize I was having one. I generally do not bother with making points; I leave that to the smart people.</p>
<p>Top of society: Highest tax bracket (this is the common man’s perception), high influence.</p>
<p>Proof: Look at the Presidency. How many presidents hail from top schools (included Stanford, Duke, Amherst, and Wiliams)? The answer is 23 presidents hail from Ivies or school of similar caliber. The top 1% or so of people represent 60% of our chief of staff. If the president isn’t at the “top of society,” I don’t know who is.</p>
<p>With respect to bright and high achieving: this means prestigious institutions believe that I am a likely leader and pioneer in the field of my choice. If you care not for the opinions of much more well regarded institutions, why should others care for yours? This is Collegeconfidential as NJres points out, a place where students depend on the opinions of colleges as their validation. </p>
<p>In any event, I fail to see how this relates back to the topic at hand.</p>
<p>@Hanna “This goal is worth a pitcher of warm spit as far as I’m concerned.”</p>
<p>Do you understand that the Article of Independence originally said that people have the right to “life, liberty, and property?” Property = Wealth. Unfortunately this was removed because the founding fathers realized they cannot promise all people wealth and thus changed it to the “pursuit of happiness.” The FOUNDING FATHERS wanted us to pursue property over happiness. There goes your historical argument. They didn’t “screw up.” Let me rephrase this as simply as I can: The FOUNDING FATHERS believed Property = Happiness. Questions? Take it up with them.</p>
<p>I am simply trying to attempt to get my peers to open their eyes and be at least a little skeptic of the whole “go to a damn Ivy and become a doctor” routine that Society imposed on them. Skepticism is the founding pillar of science and the world we live in today. Why not apply it to the future of our children? Especially when “conventional wisdom” comes from people who are not successful.</p>
<p>Then use those terms, not one that somehow connotes superiority that has not been established.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was then. Look at the acceptance rate of Ivies forty years ago, and compare them to the current ones. Look at other demographics of people at the top in society. You can claim that the top political post in the country has had many Ivy grads, but that may not be the case in twenty or thirty years, which would correspond to the current students at those institutions. Times are changing, and the future is uncertain. I would not be so hasty to state such things with certainty. You would also be surprised at how many very wealthy non-Ivy grads there are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And why does this matter? Do these things lead to a fulfilling and worthwhile life?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not offering opinions. I simply have questions to ask. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not true. If that were the case, I would feel wonderful SOLELY because I was accepted to selective institutions that are desired by many other students, certainly more than Columbia. I happen to feel wonderful, however, for different reasons. So your claim is false, and I offer myself as a counterexample.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure that their eyes are the ones that are blind.</p>
<p>Fine. I thought you would have made the obvious connection to the thread topic, but apparently not, so we can just table it. Returning to your OP,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would guess that this is not the case for all college students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, not necessarily true.</p>
<p>These and ignorance of financial matters might explain why people cannot always spend wisely.</p>
<p>Clearly, the easiest way to accrue as much money as possible given one’s job is to spend nothing other than what is absolutely necessary and invest the money wisely.</p>
<p>At just under $200k/year my family qualifies for ‘upper middle class’ and we do not pay remotely anything like 55 to 60% total tax rate… Even counting property and state/local tax we’re at half of that. </p>
<p>@MiamiDAP,</p>
<p>stuff posted here is opinions (it’s self-evident). We can stick to the strict interpretation of the Constitution and expect to pay only for defense and a couple other such basic things. That would drop our tax rates a lot, but that would also remove (or price out of reach) many of the enablers that allow people to make boatloads of money.</p>
<p>Money is made in this country not only by providing for basic needs (food, shelter) but by providing lots of extra stuff that people buy with disposable income when they feel comfortable and secure about their socio-economic situation. If we want, we can try living like China where the lack of any kind of social net necessitates extraordinary savings rates to prepare for the future, and all that does is create lots of people who can’t buy anything else because their money is tied up for things like health care, education, and the like.</p>
<p>One may also consider that economic benefits are realized at different levels by different people. If people can’t get to a mall, because there are no good roads, people have little to lose. The mall owners have a lot more to lose. So, the road (or educated workers, or healthy customers) becomes much more important if one makes more money than if they make peanuts.</p>
<p>In other words, you worry a lot more about potholes if you’re driving a 2010 Lexus than if you’re driving a 1990 Ford Tempo. Since the Lexus driver gets a lot more benefit out of the road than the Tempo guy… you can connect the dots.</p>
I think some of the folks who tried to pull this off are regularly featured on the American Greed.</p>