Jacuzzi with 42'' Plasma TV

[RNP]Venom writes "Now this is cool. Jacuzzi has a new "private" collection for people with too much money. Only question is do you prefer this Whirlpool Tub with a 42'' Plasma TV, DVD, and all the trimmings, or a more subtle tub with a 10'' screen, but jets that can do 30 Gallons per minute? Things like floating remote controls and underwater lightning are also included. Now all you'd have to do is mod the tub with a computer and wireless internet, and you'd never have to leave!"

Comments

Lightning?

[hatter3bdev]

underwater lightning

The rich always have it so good....

Re:Lightning?

[slakdrgn]

The rich always have it so good....
...till the rich become crispy when the seal on the light breaks ;)

~slak

Re:Lightning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shocking, I say. Absolutely shocking, like a bolt from the blue...

Re:Lightning?

[smithmc]

Gonads in the LIGHTNING!!!! In the LIGHTNING!!!! ;-)

Wow, no wonder it's expensive

[JayBees]

"Things like floating remote controls and underwater lightning are also included."

Underwater lightning? No wonder these things cost so much, the liability insurance must be insane.

Re:Wow, no wonder it's expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

"Things like floating remote controls and underwater lightning are also included."

As much as you Linux people comment on stupid Windows users, I would at least expect that you would know how to read. The ad states that underwater LIGHTING is included... morons

Re:Wow, no wonder it's expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe. Shocking huh...

The really cool ones have fiber optic lighting that can change color.

But forget the tv. I've been trying to figure out how to use my laptop in the hot tub without soaking it or it overheating. Any ideas?

What would you watch in a Jacuzi?

[Terminus0]

Sitting in a Jacuzi for two hours to watch a movie can get a little... warm. I guess if you jsut had to see Friends tonight, but you wanted to go in the Jacuzi too, this way you wouldn't miss it.

Re:What would you watch in a Jacuzi?

[intu]

Littlebit warm? Well, I believe that you are still able to control water temperature...

Don't try this at home...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to build my own version using a bathtub and an old 13" black and white TV... and let's just say it was an electrifying experience.

Re:Don't try this at home...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah underwater lighning can ruin your day.

2+ hours?

[Defender2000]

Can't imagine sitting in a jacuzzi for over 2 hours watching a movie... you'd come out looking like a raisin.

Re:2+ hours?

[Prof.Phreak]

Ahh... but then you have to purchase Dilbert's depruner :-)

Re:2+ hours?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't imagine sitting in a jacuzzi for over 2 hours watching a movie... you'd come out looking like a raisin.

Who sits in them for 2 hours? Jesus you geeks need to get out more. The average porno + intercourse in a jacuzzi lasts only about 45 minutes. Well within the limits before your skin turns into a prune.

Re:2+ hours?

[Anonymous Coward]

of course not. its for pr0n for you and your loved one.

Re:2+ hours?

[TechnoLust]

Not only that, unless you set temp at 98 degrees, it isn't good for you. I own a hot tub and it says never to stay in longer than 1 hour if the tub is over 102 degrees. I had a new year's party with a few close friends (my hot tub holds 8 people, or 10 if you get cozy) and we stayed in for a couple of hours with it on 100 degrees. In addition to feeling like we had drank WAY more champagne than we did, we were all almost catatonic when we got out. It relaxed us so much it was hard to motivate our muscles to move afterwards. But hey, it was all worth it, it was a great new year.

Eeeeww

[Jezral]

"and you'd never have to leave"

Ok, maybe you never have to leave, but I do like clean water.

And, the occasional bodily outlets might clutter up those 30-gallon-minute pipes...

However, the whole setup does look gooooood...

-- Tino Didriksen / Project JJ

Re:Eeeeww

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. They forgot the optional catheter and vacuum attachments.

Calvin & Hobbes

[delta407]

"I can see it now: 'Pink raisin found in tub, boy's whereabouts unknown'"

Think about how wrinkly you'd get after watching a movie in it.

Sound Systems

[Trinity-Infinity]

Well, shoot. If it's not THX-Certified or doesn't carry the SDDS trademark for a superior listening experience, it's just not the Jacuzzi Enterntaiment Center I'm looking for :P

Re:Sound Systems

[Terminus0]

I can see it now... Jacuzi SPL contests. The water is a goner.

Re:Sound Systems

[Com2Kid]

Well, shoot. If it's not THX-Certified [thx.com] or doesn't carry the SDDS [sdds.com] trademark for a superior listening experience, it's just not the Jacuzzi Enterntaiment Center I'm looking for :P


Expect to see in a few months:

"/. reader mods home stereo systems, makes Jacuzzi THX certified"

:)

Actually just setting the speakers back a bit and using an external receiver.

Re:Sound Systems

[WasterDave]

How's it going to be THX certified with a loud "blub blub blub blub blub" going constantly?

Dave :)

Re:Sound Systems

[Anonymous Coward]

THX is worthless. As long as you have good 5.1 channel audio, you're fine. THX certified means they paid the bribe to Lucasarts so they can put another buzzword in their literature.

Re:Sound Systems

[ozbird]

Hook the jets up to the subwoofer channel?

Yeah....

[Peridriga]

Freakin great until your kids jump in there one day and put their damn foot through your $20,000 TV set...

Bah :-)..

safety issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water and high-voltage electronics (eg, TVs) don't mix well in general -- have they found a solution?

Re:safety issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

A very big disclaimer?

Re:safety issues?

[Com2Kid]

Water and high-voltage electronics (eg, TVs) don't mix well in general -- have they found a solution?

Dude, public swimming pools use lighting, and pumps, and so forth.

You see, it is something call INSULATION. Rubber, silicon, whatever.

That and the screen isn't IN the Jacuzzi's water, it is mounted on a pedestal that is at reasonable viewing height.

Yeesh.

Now if you went through the trouble of getting out a high powered saw of some sort, taking the Plasma screen off of its mounting, sanded away the surrounding panels got to the wires, dropped THOSE in the water, turned on the power;

then yah, you MIGHT have a safety issue.

But if you go through all of that trouble either:

A: You should be aware that a toaster would be a bit easier to implement and just about as effective

or

B: Whoever you are trying to kill is going to notice the big ass mess and that their 42inch Plasma TV is split wide open.

Re:safety issues?

[Craig Davison]

Are flat-screen plasma sets high-voltage? They're nothing compared to tube TVs, that's for sure

Re:safety issues?

[PyroX_Pro]

I visited your webpage: Those are some REAL craptastic 3D models. Almost as good as the graphics on my super nintendo! Dang that must of beeen a lot of work, I especially like the octagon frying pan. Its not vary often people take the time to create somthing so square and horrible looking.

Re:safety issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO,as I'm sure anyone does that looks at his gallery.

Now you can...

[PhantomHarlock]

...watch pr0n while you make pr0n!

Re:Now you can...

[Anonymous Coward]

MMmmmm.....hot tub pr0n!

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!!!!!

Re:Now you can...

[Exedore]

Indeed, hook the camera up to the screen and watch the pr0n that you're making while you make it. You could even point the camera at the TV and get that cool infinite-body-parts effect going on.

15 min. lightning break

[bravehamster]

Things like floating remote controls and underwater lightning are also included.

Now, is it just me, or does the phrase "underwater lightning" send images into your brain of tons of rich people floating dead on the surface of their new hottub?

Re:15 min. lightning break

[AvitarX]

God, this is like the fith post to the effect of underwater lighting is dangerous. For Christ's sake, I have been in plenty os swimming pools with underwater lighting, and not feared for my life. The make friggen glass walkways way up in the air (I admit that scared me shitless at first but I got over it). Airplane windows are plenty strong.

Maybe your'e all too jealous about it (I know I am), but say something about the pink raisin's, the lighting thing just isn't funny.

Re:15 min. lightning break

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, is it just me, or does the phrase "underwater lightning" send images into your brain of tons of rich people floating dead on the surface of their new hottub?

This is a bad thing? The world could use a few more dead rich people...

Brought to you by the fine people at Folgers Crystal Meth Labs

Re:15 min. lightning break

[Kwil]

Think about thunder and read it again.

Re:15 min. lightning break

[bugg]

He's pointing out the spelling error. There is a difference between lighting and lightning that should be noted.

Re:15 min. lightning break

[Artifex]

Now, is it just me, or does the phrase "underwater lightning" send images into your brain of tons of rich people floating dead on the surface of their new hottub?

No, it reminds me of "ball lightning," which naturally occurs at certain private moments but can leave a disgusting film on the side...

Re:15 min. lightning break

[AvitarX]

I am such a friggen' retard.

I wish I posted anonymously.

damn damn damn damn, shame on me.

Re:15 min. lightning break

[Anonymous Coward]

El diablo está en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!

Voulez-vous que je vous assiste? ;-)

Re:15 min. lightning break

[bugg]

The fact that this was modded up to insightful is hilarious. AvitarX, a moderator just took away your pride in exchange for karma. I think you got the bad end of the deal.

I'd post this anonymously if I was worried about karma. But I don't. I realize that this is offtopic. What are you gonna do, moderator, waste a point to mark this thread, which is a reply to a tangent, offtopic? I KNOW IT'S OFFTOPIC- MAKE MY DAY :P

...getting rid of extra karma since 1867.

Re:15 min. lightning break

[Razor Sex]

There is a difference between Spanish and French.

Re:15 min. lightning break

[Chage]

"Underwater Lightning" ? sounds like a rather shocking experience to me ;)

WC

[intu]

You will still need a toilet (WC) ;)

...and ofcourse... some money would alsobe a must with that kind of tub...

I'll take two.

[Sivar]

Are they free as in beer, or as in freedom?

How rich the rich are

[snarfer]

There is this huge gap between the rich, and everyone else. Things for the rich are selling really well, while the rest of us are living in a recession.

People don't understand just how rich the rich are in the U.S. The incomes at the top are in the hundreds of millions of $$ per year. The top 5% own more than 80% of everything in the country. That means that 95% of us are trying to get along with 20% of everything. (If you have a mortgage, you don't "own" your house.)

The Bush tax cuts, which go almost entirely to the top 1% (and were opposed by 70% of the public), cost TRILLIONS of dollars over this decade. It means we don't have medical care, prescription drug coverage, repairs in the nation's schools, repairs of our bridges, and now they are even cancelling student loan programs. AND because of this the government is now using our SOCIAL SECURITY money to cover the money going out to the tax cuts. And this is because a few people at the top are making SO MUCH MONEY that cancelling this small tax cut would pay for all these things!

If people undstood just how much money is now being moved from regular people to the few people at the top they might start talking about doing something about it.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Com2Kid]

There is this huge gap between the rich, and everyone else. Things for the rich are selling really well, while the rest of us are living in a recession.

People don't understand just how rich the rich are in the U.S. The incomes at the top are in the hundreds of millions of $$ per year. The top 5% own more than 80% of everything in the country. That means that 95% of us are trying to get along with 20% of everything. (If you have a mortgage, you don't "own" your house.)

The Bush tax cuts, which go almost entirely to the top 1% (and were opposed by 70% of the public), cost TRILLIONS of dollars over this decade. It means we don't have medical care, prescription drug coverage, repairs in the nation's schools, repairs of our bridges, and now they are even cancelling student loan programs. AND because of this the government is now using our SOCIAL SECURITY money to cover the money going out to the tax cuts. And this is because a few people at the top are making SO MUCH MONEY that cancelling this small tax cut would pay for all these things!

If people undstood just how much money is now being moved from regular people to the few people at the top they might start talking about doing something about it.


Troll or not, I am all for you.

o---- teh classisist! :)

(besides, if I hear one more spoiled rich brat bitch about only getting to go to disney land 'once' this year. . . .)

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, last time I checked, 30% of $100 million dollars a year income is the same percentage as 30% of $60,000 a year. They're paying the same ratio as everyone else, they just make more so they still have a shitload leftover. Why should successful people be penalized? Maybe we need to start taxing the vagrants and welfare leeches at the bottom of the tax scale that don't pay ANY taxes.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first two paragraphs are pretty much accurate. So what are you proposing? The government is responsible to tax the rich people into poverty so all of "us poor folk" can have rich people things too? That sounds familiar -- wasn't that what they tried to do in Communist Russia? and China? Sorry to break it to you -- communism doesn't work. It's not the federal government's responsibility to pay for your medical care or prescription drugs. And if you're counting on social security to live on when you retire, you're a freaking idiot.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Com2Kid]

Your first two paragraphs are pretty much accurate. So what are you proposing? The government is responsible to tax the rich people into poverty so all of "us poor folk" can have rich people things too?


How about instead the government just cut the bullshit and stop creating make work for the rich?

My city has spent over half a BILLION dollars PLANNING on how to put down a mass transit system

Over the course of 10 years.

The committee members (hardly engineers, but all upper crust. . . .) have kept on getting richer and richer with their nice cushy "consultant" jobs, but the city populous as a whole is getting fucked.

End corrupt administration, end favoritism towards the rich;


That sounds familiar -- wasn't that what they tried to do in Communist Russia? and China?


(and fuck the commies, they suck too. :p )


It's not the federal government's responsibility to pay for your medical care or prescription drugs.


So if somebody spends 60+ years working their ass off caring for others and helping society improve and grow and saving lives and helping others;

they should just be left on the street to die?

Uh huh.

f-u-c-k you


And if you're counting on social security to live on when you retire, you're a freaking idiot.

Yah, those FAMILIES earning all of 20 thousand a year or so from both parents working 8-10+ hour shifts;

yah, I can just see how they have SOOO much money to spare.

Unless by some chance one of them GETS SICK, or the CAR BREAKS DOWN, or there is a STORM and something notquiteinsurancepolicyactivating happens to their house.

Then there goes their entire nest egg in one fell swoop. Or at least a goodly chunk of it.

People who work hard and then have bad shit happen to them should NOT just be considered "poor shit luck" cases and left to the winds, hell no. People who work hard to help out society should get something back from society.

And quite frankly they should get back a lot more then they currently are.

Re:How rich the rich are

[snarfer]

tax the rich people into poverty so all of "us poor folk" can have rich people things too

Nonsense. Taxes are not "communism." In fact, responsibly taking care of our own people will PREVENT things like communism. Who is our country FOR, anyway? A few percent of income is not putting the rich "into poverty." How silly are you? And I'm not talking about "having rich people things", I'm talking about schools that aren't falling apart and health care. Like I said, who is our country for, anyway?

And if you're counting on social security to live on when you retire, you're a freaking idiot.

Why shouldn't I be thinking I'll get my Social Security? Until Bush came along Social Security was putting away HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars a year toward people's retirement - and that money was coming from OUR paychecks. Now it comes from our paychecks and is handed to the rich! Reagan started spending that money - Clinton fixed the problem - now Bush is spending the money. But with RESPONSIBLE leadership at the top, yes, I do think that the Social Security money will be there.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Ada_Rules]

Hmm..It is probably a troll to respond to a troll but if the first troll is mod'd up to a 2 I think it is fair.

Yes..Clearly the goverment and the rest of us are entitled to deprive these people of thier property through the use of force. I suppose the goverment should (at gunpoint) take 33% of all GPL source code away from us. It seems only fair. A line of code tax...Don't let the Dem's (or replublicans for that matter) get wind of it...

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

talking? I rather steal.

Re:How rich the rich are

[NDPTAL85]

Why do people hate the rich? Is there something inherently evil about having a lot of money?

Re:How rich the rich are

[forkboy]

Yeah, you said it, brother! What Clinton realized that Shrub and his papa never did is that when you put a little more disposable cash into the lower classes hands via healthcare cost reductions and less taxes, it still puts plenty of money into the rich people's pockets. What do you think we poor slobs do with our extra money after our bills are paid? We buy worthless shit that we don't need! The profits from which go back to lining the pockets of executives and shareholders of corporations that manufacture the products we buy.

That is EXACTLY why Clinton's financial policy contributed to the economic boon of the 90s (not the only contributing factor of course) and why Shrub and the rest of the silver-spoon Republicans will never, ever get themselves away from deficit spending. By cutting taxes mostly for the wealthy and cutting programs for the lower classes, thus bypassing the extra cash flow from the lower classes to the upper classes via disposable cash spending, our economy will never be what it once was.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

"People who work hard to help out society should get something back from society."

If the only reason you're helping society is to get some sort of "reward," then you deserve whatever happens to you.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree with you 100%. It's about time we got intelligent comments on this subject!

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

Envy...pure and simple. Someone else worked hard, got rewarded, and is enjoying the benefits of making good decisions...therefore they are to be hated. Hate by whom?

Hated by those who goofed off in high school, didn't go to college, didn't finish college, or took some lame major (liberal arts, anyone?) in college...then spent all their time partying, doing dope, drinking beer, smoking cigarettes, got pregnant/got someone else pregnant, moved into a doublewide, bought a big screen TV to watch WWF, and now bitches an moans at all those nasty, awful rich folks who are just keepin' you down.

It's envy, and it's being perpetrated by the Democrats in the form of class warfare. Being a success is now a crime, didn't you know? You're supposed to "give back" to the community...never mind that the damn community never GAVE you anything in the first place when you were out there busting your ass, working hard, and making a success out of yourself.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, those FAMILIES earning all of 20 thousand a year or so from both parents working 8-10+ hour shifts

Then perhaps these "families" as you call them should've considered the ramifications of getting married and having kids on $20K per year BEFORE getting knocked up. Oh, I forget, that takes brains, forethought, maturity -- something you generally DO find in the wealthy and successful, but not in Joe Bob's trailer park trash. And we're supposed to feel sorry for them...why?

Re:How rich the rich are

[potnoodle]

Bill Gates , pre-"vaccinate the kids,we are the world communications counseling" era : "It's hard as giving out money as to earn it ." When answering to "Why don't you give out more of your vast wealth?" Enough said.

Re:How rich the rich are

[timeOday]

Putting money in a Social Security "lockbox" isn't going to make any difference in the long run - or even by the time I retire. It just delays the inevitable.

Longer lifespans and decreasing fertility are changing the demographics that made SS work. The ratio of producers to consumers is changing permanantly. The baby boomers are the last generation of high po;ulation growth rate.

The first generation that received SS never paid into it. Think about that. It's literally a pyramid scheme based on population growth. The enormous SS taxes we pay aren't hanging around for us, they're already spent!

Re:How rich the rich are

[snarfer]

Hated by those who goofed off in high school, didn't go to college, didn't finish college, or took some lame major (liberal arts, anyone?) in college...then spent all their time partying, doing dope, drinking beer, smoking cigarettes, got pregnant/got someone else pregnant, moved into a doublewide, bought a big screen TV to watch WWF, and now bitches an moans at all those nasty, awful rich folks who are just keepin' you down.

What are you TALKING about? Bush isn't bitching and moaning at rich people? He's PRESIDENT!

Re:How rich the rich are

[snarfer]

The first generation that received SS never paid into it. Think about that. It's literally a pyramid scheme based on population growth. The enormous SS taxes we pay aren't hanging around for us, they're already spent!

You might want to actually LOOK AT the numbers. Social Security is doing just fine. There is a very small shortfall that happens in about 38 years, and it happens FYI to be much less $$ than the Bush tax cuts during those years.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Manitcor]

Very true, and of course what the rich republicans don't understand is that if they would only do it the other way around they would actually get richer. Yes they would be paying higher taxes but with more lower classes spending money they will make more themselves.

Re:How rich the rich are

[NDPTAL85]

That has to be the best definition of envy I've seen in a long time.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

"People who work hard and then have bad shit happen to them should NOT just be considered 'poor shit luck' cases and left to the winds, hell no."
It's called 'reality' man. =P

Re:How rich the rich are

[Moofie]

No, but there is something evil about using political and economic power to take more money away from the not rich and therefore become more rich. That is what the poster was talking about.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

But couldn't you also say that taxing corporations and rich people more would cause them to hire fewer employees and pay lower salaries to them? I mean, they obviously don't want to lose any profit, do they?. Furthure, you could also say that taxing corporations less would give them more money to pay employers or expand business. Corperate executives get paid so much--most businesses use profit to expand their business. As in they buy more productive capital, hire more employers, or open up another shop on the other side of town. You can really argue this both ways; I think there is a happy median somewhere, though.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Com2Kid]

Envy...pure and simple. Someone else worked hard, got rewarded, and is enjoying the benefits of making good decisions...therefore they are to be hated. Hate by whom?



Fuck no, I ain't envious.

Now what I _AM_ is pissed.

Pissed because I have to watch my grandmother suffer in pain when she walks around everyday because her money grubbing HMO does not consider her condition "life threatening."

Pissed off because the one last remaining public school in the city for children with behavioral disorders was shutdown so as that the district could make that years financial report look at that little much better.

and I am pissed because of all the rich ass fucknuggets out there who think that those little poor people should stop bitching and that life ain't that bad for them and that they are all just envious.

Fuck them and fuck you.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

The top 5% own more than 80% of everything in the country. That means that 95% of us are trying to get along with 20% of everything.

I don't agree with your numbers, but the mistake you're making is that you seem to think economics are a zero-sum game.

Re:How rich the rich are

[snarfer]

But couldn't you also say that taxing corporations and rich people more would cause them to hire fewer employees and pay lower salaries to them?

This isn't an abstract argument. This is easy to check. Look at what happens when the minimum wage is raised, or when taxes are raised.

This is what Clinton did in 1993. Look what happened - the best economy ever. AND look back in history to whenever this has been done before - very high economic growth results.

Under Bush taxes have been cut and government services are being cut - and the minimum wage has slipped way down (due to cost of living increases without increasing the minimum.)

Furthure, you could also say that taxing corporations less would give them more money to pay employers or expand business.

OK, this is also easy to check. So is that what HAPPENS? Guess what, it isn't. Corporations have much higher growth when there is MORE regulation. Look it up. Not hard to do.

Re:How rich the rich are

[FunOne]

I've heard from my friends in the financial market (including several VERY sucessful stock brokers) that econmic inpacts from government take several years to show anything.

Anything that happened under Clinton either was caused by the previous president, or at the BEGINNING of his term.

We're currently seeing the effect of Clinton-lead government policy (and those attacks) in our economy.

Bush has little to do with it right now. Yell about it in 5 years.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't owe society just because I make a lot of money. Killers, thieves, and rapists owe society, not people like me who *worked* hard to get where they are now.

Re:How rich the rich are

[prisoner-of-enigma]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Regardless of who's statistics you look at, the truth is irrefutable: Social Security DEPENDS on the concept of todays worker's paying for today's retirees. The problem is, in the next 10-30 years there will be many, many more retirees than there will be workers. The simple law of supply and demand says that if you have more consumers than providers, one of the following MUST happen:

1. Benefits will be decreased.
2. The eligibility age will be increased.
3. Taxes will be raised.

Social Security DOES NOT WORK under the circumstances it is soon to be in. The rate of return on your dollars invested is lower than the absolute LOWEST PERFORMING mutual fund you can possibly find.

Also, your blaming Bush for the current ills is somewhat specious. First off, there's such a thing as economic inertia. Bush cannot snap his fingers, sign a bill, and put the economy into a tailspin (or revive it, for that matter). These things take time. If you prefer some unarguable figures, go to www.omb.gov and note that the "largest peacetime economic expansion in history" did not begin under Clinton, or even Bush #1...it began under Reagan! In his second term, not his first! You cannot argue these figures, they are true! The corrollary is, Bush #2's decision to lower taxes and/or give refunds may have SHORT TERM negative implications but long term POSITIVE results. If you've ever done any investing you know that to get the biggest gains you generally have to deal with negative growth for the first few quarters or years. If you don't know this, you've obviously not spent as much time RESEARCHING economics as you have spent SMOLDERING about Bush.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be rude or heartless but you leave so many particulars out that it is hard to generate sympathy for your position. The one's you do provide make it sound like bad decisions instead of rich assholes... example

grandmother walking around in pain, obviously you say the "cure" (you don't list the ailment) isn't life threatening. When I imagine what is not life threatening but could cause pain when walking, I picture extreme obesity or lack of circulation from diabetis. Both of these are preventable.

As for the school scenario, the amount of money districts are required to spend on special education per student far outways the money spend on general education per student. If your child was receiving said services they probably were having literally ten times the amount of money spent on them that most "normal" kids get. It is likely that even with the shut down of this special school that your child has something done to treat their "disorder." In otherwords they still get more than most so shut up.

Re:How rich the rich are

[Anonymous Coward]

it depends on how you made your money.

Re:How rich the rich are

[snarfer]

I understand. Everything GOOD with the economy came from Reagan and now Bush. Everything BAD with the economy came from Clinton.

Got it. Understood. Wakarimashita.

Also, looking over historical charts that show the stock market ALWAYS doing much better under Democrats - that's ALWAYS from the preceeding Republican presidents.

And looking over the historical charts, showing that Democrats ALWAYS lower deficits or balance budgets, that's ALWAYS because of the preceeding Republican presidents - and Republicans ALWAYS increase deficits and debt, that's because of the preceeding Democrats.

Got it.

Re:How rich the rich are

[snarfer]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Regardless of who's statistics you look at, the truth is irrefutable: Social Security DEPENDS on the concept of todays worker's paying for today's retirees.

Actually you don't seem to know much about it. It is NOT financed by current taxpayers. It is financed by the money we set aside - OUR money pays for our RETIREMENT. Social Security has a multi-trillion dollar surplus built up.

Under Reagan, (after he cut taxes for the rich and there were huge deficits resulting) they pasSed a huge Social Security tax increase (which made the deficits look lower). Since then this surplus has been building up. Since then it is OUR money being set aside for our own retirement. (Which is why it is so bad that Bush is spending that money on tax cuts for the rich.)

If you prefer some unarguable figures, go to www.omb.gov and note that the "largest peacetime economic expansion in history" did not begin under Clinton, or even Bush #1...it began under Reagan! In his second term, not his first! You cannot argue these figures, they are true!

If you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh and did your own research you would know that there was a big recession in 1991. That eneded the Reagan expansion (which started after the Deficit Reduction Act tax increases in 1984 by the way.)

Re:How rich the rich are

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Actually you don't seem to know much about it. It is NOT financed by current taxpayers. It is financed by the money we set aside - OUR money pays for our RETIREMENT. Social Security has a multi-trillion dollar surplus built up.

Your level of ignorance on this subject is absolute amazing, nothing short of a collossal poke in the eye of logic. YOUR money today DOES NOT go into some special account JUST FOR YOUR RETIREMENT! It goes into a general fund that has lately been referred to as the "trust fund". The dollars you are paying in today are being paid out to those who are retired or retiring today. YOUR money is going TO SOMEONE ELSE. You, assuming that you're of college age, will not be able to draw upon SS for at least another 35-40 years, at which time SOMEONE ELSE'S dollars will be paying for your retirement. The figures are there, the process is available to anyone who cares to go to www.omb.gov and look up where the government's money goes and where it comes from. Given your striking level of misunderstanding of this system, I can only assume that you've never, ever, EVER bothered to research any of this, and you are going on pure, unadulterated hatred of the wealthy. Typical. Pitiful, but typical.

If you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh and did your own research you would know that there was a big recession in 1991. That eneded the Reagan expansion (which started after the Deficit Reduction Act tax increases in 1984 by the way.)

Ah, yes, the tactic of "The Big Lie". Big recession, heh? Go check www.omb.gov, the organization that keeps the books for the entire nation. Facts of GDP growth, income levels, and tax revenues are available for at least thirty years. If you have the balls to do it, check the site. You'll note that during 1991 we had two consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. Just two. It meets the technical definition of a recession, but only barely (the tech. def. is two consecutive quarters of negative growth). You'll also note that the economy started growing again BEFORE Clinton actually took office. You've gotta hand it to Clinton, he's so damn good he can turn the whole U.S. economy around BEFORE he even set foot in the Oval Office.

Of course, that's pure tripe. Clinton did NOT turn the economy around. He just happened to be "on watch" when it happened. Democrats love to capitalize on this, and you've obviously swallowed it all like a cheap whore in heat. As I said, you probably don't have the guts to actually check the figures. If you did, you'd see you were wrong. Of course, you don't care about facts, logic, figures, or any of that other crap, you just want to hate Bush and rich folks, and nothing is going to stop you, is it?

BTW, I don't listen to Limbaugh. Unlike you, I'm capable of arriving at an opinion without being told what to think by someone else. Unlike you, I actually have researched the subject and drawn my own conclusion. Unlike you, I've engaged my brain instead of my emotions. I don't know why I waste my breath -- you won't check the figures, and if you do you'll just dismiss them as propaganda (never mind that Clinton's OMB came up with the very figures that I'm quoting...must be more of that vast right wing conspiracy, eh?).

If you'll check the figures, you'll see you're wrong. But you won't check, will you? It's easier to believe your fantasy. Go on doing that. Perhaps you'll grow up soon and discover that sometimes the truth is ugly, but it won't go away just because you refuse to see it.

Hrm.

[SkewlD00d]

I saw this thing on TV at some rich $!@#'s house, probably on "Lifestyles of the megalorich and bored fux0r$"

FFS What use is an internet connection?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pr0n would be useless; we all know it's impossible to get a hard-on in hot water...

Though if you're man enough to handle "lukewarm", the jets alone are more than enough to please. :)
But fucking painful if it gets you in the nuts!

4 final words: Dont... Kick... The... Screen!!

P.S: Hey, guys @ Jacuzzi Inc., wheres the fscking beer cooler?!?!?

Knowing geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be porting linux to it rather than using it.
They will get it horrilbly wrong and the water will be freezing cold! Still good for penguins though. Then they will run the following command one the televisons command line.

wget http://3522329841/%67%6F%61%74/loopback.jpg && seejpeg loopback .jpg

For an entertaining television :).

Hitchhikers Guide

[ONOIML8]

Obviously these were created by someone who was a serious Douglas Adams fan.

Re:Hitchhikers Guide

[intu]

Well creators are same, but it was several millions of years ago? So Ford was right afterall, They really can't develop.

:)

Re:Hitchhikers Guide

[Linuxthess]

Of course, never forget to bring along a towel. A well seasoned HH is never without one.

------------

First email from tub: 1793 style

[Anonymous Coward]

July 13, 1793

Oh, where was I..?

Hey ! For whose sake did I make these mortal foes? For the People, this poor People exhausted with misery, forever vexed, forever crushed, forever oppressed, who has no offices or pensions to give. It is for my having espoused the People's cause that the wicked persecute me and that I am under order of arrest like a bandit. I feel no regret though, and what I did I would do again. You, vile men who have no other passion in life than the greed for gold, do not ask what interest urged me; I vindicated humanity, I will leave a name and yours is made to perish.

P.S. Wow, this new tub has it all, tv, internet, hell, I even have MAME up and running on this thing. There's just something about playing "Jungle Hunt" naked... Hold on, brb, the pizza girl's here. -JPM

Never have to leave?

[handsomepete]

Now all you'd have to do is mod the tub with a computer and wireless internet, and you'd never have to leave!

Good thing that the NHP 200NC "case" floats (although not completely waterproof)... might destroy the look, though. Now if only I could fit this thing into my parent's basement... oh yeah, and could afford it.

Re:Never have to leave?

[CommieOverlord]

Looks like the Slipperman costume from the old Lamb Lies Down on Broadway tour by Genesis

Copy-editing error...

[hiroko]

I think someone got confused, shurely Designed exclusively for individuals with the most discerning taste should read: Designed exclusively for individuals with the most money.

Re:Copy-editing error...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it always pissed me off how some of them counldn't care less what it was but only that it was the MOST expensive product money could buy. Do you really think Puff Daddy can tell the differance between a $5.00 bottle of corbel and a $500.00 bottle of cristal?

It's evolution!

[intu]

Now all you'd have to do is mod the tub with a computer and wireless internet, and you'd never have to leave!

Well that's just part of evolution, once animals came from water, now humans will go back... I knew that Charles Darwin was right in a first place!

Warning: Don't waste your money

[doorbot.com]

If you have a lot of money to throw around on products such as this, at least use some common sense...

Designed exclusively for individuals with the most discerning taste

This is the first line of the description of the product. This can be generally translated as follows:

"Created for, and sold to, people who think 'If it's expensive, it's good and therefore I need it.'"

Anything that suggests you have "discerning taste" when you buy it is just trying to lighten your wallet.

Everyone knows that when you're filthy rich you have everything custom built (and engineered).

;)

Re:Warning: Don't waste your money

[protonman]

> when you buy it is just trying to lighten your
> wallet.

You mean lightnen your wallet.

Re:Warning: Don't waste your money

[whizzmo]

>> when you buy it is just trying to lighten your >> wallet.

>You mean lightnen your wallet.

No, he means 'lighten' :)

From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: lighten

1 a : to relieve of a burden in whole or in part


Is the spelling you used some sort of East-of-the-Pond derivative?

Re:Warning: Don't waste your money

[protonman]

No it was a bad pun after the "underwater lightning"

Re:Warning: Don't waste your money

[topham]

It's called 'More money than brains". If youhave enough money to buy this on a whiim, go ahead. Otherwise it's just wasting away in your savings account.

The Golgafrinchan Captain Should Have One

[eno2001]

As the captain in the HitchHiker's Guide said after spending three years in theub, "One is never alone when one is with his rubber ducky."

"...you'd never have to leave," huh?

[ar1550]

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather not sit in and have to use a toilet bowl large enough to hold several people.

Money?

[aozilla]

Jacuzzi has a new "private" collection for people with too much money.

I always thought that was what Athlon 2100s were for.

One reason to be a monopolist

[Martin Marvinski]

Now I know why Bill Gates is trying to keep his monopoly going. The perks are great. Now if I could only move out of my parents basement...heheehe

Oh, really?

[42forty-two42]

Now all you'd have to do is mod the tub with a computer and wireless internet, and you'd never have to leave!

Don't forget a water filter...

Re:Oh, really?

[MaggieL]

Don't forget a water filter...
Or something. If CT really *would* never leave the tub, he's better have something more effective than just a filter. Maybe he'd just change out the water a lot...

Re:Get off your high horse!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't Nerds tell Halloween from boxing day?

Because 31(hex) == 25(dec)!!!
LOL!

Uhh, 31(hex) == 49(dec) you fucking idiot. The joke is, "Why can't geeks tell the difference between Halloween and Christmas?" Because 31(OCT) == 25(DEC)!!! HAR HAR HAR!!!

Uh....

[BlueGecko]

Now all you'd have to do is mod the tub with a computer and wireless internet, and you'd never have to leave!"

Anyone except me find it disturbing that a geek would rank Internet access over sanitation facilities?...

Re:Uh....

[ealar dlanvuli]

I tend to use the internet while in the sanitation facilities more often than I don't.

In case you wanted to know, I'm using my toilet while writing this post.

Yep, thought you did :)

Call me ignorant if you like.

[Ignorant Cocksucker]

But why would anyone want this ? I mean, if you want to watch TV, watch it. If you want to go in the hot-tub, do that, but I see no reason to combine the two activities.

It seems like this would detract from the enjoyment of a movie (you would get cold and wet) and of the jacuzzi (you could not concentrate on the experience because of the damn movie).

I know there are a lot of rich geeks out there, but surely they will not be taken in by this, will they ?

Re:Call me ignorant if you like.

[Com2Kid]

It seems like this would detract from the enjoyment of a movie (you would get cold and wet)


Uh, Jacuzzi, heated. This isn't a bathtub with a Plasma screen, it is a Jacuzzi


and of the jacuzzi (you could not concentrate on the experience because of the damn movie).


Being relaxed is being relaxed, and it all depends on the movie. Sure watching a horror / action flic may not be best for this, but a quiet romantic movie would be just perfect for time with your SO.


I know there are a lot of rich geeks out there, but surely they will not be taken in by this, will they ?


Me and my friends are already drooling over it. ^_^

forced alturism

[voisine]

What makes you think that just because they have
lots of money, that you're entitled to a single
penny of it? If the government didn't take
people's money by force, a whole lot more of us
would have more of it. Then we could afford to pay for our own schools and health insurance. Forced
alturism is just plain theft and you're just a
looter.

Re:forced alturism

[snarfer]

What makes you think that just because they have lots of money, that you're entitled to a single penny of it?

It's called society. You pay taxes and the country builds schools, roads, etc.

And in this case all of us working people are sending money to Social Security and Bush is now taking THAT money from OUR paychecks and giving it out to pay for the tax cuts that are going to the very rich, and to pay interest on the Reagan debt, which also goes to the very rich, and to pay defense contractors, which are the very rich...

Re:forced alturism

[stefanlasiewski]

I'm not entitled to a single penny of their money.

But when you give tax cuts to the rich, and not to the rest of us, you are saying that they are entitled to MY money.

Why not make tax cuts even, across the board, for all income levels? No no, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... they all worked for the rich.

Re:forced alturism

[snarfer]

In 1993 Clinton's budget raised taxes only on the very rich. The Republicans SCREAMED! They insisted it would lead to a depression.

Clinton also raised the minimum wage and brought in the Earned Income Tax Credit which actually gave some cash to poor people who are raising kids.

The result was a HUGE economic expansion - high economic growth for the longest time in our country's history. (And not funded by borrowing money like Reagan's economic growth was.) The huge Reagan deficits went away and we started paying off the massive Reagan debt. (Which meant paying less interest which helped pay off even more debt.) (Bush has reversed this.)

Why did this happen? Think about it - we have a consumer economy. More money in the hands of the large numbers of regular people means they're able to buy more stuff. OBVIOUSLY things like increasing the minimum wage, paying off debt, and taxing the rich in order to recirculate the money in the economy are good for the economy. Just look at history, when these policies are in place we have economic growth, and when Republican policies are in place we have low growth. That's not to hard to look up - the highest economic growth has occurred when we have the highest taxes on the rich.

Re:forced alturism

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me?

The rich already pay a lot more in taxes than you. Even with the tax cut, you are still receiving a huge wealth transfer from the guy with a $1,000,000 income paying $300,000 a year in taxes now instead of $350,000.

If we had a head tax (i.e., everyone pays $4,000 a year, period), THEN you could scream about this tax cut causing you to pay him. But under the current situation in which people pay what amounts to a percentage of their total income, you simply can't claim that.

I paid more in taxes in 2000 than lots of people do their entire lives. Did I get $150,000 worth of government services? Nope. But if there had been a tax cut and I'd paid only $140,000 instead, are you honestly saying you would be complaining that I'm somehow getting some of the pittance YOU paid?

Just ridiculous.

Re:forced alturism

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. But if there had been a tax cut and I'd paid only $140,000 instead, are you honestly saying you would be complaining that I'm somehow getting some of the pittance YOU paid

Oh you poor soul, only making $450K per year, and just stole $10,000 from other taxpayers. I feel your pain.

Unless you are an extremely skilled indvidual and either work on your own or in an egalitarian work environment where everyone makes $450K a year, you really shouldn't be whining like that.

Honestly, if you make that much money, chances are you work in some kind of management position, which means that alot of your income came from the hard work of individuals who work for you. They work, you reap the benefits, not because you work 10 times as hard as they do, but because you work in a position of power and refuse to share the wealth.

Re:forced alturism

[voisine]

I did't agree to that. I don't think the
government is the best organization to build these
things. In fact, the public schools, as a whole,
absolutely suck! In a free society people exchange
value for value, voluntarily. In a looter's
society, those in power take what they want at the
point of a gun, and give whatever they feel you
need in order to keep providing them with your
wealth.

Re:forced alturism

[voisine]

So you suggest that just because he's got a lot
of money, he shouldn't whine about having it
stolen? Why don't you do something useful, invent
a new product or improve a production process,
make a bunch of money, and then you can give it
away to whoever you choose. Many of the very rich
in fact do this. Not many I think give it to the
government, because they suck at helping those
charity cases that are truly in need.

Re:forced alturism

[snarfer]

So you suggest that just because he's got a lot of money, he shouldn't whine about having it
stolen?

You're saying that making people pay their taxes is "stealing?"

Why don't you do something useful, invent
a new product or improve a production process,
make a bunch of money, and then you can give it
away to whoever you choose. Many of the very rich
in fact do this.

I wonder if you know, or care, that there is a nearly 100% correlation between geting rich and coming from a rich family. Almost NO ONE who isn't already rich from family is in the top 5%.

Re:forced alturism

[snarfer]

I don't think the government is the best organization to build these things. In fact, the public schools, as a whole, absolutely suck! In a free society people exchange value for value, voluntarily. In a looter's society, those in power take what they want at the point of a gun, and give whatever they feel you need in order to keep providing them with your wealth.

So we all see what YOU think of democracy.

Just curious, what do YOU get out of it if we stop having public roads, schools, parks, libraries, etc.? The really, really rich have more money but the other 99% of us lose out.

Re:forced alturism

[localmooer]

In 1993 Clinton's budget raised taxes only on the very rich. The Republicans SCREAMED! They insisted it would lead to a depression.

Clinton also raised the minimum wage and brought in the Earned Income Tax Credit which actually gave some cash to poor people who are raising kids.

The result was a HUGE economic expansion - high economic growth for the longest time in our country's history.

You do remember that there were those dot coms in the 90s right? (I'm not saying that it had to be the only reason, but it had to be a reason...)

Also, one can interpret that the Republicans were in the economically bad times because people have gotten rich and that depression was inevitable; when people are poor, they want the government to help them, and when people are rich, they want to keep their money.

In 1990, a luxury tax was placed on certain "luxury" goods. Instead of taxing the rich, that put a burden on the makers of these products, as the rich weren't buying as much of them anymore. That means that even the rich do some budgeting. That gives some credence to the view that the rich might try to take advantage of tax cuts by circulating etc. (I am NOT saying that it's true, but some credence...)

I don't know which side I'm on yet, (which is kinda okay because I'm not even voting age) but I just figured I'd point the other side of the issue (which is kinda offtopic btw).

Re:forced alturism

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think the Clinton was the hero of the economy? What Alan Greenspan does with the economy as Federal Reserve Chairman has much more influence on the economy than anything the President does. Plus, do you realize that most of the ups and downs of the economy are caused by the NORMAL economic cycle? You sound like one of those party loyalists who are like, "My God! The economy soared while he was in office! He must be a good president!" Give poor Greenspan some credit once in a while.

Re:forced alturism

[Anonymous Coward]

You say raising the minimum wage helps the economy because it gives workers more spending money. Okay, fine. But honestly, please, honestly, what do you think the employers are going to do about the prices of products they sell? Maybe raise them to make up for the loss in profit caused by paying more for workers?

Re:forced alturism

[Moofie]

The person you are arguing with is obviously a Randian objectivist, and is therefore capable only of the most infantile logical arguments, like the identity principle. They're not comfortable with the idea of a tide raising all boats...they typically think that they have a divine right to have mo' than everybody else. In other words, don't hold your breath for well-thought-out explanation. Just unenlightened selfishness.

Sure, I'm trollin'. It's fun.

Re:forced alturism

[Anonymous Coward]

But when you give tax cuts to the rich, and not to the rest of us, you are saying that they are entitled to MY money.

When you look at the percentage of the total tax receipts paid by different income groups, who else should have a tax cut? Sine the lower end groups aren't paying a large percentage to start with, how can it be reduced, versus the higher end groups which have a much higher percentage available for reduction?

Re:forced alturism

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you know, or care, that there is a nearly 100% correlation between geting rich and coming from a rich family. Almost NO ONE who isn't already rich from family is in the top 5%.

What is your definition of 'rich'? I think that top 5% is a category higher than 'rich'.

Re:forced alturism

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy. If you want to give a 3% tax cut to the uppermost bracket, you need to give a 3% tax cut to all brackets.

Why should the rich people get a larger tax cut then the rest of us?

Re:forced alturism

[snarfer]

You say raising the minimum wage helps the economy because it gives workers more spending money. Okay, fine. But honestly, please, honestly, what do you think the employers are going to do about the prices of products they sell? Maybe raise them to make up for the loss in profit caused by paying more for workers?

Employers hire as many workers as they need to to meet demand.

They don't hire workers because they have extra cash laying arouynd, and they don't fire workers when customers are pounding on the door.

Companies price their goods at a level competitive with their competitors, and according to what customers will pay. Labor, especially at the minuimum wage level, is SUCH a small part of the pricing... (I ran a company for 15 years.)

Re:forced alturism

[smithmc]

Why not make tax cuts even, across the board, for all income levels?

Sure, that would be fair - that is, if taxes were even, across the board, for all income levels...

"and you'd never have to leave"

[t00tie]

"and you'd never have to leave"

That would definitely give new meaning to "stinking rich"!

I hope it's waterproof

[Anonymous Coward]

it looks waaay to close to the water for comfort. I can see myself reading about someone getting electrocuted because water splashed into the TV.

Finally

[ohzero]

we can have porn stars watching porn while making porn, and not have to leave the jacuzzi.

Junk News

[Corvus9]

"Now this is cool"!? How on Earth is this "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that Matters"?

Is VA so hard up it's resorting to advertorializing for totally worthless junk?

Oh, and if you think the rich actually buy crap like this, do yourself a favor and read The Millionaire Next Door. Most millionaires would never say something like this is "cool".

Great

[smaster87]

But can it do blowjobs?

If thier webserv can't stand a /.'ing w/o slowing

[ealar dlanvuli]

it's not good enough for me.

I WANT ONE!

[fidget42]

OK, so I don't REALLY want one, but I do wish I had enough money that I could waste $20K on one of these.

Yeah!

[strangemoose]

You'd never leave, cause after you finnish watching say... the first couple episodes of your TNG collection you'd have passed out and drowned ;)

Re:If thier webserv can't stand a /.'ing w/o slowi

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the water in their webserver is getting cold?

Somebody needs to play more videogames

[Anonymous Coward]

The Jacuzzi execs obviously never played Quake.

Umm.

[mindstrm]

You woudln't get cold, you use warm/hot water.

Secondly. it's for PORN YOU MORON. Why do you think its seats two?

Re:Umm.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's so great for pr0n,
it should seat three.

TWO WORDS

[Anonymous Coward]

WET TURDS or POOP SOUP Thankyou. You may return to your blahablahablah.

offtopic anyone??

[Anonymous Coward]

hello....what the fuck does this have to do with a story about some new gadgets? If this keeps getting modded up, then it's proof positive slashdot is run by dirty communist hippies.

Re:offtopic anyone??

[snarfer]

It's a response to a story about expensive new gadgets for the very rich.

Re:offtopic anyone??

[Anonymous Coward]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Yaay! Class Warfare!

[squarooticus]

I just don't buy into the "my problems must be caused by someone else" mentality. Being rich is not a sin. My success doesn't preclude yours. If you are a failure, my success is not your problem.

Surely there are actual examples of rich people who got that way by defrauding others, but this poster highlights no such example. Instead, we get a rant about how the Bush tax cuts are taking food out of starving mouths.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the top 1% of earners pay over 30% of all income tax. If you find yourself agreeing with Dr. Strawman there, the question you've got to ask yourself is, "Just how much do those rich people owe me?"

I've found that the answer "zero" correlates highly with success. Whether this is a causal relationship or not is still anybody's guess.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[snarfer]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the top 1% of earners pay over 30% of all income tax.

But they receive more than 30% of all income and own more than 80% of all wealth!

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[squarooticus]

The top 1% do not own more than 80% of all wealth. I think you made an error there.

However, even were that true...so what? The right question in my opinion is, "Do they use 30% of all government services?" Probably not. (Note understatement.)

An even more important question is, "Why do you believe people more wealthy than you owe you anything at all?" Until you answer this question honestly, your ranting will have little weight. However, I suspect it boils down to "envy," so perhaps you feel that providing no answer is actually better for your leftist crusade. That's a shame.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

> I've found that the answer "zero" correlates highly with success. Whether this is a causal relationship or not is still anybody's guess.

Er... maybe, just maybe, there's a reason why rich people don't feel like rich people owe anyone anything. Maybe it has more to do with being rich than getting rich.

I know plenty of struggling people who don't feel like the rich owe them anything. When they get sick, they can't afford to go to the doctor, and they don't gripe about it. Of course, they might die young as a result, but hey, we have too many poor people already, right?

The top 1% of earners might pay over 30% of all income taxes, but then, they control 80% of the wealth in this country. Hmmm....

Here's a thought - maybe we have a progressive tax system because the poor have to spend more of their income just to survive, and don't have a lot of discretionary cash! Conversely, the top 1% of earners spends a vanishingly small percentage of income on necessities, a bit more on luxuries, and then has a left-over wad to throw into the capital markets with the hopes of making yet more money. Hmm...

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there are actual examples of rich people who got that way by defrauding others, but this poster highlights no such example. Instead, we get a rant about how the Bush tax cuts are taking food out of starving mouths.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the top 1% of earners pay over 30% of all income tax. If you find yourself agreeing with Dr. Strawman there, the question you've got to ask yourself is, "Just how much do those rich people owe me?"

Do you realize that the average person received ~$300 benefit from this tax cut, while Dick Cheney realized ~$1 million? Do you also realize that if Bush had not cut the taxes on the rich so drastically he could have easily given every senior citizen in the USA a prescription drug benefit package? Instead, he chose to give the wealthiest 1.3 million Americans $563,000 each in tax cuts over the next decade.

You state that the top 1% of earners pay over 30% of tax. Do you have any figures to show how much of a percentage they earn? Certainly if they are earning 50% of the revenue but only paying 30% of the tax, there is a problem. The rich are also far less likely to be audited by the IRS, despite having an overwhelming advantage in being able to hire high-priced tax lawyers to weasel them out of more tax, which the rest of us end up paying. Not to mention corporations like Microsoft, the largest software company in the world, and in terms of market cap, possibly the largest corporation in the world, and manages to pay no taxes at all due to tax loopholes which most people can't use. Let us also say that bill gates is worth 50 billion dollars, probably a conservative estimate. If I make $65,000 / year, I can work for 40 years and still make only 1/40,000th of that amount. You don't think there's some disparity there?

Bush voted himself and his buddies a tax cut, and decided to include the rest of the USA in his little plan so he could get some votes. In 10 years when the graying boomers really start hitting social security and dying en masse because there's no system there to support them, you can thank W. That $300 back in 2001 was really worth it.

The rich get richer, the poor get angrier.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[squarooticus]

I don't know where this 80% lie is coming from, but my most recent sources indicate that the top 1% of households control 47% of the wealth.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Gaijinator]

The government's job is to ensure that everyone has opportunities to succeed. This costs money. Rich people have more money, so taking a fixed amount from them hurts less than taking that from poor people, or even upper-middle class people. And the fact is, the rich benefit more from society than the poor, so they pay more taxes. On the other hand, rich people don't owe the poor anything, and the poor who blame their poverty on the rich are usually trying to avoid blame for their own failure.

The key is to ignore all the extremists, examine the facts (not the propaganda - or "advertising", if you like), and decide which method works the best. It's usually somewhere in the middle.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

However, even were that true...so what? The right question in my opinion is, "Do they use 30% of all government services?" Probably not. (Note understatement.)

So basically your solution would be for the rich to build huge compounds and never leave, hiring their own security forces, and hence not using the government's services at all? And thus, pay no taxes at all? This is ridiculous. For somebody earning $50,000 per year, 33% tax is a HUGE amount and really affects one's lifestyle. For somebody earning $10,000,000, 33% tax, while a large amount, really doesn't affect one's life at all. There's not much I can do with 10 million that I can't do with 6.6 million. That's why the rich pay more of the tax. Though, as someone who makes $41,000 per year and gets taxed 30%, I can't imagine how much the rich are really being charged. Unless it's more than 50% it's not nearly enough. The interest on their yearly salary is probably more than I'll make in my life. A friend of mine who made $146k/year was being taxed 40%. What is the tax for a baseball player making $25,000,000? I'd wager that in the end, they pay a smaller percentage than average middle class people due to tax loopholes and whatnot.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you find yourself agreeing with Dr. Strawman there, the question you've got to ask yourself is, "Just how much do those rich people owe me?"

The question isn't "what do rich people owe poor people", the question is "what's best for society?" Obviously, having a large segment of the population with no access to education or health care is bad, and would lead to an armed overthrow of the decadent and despotic rich.

So, we use progressive income tax as a way to redistribute wealth so that the poor have a chence to better themselves, so that (in theory) every kid, no matter who his parents are, has an equal chance at success (not that that'll ever happen). So that people who aren't as good at succeeding in our society as others don't end up starving on the streets.

So the question isn't, "how much do rich people owe me", it's "how much do rich people owe their wealth to society", and "how should we take from rich people for society's benefits."

As for "My success doesn't preclude yours", it sure does for alot of cases... for instance, the rich boys' club of CEO's, where mediocre leadership and thousands of job cuts still result in multi-million dollar paychecks. It sure does for companies that kill tons of jobs to help their stock price a bit. It sure does when billions of tax dollars go to corporations whose executives pocket a significant portion of them. And it sure did in the case of Enron.

The sickening rich are generally successful programmers or doctors or lawyers or whatever - they're the old money, money which came over from Europe hundreds of years ago, money that was built on the backs of slaves, money that sustains the old boys' clubs that rich make sure the rich white men are stiff rich white men. Don't confuse that the with the bitterness someone might feel towards a programmer who's making $100k or whatever; the largest single group of recepients of Bush's largesse are people who have tons of money and likely haven't really earned a cent of it.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[squarooticus]

Do you realize that the average person received ~$300 benefit from this tax cut, while Dick Cheney realized ~$1 million?

Class warfare. What's the point?

Certainly if they are earning 50% of the revenue but only paying 30% of the tax, there is a problem.

Why? Even if we had a flat 20% tax, 20% of their income is still waaaaay more money than 20% of your income. The rich are more than paying their fair share.

The rich are also far less likely to be audited by the IRS, despite having an overwhelming advantage in being able to hire high-priced tax lawyers to weasel them out of more tax, which the rest of us end up paying.

The incidence of audits among lower-income individuals correlates well with the percentage of incorrectly-filed tax returns. Your argument sets up a straw man similar to that used as evidence of racism in sentencing, and is about as correct.

If your problem is truly that rich people have better access to information that informs them of deductions they are eligible for, then perhaps you should be arguing for a simplification of the tax code. I can't argue with that.

However, I suspect the real issue is just that you think the rich aren't being milked enough.

Let us also say that bill gates is worth 50 billion dollars, probably a conservative estimate. If I make $65,000 / year, I can work for 40 years and still make only 1/40,000th of that amount. You don't think there's some disparity there?

From your attitude, I can see that the possibility of you going out and doing something that might net you more than $65,000 a year is nil. Bill Gates did something very high-risk and got rewarded for it. Lots of people who risk leaving college to start a business fail and end up bitter and envious like... well, I don't want to point any fingers.

In 10 years when the graying boomers really start hitting social security and dying en masse because there's no system there to support them, you can thank W.

I'll be laughing all the way to the bank because I was smart and started my retirement account early. I'm not especially intelligent in doing so: it's just common sense. Lack of self-control, initiative, or ambition shouldn't be rewarded, but it seems that's what we do.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[JimBobJoe]

Actually, in the western world, 20% of people have 80% of the wealth, more or less.

Furthermore, an article here talks about this idea physically modeled. The 20/80 idea may very well be a physical constant that we can't do very much about, except by reducing regulation and making sure that money can flow freely, that maximises the relationship, distributing wealth as much as possible.

There is also a bit of disingenousness in discussing this idea and comparing to other times in history. the communists came about at a time when the pot of wealth was so much smaller, and people were just getting by paying for food and shelter. Today, the wealth pot is huge, sure 20% owns 80%, yet the other 20% of wealth owned by the rest is amazingly large, and more than sufficient for the non wealthy 80% to live very comfortably.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprise! As the "pot of wealth" has grown, so have the expenses that must be paid. While most people probably live a reasonably comfortable life, I really can't see how reducing regulation will improve the masses' lot. If not for "regulation" our economy would currently be dominated by two or three mega monopolies, ensuring that the top 1% have 99% of the wealth.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[s.fontinalis]

"Why? Even if we had a flat 20% tax, 20% of their income is still waaaaay more money than 20% of your income. The rich are more than paying their fair share."

It all really depends on what you wish to call "fair" The rich receive proportionately larger benefits from living in America - it's where their welath was established, isn't it? Shouldn't they then pay a tax portion that reflects the fiscal gain they have received from America?

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you all.. but I love being rich. Screw all you gold-diggers out there. I got where I am by working hard my entire life. And I'll be damned if you're gonna convince me that I owe anything to anyone less fortunate than me. yeah.. boo-hoo.. it's too bad when someone is born into poverty, but they can't use that as an excuse not to make something of themselves over time. I've known of many people in situations where all they have is the clothes on their backs and a few bucks in their pockets, and yet they still find a way to make something of themselves and get ahead in life. Maybe if some of you stopped worrying about how much money others make, and start doing something about your own situation, you would understand where I'm coming from.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't know where this 80% lie is coming from, but my most recent sources indicate that the top 1% of households control 47% of the wealth.

47% is still >50% more than the 30% of the taxes they pay.... beeeyotch!

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[zulux]

I've found that the answer "zero" correlates highly with success. Whether this is a causal relationship or not is still anybody's guess.

Zero is a good answer, for success, to the question "At age 30, how many children did you have?"

Overbreaders tend to be stupid and lazy - it's sad that their traits are passed though genes and rearing to the next generation.

Then, after their ruined their life and the lives of their children, the have the gall to as for more hand-outs, more tax-breaks, and more food and housing.

Maby I'm turning in to a nasty rat-bastard, but we definatly sould think about Norplanting people on welfare - the men could get a premenent snip.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[JimBobJoe]

As the "pot of wealth" has grown, so have the expenses that must be paid.

Not exactly. There definitely are more expenses now, but as a percentage of income, those expenses are dropping. In 1900 food was no less than 50% of your income, whereas that's pretty unusual today (unless you're like me, not having a job and still eating out daily.) Car prices are rising like the dickens, but whereas the average American needed to work, i think the common figure was 35 weeks sometime in the 1950's to afford the average car, its now in the 20 week range, even though the average car price is in the mid 20k. And of course, a lot of that rise in the price of cars has to do with all sorts of neato eqiupment thats pretty expensive but universal, like air bags.

I really can't see how reducing regulation will improve the masses' lot. If not for "regulation" our economy would currently be dominated by two or three mega monopolies, ensuring that the top 1% have 99% of the wealth.

The article in question is more of a discussion of regulations affecting individuals, and the resulting effect on the distribution of wealth. Regulations affecting corporations are not discussed (they are very different. Sweden is dominated by a few large corporations, but CEO pay in Sweden is very different than that found in the US.) As for the newscientist article, I would have linked it, but I can't seem to find it on their website, so that debate shall have to be postponed.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[cheinonen]

If I recall correctly, W's big tax cut reduced the maximum federal income tax rate from 39.6% to 33% or so, which means someone making $50,000 a year will see a small gain, but those that are incredibly wealthly, making $1 Million a year, will see a huge windfall. They say it's a multibillion reduction in taxes, but they just don't say that it's for the wealthy once again, not the working class who pay a larger tax percentage once you subtract the cost of living (which you have to do in order to have a fair comparison).

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've known of many people in situations where all they have is the clothes on their backs and a few bucks in their pockets, and yet they still find a way to make something of themselves and get ahead in life.

But not you, right? You're a spoiled rich brat who got into an elite college 'cause daddy's an alum and makes hefty donations, then you got into the family business and -- wait for it -- owe everything you have to those who came before you.

Ok, maybe you don't owe anything to those who have less than you. But the government provides services, and these services are paid for in taxes. You owe the government taxes, and since you're rich, you owe more than those who earn less than you. It must be nice to be in a position where you can say "I don't care if there are people dying in the street. I'm rich. Let them eat cake!" You realize that you'll be among the first to die when the masses revolt, don't you?

If you don't want to live in a world in which people care for and care about each other, I guess that's your prerogative. I think that speaks volumes as to why there's so much hatred of the rich in this country.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[snarfer]

If I recall correctly, W's big tax cut reduced the maximum federal income tax rate from 39.6% to 33% or so, which means someone making $50,000 a year will see a small gain, but those that are incredibly wealthly, making $1 Million a year, will see a huge windfall.

Sorry, but ONLY the very very rich get that tax cut. If you're making $50K you aren't in the bracket that got cut.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how pyramid schemes work. People refuse to admit that the game is fixed because they're hanging on to the hope that they can reach the top.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[neocon]

It's also largely a case of killing the goose which lays the golden egg. Let's embark on a simple thought experiment: the top 1% of Americans own about 50% of the wealth (whatever that means in a constantly growing economy). This means, plainly, that if we were to simply take everything from these people, and share it among everyone else, on average people would double their holdings. People should ask themselves honestly: If what I owned doubled, and then a year or two went by, how much of this windfall would I have left? For most people, the answer is `not much' -- and it's worse than that, because now your new top 1% are much less wealthy than the previous top 1%, so even if you repeat this process every few years,before too long you're not actually helping the poor very much at all.

Now let's look what happens when these people keep their money. The rich don't just stick their money under their mattress, they invest it. And this investment creates economic growth, and this growth helps everyone. To give a perfect example, here in the US, the bottom 20% of the population in 1990 had, earned, and consumed as much (adjusted for inflation) as the middle 20% had in 1950. No other system on earth, including those who tried the first approach, did anywhere near this much for those on the bottom of society.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with squarooticus. There are three kinds of successful people: ones who are successful by chance (i.e. they were raised by parents who could send them to college and so forth), people who work their butts off, and people who are both cases. It's usually not the hard workers who *expect* to work less, earn more, and basically have someone else keep care of their own responsibilities for them.

Re:Yaay! Class Warfare!

[Anonymous Coward]

My success doesn't preclude yours.

Actually, in a closed system, they do. Although I take your point.

In a word where those who have anything generally try very hard to ensure it isn't taken away from them, and where opportunities are often restricted to those who know people, it is bloody hard for a "normal" person to break thru into the upper echelons of financial society.

More money with less education and health? how?

[HanzoSan]

Without taxes how would you be educated enough to make "more" money?

How would we fight the war on terrorism or even crime?

Society cannot run without taxes, it CANT, THE END. IF you want a taxless society, you'll have a society just as bad as communist russia was, where the upper class always stay upper class and the lower class always stay lower class with no way to ever get out of it through education or public funded programs to help the poor become rich.

Poor people NEED healthcare because they cant afford the drugs, if you want an example look at the deaths happening in third world countries, theres no healthcare in most of these places, do you want US to be like that?

Without schools, expect everyone in the US to be uneducated, look at the trailer park and the ghettos of south central, that will be the majority off the USA without public schools.

So what do you say? Should we get rid of taxes or raise them?

Considering society has more problems, why not raise the taxes to solve these problems? Better schools, War on terrorism, cure for aids, cancer, etc,

Yes it is our responsibility, meaning the poor and the rich, to do whats best for our people.

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[voisine]

Not true. Taxes are not necessary. If the
government were limited to it's constitutional
roles, it could easily be funded with tarrifs.

You suggest that we shouldn't have to produce
anything valuable to society and earn money to put our kids through school. If you are unwilling or
unable to produce enough wealth to support
yourself and your family, then you're a charity
case. You're not entitled to a living, you must
earn it.

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[voisine]

If you feel so strongly about other people's
NEEDS, why don't you help them? Why don't you
convince me to help them? Their need does not
make it okay to put a gun to my head and rob me
to support them. Their need does not entitle them
to my effort and the work of my hands. If they
have any dignity left as human beings, they would
not themselves rob me in person. They would plead
their case and ask me for help.

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[HanzoSan]

Me help them? I'm one of them. I dont have shit. I'm not rich, how am I, a poor person supposed to help my poor neighbors? I can barely survive myself.

Look, people have to survive, people dont give a damn if you live or die, when you say its its them or me.

You back people into a corner, yes they will rob you,kill you and do whatever it takes to survive, they wont play by the rules, you cannot expect them to play by the rules when they play a game which losing is not allowed!

If people werent punished so much for losing,perhaps the losers of the game wouldnt punish the winners for losing via terrorism, crime, etc.

Their need does not entitle them
to my effort and the work of my hands. If they
have any dignity left as human beings, they would
not themselves rob me in person. They would plead
their case and ask me for help.

How many years have people in afganastan been asking for help? How many years have africians been asking for help? How many years have minorities in the ghetto be DEMANDING help?

Look, they've been asking, but iff you havent been listening to them for the past hundred years or more, well, whos fault is that. Remember the civil rights movement? That happened right before gang violence in the ghettos EXPLODED onto the scene, that was their cry for help, what happened when they asked for help? They got hosed down, beat up, killed.

Asking for help only works when people are listening, when people dont give you help, you have two options, steal, or become a suicide bomber and die for the cause bringing more attention to the problem.

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[ceejayoz]

Try funding your economy with tarrifs and watch prices on just about everything skyrocket. It's called a "trade war".

As for your second point - tell that to the single mother working 2 jobs and making about 10,000 a year. Works just as hard as the rest of us, but for reasons usually beyond her control, she doesn't make as much. Maybe she wasn't able to go to high school, maybe she can't afford daycare and has to watch her children - should her children be punished because she can't afford to raise them? How're you supposed to break out of the cycle?

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[Waffle Iron]

Taxes are not necessary. If the government were limited to it's constitutional roles, it could easily be funded with tarrifs.

First, a tariff is a tax. In your terminology, it's "stealing" stuff from people trying to import goods.

Second, you must be smoking heavy crack if you think that there is any way to eliminate taxes. Every non-primitive society in human history has had some form of taxation. What makes you think that you've figured out some magical way to avoid taxes when nobody else has ever achieved this?

Have you ever really sat down to account for the all of the benefits you personally receive from the gov't via tax-financed means? Have you ever thought about how much more it would cost you in time and money to individually arrange replacements for all of those services? I doubt it. You could hire your own private police force (you'll really need a good one one if the majority of the population gets no education because public schools are abolished), you could negotiate the rights to pass through each person's land instead of using roads, you could hire a private detective to hunt down terrorists who threaten your safety. You could hire private services for the thousands of other things the government now does with better efficiency of scale.

But you probably haven't thought through the implications of any of that. Basically, you're just a selfish, myopic cheapass skinflint whiner who thinks that they can get the benefits of being a citizen of this country without paying anything for them.

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[Silver222]

God, you whine an awful fucking lot.

Why do you keep bringing up terrorism? How does the American tax system create terrorists? Enlighten me, please.

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without taxes how would you be educated enough to make "more" money?

Hard work? People are successful in all walks of life. It has more to do with with the person, than any other factor.

How would we fight the war on terrorism or even crime?

True, there needs to be a way to provide funding for the defense of our borders.

Poor people NEED healthcare because they cant afford the drugs, if you want an example look at the deaths happening in third world countries, theres no healthcare in most of these places, do you want US to be like that?

Maybe people should just take of themselves and lead healthier lifestyles? Why should the rest of us pay if Jimbo wants to smoke a carton of smokes a day and eat fast food twice a day?

Without schools, expect everyone in the US to be uneducated, look at the trailer park and the ghettos of south central, that will be the majority off the USA without public schools.

Ever heard of home schooling?

So what do you say? Should we get rid of taxes or raise them?

Lower them.

Considering society has more problems, why not raise the taxes to solve these problems? Better schools, War on terrorism, cure for aids, cancer, etc,

What a Utopian perspective. So if the top rate of 50% doesn't solve these problems, would 60%? How about 70%?

Yes it is our responsibility, meaning the poor and the rich, to do whats best for our people.

So far you've advocated taking a great deal of money from the people who have it, what have the poor done in your scenario?

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[voisine]

You're just plain wrong... Anguilla does it.
They've become very affluent very quickly as a
result. I'm not an anarchist. I just think the
government does way too much and does it poorly.
I'd gladly pay for the services I receive. I
resent having my money stolen at gunpoint.

A free marketplace takes care of all those details
you mentioned a lot more cheaply and effeciently than any government program could ever hope to.

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[voisine]

I'm not denying that there are people in need.
I just don't believe that their needs *entitle*
them to my property and my work. I gave more than
10% of my gross income to charities that help
people in need. How much did you give? If I weren't taxed at 50% I would have given twice as
much and helped a lot more people than the
government did with my money. Do you have any idea
how bad the government is at that sort of thing?

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[snarfer]

I gave more than 10% of my gross income to charities that help
people in need.

Dude, I hate to tell you this but Pat Robertson used the money to finance his diamond mines.

Re:More money with less education and health? how?

[HanzoSan]

Lets see, what a free market place would do.

Well, you'd still have the class system, the only diffrence is, you'd have almost class slavery

you'd have no way to ever become rich, Think about it, the rich will get richer, but the poor will have no way to get educated, so unless they are lucky, or a genius, they have no way of ever being rich.

Face it, in a taxless society, people would riot and steal, no ones going to work when theres no longer the american dream, no hope of being successful, hell they cant even be educated!

Payment schemes?

[Anonymous Coward]

An arm and a leg from me :p

met someone selling these the other day

[MrChubble]

I happened to meet someone selling these the other day at my work. Told me they cost about 30k$ and they sell about 12 a year(at least his place does). Apparently his latest install was to a football players house.
Wish i could afford one.

Winners and Losers, what about the losers?

[HanzoSan]

Not everyone can be successful. What about the failures?

Just because you are successful and all your rich friends are successful, doesnt mean everyonne is or can be. Theres going to be failures, its your responsibility as a human, to make it so even if you fail, your life still means something, failures need to have SOMETHING.

Alot of people wonder how a person can suicide bomb, its usually a rich person wondering this, how about we look at life from their point of view.

Lets look at a third world country. Say you are from a third world country, all your friends have Aids, People only live to

age 30-35, your family members have aids, one of your kids starved to death and the other is sick, and You have aids. You see rich guys coming and taking away the natural resources so you cant hunt or live off the land anymore. Why not go suicide bomb them? What do you have to lose? You have nothing to lose.

How about we look at how life is for people in the USA? Say you live in the ghetto, you grew up with a single parent, barely surviving off welfare, you didnt get a good education due to shitty public schooling, what options do you have to survive? You cant live off a Mc Donalds wage, and thats about all you can get.

Here are your options.

1.Sell Drugs/Steal
2.Sell Drugs/Steal and Work at MCDonalds
3.Be Homeless

Because these people have nothing to lose they dont fear going to jail. Someone whos homeless or close to being homeless on the

street eating 1 meal a day, would be happy to go to jail and get 3 meals a day, weights, TV, and so on.

Do you see whats happening? You have to give people something, you MUST care about society, because if you dont, society will eventually collapse and destroy you along with it.

With lower taxes, more people become poor, why? Less education or lower quality education from public schools, no healthcare,

no social security, I mean with no social security people cant even look forward to retiring.

They have NOTHING.

The problem with not sharing the wealth is, as more people have nothing, society breaks down. You can only fill the prisons so much, you cant stop terrorists for ever. The solution, is to make sure everyone has SOMETHING to lose, what stops you from going to prison? Oh thats right, you might lose your house and all your possesions, you wont be able to do all those great things which a rich person can do, like go shopping, or sit in your nice hottub. You have something to lose being in prison

because for you life outside of prison is better than life in prison. If you keep lowering taxes, it makes life for failures not worth living at all, you think we have a problem with terrorists from afganastan? IF you get rid of public schools, society security, healthcare, welfare, being poor is to alot of people worse than being dead. Their options, commit suicide, or live life as a homeless person begging for food.

For every Winner, theres a loser, in order to keep society from collapsing, the losers have to continue to play the game.

Everyone must play the game, losers need a reason to keep player, if its winner takes all, the losers will stop playing, and

will do one of two things



A. Take from the winners
B. Destroy everything so no one has anything

Re:Winners and Losers, what about the losers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to rant incoherently. Do you have a point or do you just like to ramble endlessly without communicating any clear ideas?

Re:Winners and Losers, what about the losers?

[Kysh]

While I think your points aren't terribly coherent, and the structure and grammar of your post isn't great, the point you make is excellent, I think.

I do agree with your assesment overall.

The problem is, many of the people who disagree with you don't understand poor. They come from nice well-off parents in nice little neighborhoods in nice parts of town. They may even think of themselves as 'impovrished' since they never got that Atari 2600, Commodore PET, Amiga or Nintendo they wanted, when 'all their friends had one', or maybe their parents had to drive a *Gasp* used car.

They may have even not been fully funded for the college of their choice by their parents (What a horror!).

No, most of the dissenters probably think, "Look at me! I'm making all this money, and I had to go to college for eight long years to get where I am. I even had to take a minimum wage job when I was in college- I was a poor college student! I know poverty! And look what I made of myself."

I know this, because I've had this debate with many people, and they truly see it that way. They don't realize that poverty- The sort of poverty in which a MAJORITY of Americans live, is the sort of poverty where you work two jobs and your spouse works one, so you can make ends meet enough to hopefully own a house of your own before you die.

It is the sort of poverty where there is no Martha Stewart Osterizer Plus in the kitchen- Where you instead have to balance buying food with taking little Amy to the doctor to see about her constant, wracking cough (since neither of your jobs offers health insurance).

It's the kind of poverty where you don't cry because you can't get the Lexus and have to settle for the Honda, but instead feel lucky to have found the $200 Toyota that's got 260k miles and is rusted out with no heat, much less radio.
Oh wait, I forget- The dissenter would say, "Driving is a privelege, not a right and if they can't afford to drive, they should walk!'

Walk, should they? Or maybe take the bus? When they have to get their kids to school, get to job
one, get home in time for a quick dinner before heading to job two, and get back home for a few hours' sleep, walking or bussing might easily take another three hours.

And what happens when they find out that Amy has been living with an upper respiratory infection, and has heavy scarring in 35% of her lungs which has led to a serious case of bacterial pneumonia
taking hold. Amy needs to stay overnight at the hospital, a fluid IV ($90 per litre of glucose cocktail with antibiotic, changed bi-hourly, $50 disposable IV needle, $45 solution container, $20
tubing, $5 tape), blood tests ($15 syringe/needle, $600 haemogram), etc etc, and the final bill comes to well over $1,500.

Stuff happens. And when stuff happens, and money is short, things can get really bad.

Poverty is a pit with slippery-sloped sides that is very difficult to pull yourself out of. It is not a lack of intellect (Some of the sharpest people I know were poor), nor a lack of work ethic- Do those who dissent really think that they, with their 8-5 manager job are working harder than Joe down the street at the tire place?

Ah well, this has turned out much longer than I intended initially, but I hate seeing people with no real concept of what 'poverty' is talking amongst themselves about how superior they are to the lazy, shiftless, stupid poor 'trash', and whining to themselves about how much they pay in taxes (While the really rich people pay even less in taxes- And they'll gladly pay a lawyer a lot of money to save the same amount in taxes, since that has advatages..).

-Kysh

Re:Winners and Losers, what about the losers?

[ILuvUAmiga]

I agree with you totally. I always had an attitude of superiority until I realised some time ago that for some people, sometimes things just dont work out and life is an endless struggle. I personally have worked 14/15 hours solid for the last year in pursuit of my own dreams of success. I should point out that my parents have basically given me a room to live in and food to eat, supported me through all of this for a long, long time and when someone pointed out that without that I would have had to *work* for someone else, I wouldnt have been able to do it. This isnt making much sense, but I agree it's fine and dandy dabbling over whether I want a DVD in my Jacuzi but know for all time that while you are chilling out watching Friends while bubbles tickle your ass, some KID in some shit hole somewhere is slashing their legs or breaking bones, begging for sympathy, for life. At some point you realise there's not a great deal you yourself can do about these things, but preaching that it is someones *fault* or lack of intelligence, well so fuck even if it is they are human and nobody deserves that. i am all for enjoying your money, I know I will when I get it, but I also know that I would leave my snob attitude at the wine bar and might just be found pissing in the jacuzis of rich arrogant dickheads like you find on this elitist speakeasy.

and you'd never have to leave

[fatgraham]

until you required de-pruning (see dilbert episode)

What a waste of money

[drsquare]

The second one is such a bollocks shape you'd have to break your neck to be able to see the screen, and the first one looks like it's no more than a few inches deep.

What a rip-off, you may as well just get a decent jacuzzi and put a telly next to it. It would probably cost less as well.

I suspect this whole story is a hoax.

So if its Winner take All

[HanzoSan]

Why should the losers play the game?

Thats right, you are justifying suicide bombing, crime, etc, because hey if they have the choice of a life being homeless barly surviving, or a life in prison getting more than they get outside why not be a criminal? prison doesnt scare them if they have nothing to lose.

And why not be a suicide bomber if you have aids or your children and wife died from some disease like ebola and you have no family

When people have nothing left to lose, they stop playing.

You MUST MUST MUST, give everyone something, it doesnt have to be alot but at least give them healthcare, 3 meals a day, education, some kinda standard so people at least have hope, you remove all hope and they wont play the game anymore, society will collapse.

Question...

[EaTiN cOfFeE bEaNs]

Who really needs a 42" plasma screen and surround sound to watch porn in a hot tub?

Watch it outside, during the day

[Anonymous Coward]

and you can be "A Raisin in the Sun".

Priceless....

[lowy]

Antique clawfoot tub............$450
CD of the Wiener Philharmoniker playing Mozart's Requiem ........$ 22
A dozen or so candles $.....6

Time soaking in the tub *away* from video screens.... Priceless

Re:Priceless....

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that!

Time Bomb

[Anonymous Coward]

With all of these electronics I would hate to pee in that water...

Several years too late...

[thumbtack]

If these were available 5 years ago during the dotcom boom we would all be able to get one on eBay for a couple of hundred bucks.

Apply the power of mathematics to your question!

[Andy_R]

Follow this procedure:
1) Draw a venn diagram consisting of 2 sets.
2) label them 'the rich' and 'the poor'.
3) Note the lack of overlap.
4) Mark the positions in these sets of "yourself" and ""Bill Gates"

The solution to your problem should become clear to the mathemtically adept (if not , you can have a laugh at the pair of boobies you just drew).

Webserver?

[UPSBrian]

How long until someone ports Apache to their hottub, then posts the URL on /. so that the net traffic alone heats the water?

Never have to leave ...

[rasjani]

OMG!

Not even when "emergency" occurs ?

OMGx2!

Thats usually first sign of a forming fetish ... =)

Communications applications

[KFury]

If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you can jacuzziteleconference with.

Jesus needs one of these.

Re:Apply the power of mathematics to your question

[Anonymous Coward]

mmmm... boobies!

Line voltage and pools

[Vinnie_333]

Attending a class on electrical wire code, we were given an example that the instructor ran across. A man had installed a floating 120V outlet in his pool so he could watch TV while he floated there. He filled the bottom with sand so it wouldn't tip over.

I suspect that this spa is wired a little better, but why not suspend the TV over the hot tub instead of in it?

This tub made by la scala...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and Le Scala, Spain, is the anchovy capital of the world! Coincidence?... I think not!

Odd business practice

[naasking]

Things like floating remote controls and underwater lightning are also included.

Apparently, 'repeat customer' doesn't mean much to this company.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you except I would change the question to "At age 25 how many children did you have?" I know lots of people who had children in their late 20s who are doing very well.

We should norplant people on welfare. Take a look at deadbeat dads for instance. One third of all deadbeat dads are dead. I don't know how they expect to extract money from a dead man. The other two thirds are nearly all bums on welfare who refuse to do any work. Of course, they can't provide for their kids, so we the people get saddled with providing for their kids since they know they can get away with it with impunity. It doesn't matter if they go to jail either since this gives them a roof over their head and three meals a day paid for by the people.

The women don't care who the father is since they know the government will pay for any number of kids they have. We should start calling this what it really is collusion to defraud the people.

My wife was repulsed...

[bpm140]

As I have no reason for using a hot tub other than "quality time" with the missus, I think I'd have to pass on this model, regardless of cost.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the very rich
in fact do this.

Some wealthy people do this, yes.

But most wealthy people just use their wealth to accumulate even more wealth... in which case it's the governments duty to tax the wealthy in order to redistribute the wealth.

never leave?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you'd never have to leave!
Well, at least not until your meat has separated from your bones...
...at which point a voice activated phone would be useful to dial 911.

I couldn't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell did the "community" ever do for people like us? Like the rest of the geeks here I am sure, I make a lot of money. Before that I was in college where I had to pay for it, but the sports stars got a free ride. Before that being in school we were all constantly slandered and assaulted by jocks and many others. What did the so called teachers do? Ignored it. Because we were smart and sucessful we were the problem to them.

Now that we are sucessful and have money, they just want to take it from us since they are too lazy and stupid to do an hour of work. We don't owe them. THEY OWE US.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[snarfer]

What the hell did the "community" ever do for people like us?

No matter what you might think of democracy, community, charity, etc. you have to admit that spending public money to control epidemics saves YOUR ass as well as everyone else.

We ARE all in the same boat whether you like it or not.

The first community in the U.S., Jamestown, forced the rich to work because everyone had to eat, everyone needed shelter, and everyone had to pitch in.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a start, but given all the suffering people like us had to suffer at the hands of the "community" they still owe us. Protection for epidemics isn't enough to justify what they did to us.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

Those days were rough weren't they?

Yeah thats why we have problems

[HanzoSan]

With terrorists and criminals from the ghetto, and trailor park biker gangs, and the mafia.

Look, its people who think like you, "be rich or die" attitude that makes people so willing to be a suicide bomber. Makes them willing to join a gang and rob people like you, makes them sell illegal drugs.

Just like you said, if its winner takes all, Why play by the rules?

Re:Yeah thats why we have problems

[voisine]

You've got it wrong. The phrase is "live free
or die". I won't apologize for it.

Re:Yeah thats why we have problems

[HanzoSan]

Freedom has nothing to do with success.

People who arent successful should still be given something, no one should be starving to death, dying of sicknesses which are cureable, and living on the streets. Theres absolutely no excuse for this, none, and when you keep allowing people to live in a fucked up way, dont be surprised when these people fuck up the country with crime, terrorism, rioting, etc.

Re:Yeah thats why we have problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus.. you really are stupid..

Freedom has nothing to do with success?? Right....just because you are incredibly bitter about your (lack of) success, you shouldn't make idiotic statements like that.

HAHAHAHAHA

[JoeGee]

"underwater lightning"

I agree, this is probably a feature most customers could live without ... I want to see how they implement this startling added attraction. In reading the small print I notice this device doubles as a self-heating soup pot and can make bouillabaise for 2,500 people in under ten minutes. :)

What is a Jacuzzi with a 42" Plasma screeen for?

[Zeinfeld]

To soak the rich of course

Re:Apply the power of mathematics to your question

[NDPTAL85]

Why should there be an overlap?

Underater Lightning?

[re-Verse]

Doesn't anybody remember quake 1??? Don't you remember what would happen if you tried to use the lightning underwater? I mean, this is pretty amazing.. .Can the whirlpool process the gibs easily or will they clog it up?

I hope people remember that to use the unterwater lightning to their advantage, there should be at least 2 other people in there with them.

What about your appearance?

[abdulla]

"Now all you'd have to do is mod the tub with a computer and wireless internet, and you'd never have to leave!" Sure, easy to say if you don't mind looking like a prune!

Finally!!!

[dryguy]

The perfect place to settle down and enjoy the movie JAWS on DVD.

'Save the whales? Feed the hungry? Tree-hugger...

[crovira]

Nuke the whales, eat the hungry and buy more RAM.

Ancient Chinese Proverb.

[DarkHelmet]

A wise man once said:

He who has too many gadgets along with his hot tub deserves to be electrocuted.

yes

[evanh23]

i do plan on buying one of these..as soon as i figure out how im going to pay for that 4 million dollar mansion..ideas? ;)

awwww yeeeaaah

[Anonymous Coward]

42" pr0n and hotties in the tub...

who reckons most of these will be sold to pr0n co's and massage parlours?

More taxes, less crime

[HanzoSan]

You have 2 choices.

You can support the losers, or its winner take all.

if its winner take all, no one can afford to be a loser, losing is worse than death.

Get my point? I whine alot? We'll George Bush whines alot, alot of people whine when 3 thousand people die in twin towers.

Stupid. I whine, afganstan whines, people in the ghettos and trailors whine, we all whine, except you, who has everything.

Look, face it, you are a classist, do you know what that is? someone who believes they are superior due to their class. Because you are successful, you feel you matter more than someone whos poor, keep thinking like that and you'll cause the destruction of the world.

Terrorism, Crime, not a problem for you yet? Well wait until you cant step outside your mansion without worrying about people trying to rob you.

Re:More taxes, less crime

[Silver222]

Sorry Hanzo, but you've been spending a little too much time with computers. Life is not a binary solution set. There are more than 2 choices. So no, I don't get your point. You are taking a very complex situation, and vastly oversimplifying it.

I'm not going to disagree with you that George Bush whines a lot. Now, unlike yourself, I don't think that George Bush is the reason for all the problems that happen in my life.

I whine, afganstan whines, people in the ghettos and trailors whine, we all whine, except you, who has everything.

Making baseless assumptions. Nice. How do you suppose I have everything? How do you know I'm not just another working shmoe down on his luck right now? You're omnipotent, I guess?

As far as the classist remark goes, I'm just going to shake my head and laugh. First off, even if I am, I'm not going to cause the destruction of the world by thinking that way, sorry. (Of course, if the world does end, it'll be everyone's fault but yours, right?)

Terrorism, Crime, not a problem for you yet? Well wait until you cant step outside your mansion without worrying about people trying to rob you.

Well, with the house I live in, the most I have to worry about is Bill Gates running me over in one of his many cars. Yeah, that's it...

Re:More taxes, less crime

[HanzoSan]

Sorry Hanzo, but you've been spending a little too much time with computers. Life is not a binary solution set. There are more than 2 choices. So no, I don't get your point. You are taking a very complex situation, and vastly oversimplifying it.

OK i should have said 2 logical choices. Sure theres more than 2 choices, but only 2 choices are logical choices, the other choices arent always as logical. Suicide is a choice, but its never a logical choice.



I'm not going to disagree with you that George Bush whines a lot. Now, unlike yourself, I don't think that George Bush is the reason for all the problems that happen in my life.

George Bush isnt the problem, but hes not part of the solution either, hes prolonging the problem because so far the problems dont effect him. Hes in his underground base, hes safe from terrorists, hes never been poor, he doesnt worry about being robbed, hes rich, hes never lived it so he couldnt understand the problems that poverty can cause. Lets see George Bush be a man like Bill Clinton is, lets see him live in Harlem for a few years, and then we will see if he still has the same opinions.

Unlike Bush who grew up rich, had a rich dad, and always had a silver spoon in his mouth, Clinton grew up poor, in poverty, like the majority of the working class. Thats why we voted for Clinton over Bush senior.

How is a Rich guy going to try to tell us to cut taxes when often we NEED those services the taxes provide? Yes I said need, because without the working class you cannot have the ruling/upper class.

The working class should be kept happy, this means the failures should have a reason to continue to play the game, if you make it winner takes all, what will happen is the economy and the world will collapse.


Making baseless assumptions. Nice. How do you suppose I have everything? How do you know I'm not just another working shmoe down on his luck right now? You're omnipotent, I guess?


If you are a working smoe just barely surviving,
Do you plan to ever have kids? Do you plan to retire? What if you get sick? Dont tell me you lost all your money in your 401k because of the recession, oh no, looks like you can never retire now.



As far as the classist remark goes, I'm just going to shake my head and laugh. First off, even if I am, I'm not going to cause the destruction of the world by thinking that way, sorry. (Of course, if the world does end, it'll be everyone's fault but yours, right?)


You are a classist, you want the classes to compete by raising the stakes, thats what you do, when you say "winner takes all, be successful or go to hell"

The failures will kill you to be successful, will rob you, will do anything it takes, because at that point you are literally telling them they must be successful or ELSE.

People in Afganastan and the third world have almost no chance of success thus no reason for living, dying would do more to help their people than to stay alive, so why not suicide bomb, they are dying anyway of aids, and sicknesses, and the average lifespan is only 30 or so, so why shouldnt teenagers go blow themselves up? They have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, and thats because you dont GIVE them anything. Everyone needs something, even if its something small.


Well, with the house I live in, the most I have to worry about is Bill Gates running me over in one of his many cars. Yeah, that's it...


Move to Harlem, Then you have to worry about being robbed and shot, every single day. Better yet, move to South Africa, have no chance at having children do to the aids problem, worry about how to find food on a daily basis, go weeks without eating, yeah you do that and you'll soon be robbing people to.

Survival is the only rule in the game.
When people cant survive via your capitalism, they'll abandon your rules and play by their own rules, this means killing you and TAKING your money instead of earning the money.

Get my point?

Re:More taxes, less crime

[Silver222]

I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You still insist on treating life like it is a zero sum game, and it's not.

The AIDS problem in Africa is not my fault. It's a social problem caused by lack of education and ignorance of basic facts.

Poor people in Harlem is not my fault. I didn't make them poor. Same thing with people in Afghanistan. No amount of fingerpointing is going to make me feel guilty for that situation. I can fell empathy for all the above cases, but not guilt. No matter how often you try to tell me it's my fault, it's not.

One last point: Did Bill Clinton spend his childhood and university years bitching about how bad he had it, being born in Arkansas to a single mother? Or was he too busy being a Rhodes scholar to feel sorry for himself?

Re:More taxes, less crime

[HanzoSan]

The AIDS problem in Africa is not my fault. It's a social problem caused by lack of education and ignorance of basic facts.

However you own most of the information and its your responsiblity to educate those who cannot afford education.

Poor people in Harlem is not my fault. I didn't make them poor. Same thing with people in Afghanistan. No amount of fingerpointing is going to make me feel guilty for that situation. I can fell empathy for all the above cases, but not guilt. No matter how often you try to tell me it's my fault, it's not.

Its not your fault that you grew up middle class either. Not everyone is so fortunate as you, its not like you grew up in harlem and worked your way out of there into your spot you have now, so how can you understand? Its not about guilt, it or empathy, its the fact that you have no choice, if you expect society to work, you have to make sure everyone can survive by following the rules, because when only you can surviving following the rules, you'll be the only one following your rules.

One last point: Did Bill Clinton spend his childhood and university years bitching about how bad he had it, being born in Arkansas to a single mother? Or was he too busy being a Rhodes scholar to feel sorry for himself?

That is why poor people respect Clinton, This is why he was voted in by all the democrats, because he worked hard and spent a lifetime to get his spot, he worked x100 harder than you,, x10 harder than bush, and he made it.

Not everyone however will make it, not everyone can or will be president, Clinton did the impossible and that is why I respect him. He didnt spend his childhood bitching, but he knew where he came from, and when he became president he helped make it so other people in his situation had it easier than he did. Whats wrong with helping people who are less fortunate than you are? I'm not saying let them leech you into the poorhouse, but help level the playing field so your class doesnt decide what you can and cannot do. Allow the proper services and support structures to be in place so even the poorest person can become a scientist, a lawyer, even president. Give them hope, and something to aim for and they wont become criminals, they dont become terrorists.

Remove that hope, tell them its going to be impossible and what do they have left?

Thats my point, I guess we can never agree because you've never been in a hopeeless situation. I agree to disagree.

Re:More taxes, less crime

[Silver222]

However you own most of the information and its your responsiblity to educate those who cannot afford education.

Oh really? I suppose I should head over to the nearest University and get that MBA free of charge then. Or maybe that Philosophy degree I was always interested in. Any then maybe we can chain Torvalds up to a keyboard and make him crank out new kernels faster. After all, he has the knowledge, right?

Anyways, I'm not getting into a pissing match with an anonymous person about how tough I've had it growing up compared to him or her. That won't get us anywhere.

check for purchases by the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, those priests have to have SOME way to keep the boys and girls distracted while they molest them. I figure you get them into the hot tub for for a movie, and you've killed two birds with one stone. You've got the kid in skimpy swimware (making them more *ahem* accessible), you got them in water (which most kids love), and you've got them glued to a Disney DVD while you molest them.

Water

[pingus]

"...and you'd never have to leave!"

But after maybe 2 weeks all the water would smell like BO and cat pee.

Re:Water

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as you kept your cat out, it'd only smell like human pee.

Economic reation time

[Anonymous Coward]

Man this whole section is gonna get (Score:-1 Offtopic).

Anyway, I may not be the one on Wall Street making the big bucks but Ive taken enough Econ classes and watched the news and market enough to know the economy reacts very, very quickly. If Alan Greenspan farts the Dow drops 500 points. People are very impulsive and most do not buy stocks for the long haul. Anyone remember the selloff after Sept 11?

As far as Presidential policies shaping the market, people ignore one obvious fact. Reagan and Bush Sr. had very similar economic policies and plans. You cant tell me it took 12 to 14 years for the effects to kick in.

So you mean we can all be rich?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that is a very flawed ideology for rich people wanting to say they got rich through hard work and determination instead of inheritance. Not saying all rich inherited it, but those who didnt say their parents worked hard to keep food on the table.

There just isnt enough money to go around to make everyone rich, no matter what level of determinition. Someone has to take the crappy job. Me and plenty of my college freinds are spending the summer in these crap jobs and all of us are unmarried and have no kids.

Re:So you mean we can all be rich?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

And I spent time in those "crap jobs" myself when I was in college. After college I got a menial, crappy sysadmin job. I worked hard, and now after 18 years of effort I am an Information Technology Director in charge of all the assets of a $1 billion local airline. I make over $125,000 per year. I live in a nice home, I have a wife and two kids, and I drive a nice car. I have enough socked away for retirement that I can retire early, pay for my daughter's weddings (when she's old enough), and to pay for college.

No one helped me do this. Nobody from "the community" gave me one damn dollar. I worked my way through college, did not get a scholarship OR a student loan. My divorced parents had no money and paid for nothing. I bought my own first car with money I saved working two summers on a construction site.

My point? I don't believe it for one second that it's not possible to become a success in this world. It is hard, yes. It requires perserverance, hard work, and good decision making skills. It requires discipline and maturity, something not many folks have these days. And those that lack it always blame others for their misfortune. I'M NOT BUYING IT. It's full of crap, a "get out of jail free" card for the lazy and irresponsible.

I'm NOT special. I'm not some super genius whiz kid who graduated college at age 12. I didn't come from a silver spoon home. I'm not a trust fund baby. I didn't take advantage of any good 'ole boy networks to get where I am. I *am* where I am because *I* made it happen. I DIDN'T wait for luck to come calling, I went out and MADE it happen. If *I* can do it, anyone can do it. And I am damn well entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors without being given a guilt trip by the damn "less fortunate" out there.

Re:So you mean we can all be rich?

[snarfer]

$125,000 a year isn't even NEAR what we're talking about here. You aren't even getting the tax cuts, dude. You're paying INTO Social Security and that money is being used to GIVE the tax cuts to those WAY above your pay grade..

Re:So you mean we can all be rich?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

This shows how little you really know about the tax system. With my income and stock assets put together I reside in the absolute highest tax bracket there is. As a percentage of my income I'm paying about double what the lowest bracket is, and let's not EVEN get started on the actual dollar amount (around $50K per year) that I pay in just federal taxes.

You're absolutely right I'm not getting the tax breaks. Neither are those much, much richer than I am. We're all those nasty, eeeeeeeevil, awful, dirty, mean, terrible, run-over-old-ladies-and-children-just-for-fun rich folks that are keeping everyone else down. Never mind that we pay around 40% of all federal income taxes in existence while we constitute around 1% of the population....we're not paying (weeping, whining voice -- ALL TOGETHER NOW) OUR FAIR SHARE!

Bullshit. Total, indescribable bullshit. I'm paying far more into the system than I can ever hope to reap. In fact, I'm only paying to subsidize those are in the lowest income bracket, as many of them pay no federal taxes at all due to Earned Income tax credits (a Clinton invention). So you just go right on blaming us horrible rich folks for being one notch below baby killers...we're used to it. I, for one, refuse to feel guilty because I'm well off. I work hard for it, and damn it I deserve what I've got. I will begrudge NO ONE their right to enjoy what is theirs, and if you weren't so damn green with envy you'd see the illogical fallacies that you keep on spouting.

Re:So you mean we can all be rich?

[Albinoman]

Take this from a larger perspective. You claim that you pay far more into the system than you can hope to reap. So you may never get back that money back directly, but that doesnt mean you are getting no benefits. Im not talking about the stuff taxes pay for either.

Im talking about all those people who work for pidly wages so you can have a larger wage. You are making money off of those people, and Im not blaming you for sapping their wages or anthing like that either. But at the same time you were and still are supporting those higher up on the chain. And even more important those people recieving that EIC are supporting you. This whole system is hooked together.

Just remember that everyone feeds of off everyone else. And before anyone starts bad mouthing people having to recieve money from the government, remember that they, not your boss, are who are making your wages possible. And I will guarantee that they will generate far more income in their life than what the government (or you) gives them.

Ill also re-emphasize my original statement (posted before I registered) that there isnt enough money to make everyone rich. Someone will also work damn hard and get paid next to nothing, but someone has to do it. Even if everyone on the whole planet knew how to program a computer, build a space shuttle,and perform brain surgery, some people will still have to get paid nothing for farming or making shoes or working in a sweat shop.

Take ECON 202

[Albinoman]

This is a really simple question that can be answered easily by anyone who has taken a macroeconomics course. You are making your money from other peoples hard work, so this is society's way (remember the government is not some nasty organization out to steal money it is "We The People") of saying "hey, you wanna milk us and reap the benefits of a Capitalistic Republic, fine pay your dues back to society".

Lets have a little quiz:

1. There is a flat tax rate of %20. Person A made $500,000 and paid $100,000 in taxes. Person B made $20,000 and paid $4,000. Who paid more?

A: Wrong!!! Person B. Why, cause everyone spends a certain amount money every year on food and insurance and utilities and many other bills that everyone shares. So now Person B may only have $4,000 to spend on things they want while A still has $388,000.

And dont try to say "well I spend all that money and pay even more sales tax!" because all that is optional spending and we all get that nice fixed sales tax rate.

Forced Alturism: You're all missing the point!

[voisine]

There is nothing wrong with helping people.
I give more than 10% of my gross income to
charities! The point is that it's *my* choice! It
is wrong for anyone - you - the government -
society - *anyone* - to take what is mine at the
point of a gun for any purpose whatsoever. Even if you have good intentions it's still theft. You'll
do much better by serving the needs you see around with what *you* earn voluntarily. I do, so until
you're giving more than 10% of your income to help
the needy, don't you *dare* call me selfish or
greedy for not wanting to be robbed.

Yay

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been waiting my whole life for this. I can finally re-enact my favorite scene from Scarface. The bathtub scene where hints of homosexuality between him and his friend are a little more than subtle. HAHA, thank you Whirlpool.

I want one of these...

[Robotech_Master]

...as a buyable object for my Sims game. They can increase their hygiene and their fun meters! (Well, okay, so they can already using a normal hot tub, but this way they could do it faster!)

I assume...

[stickyc]

the built in beer tap is hidden from view in this picture?

give as much as you need to to ensure

[HanzoSan]

That NO one is in poverty, and that everyone has a fair chance.

This means no one should ever starve, even if they dont have a job everyone deserves shelter, and food.

This means no one should ever be denied education no matter how old, if they cannot afford college they should still be given some other chance.

Lastly, welfare SHOULD exsist, but in a diffrent fashion, perhaps instead of welfare, public shelters with paid empoyees who help the poor, and help raise children etc

this way people cant be on welfare and take the money and use it to buy drugs, or something stupid.