Do rich ppl deserve their money?

[Cuzzin E]

We live in a bad economic time. If someone has $2,000,000 or more they should have to share like 10% with unemployed people of the same race.

reasons why:

1.) economy is bad and unemployment is at a record high yet greedy fat cats get to have a savings with 7 figures? wow.....

2.) people don't mind helping their own race

thoughts or opinions?

i heard 4 fat guys were stealing billions of dollars and buying jets with our taxes

[Oleg Bach]

Having as a young guy been involved at one time with a powerful corporate family, I learned why they eventually ejected me from their realm..If you are going to be part of this power structure there is one qualification that you must have as far as your personal set of values...Are you willing to hurt and harm people on mass in order to maintain your position - I could not and so I had to go.

[guyser]

We live in a bad economic time. If someone has $2,000,000 or more they should have to share like 10% with unemployed people of the same race.

Not only NO, but how about HELL NO !

reasons why:

1.) economy is bad and unemployment is at a record high yet greedy fat cats get to have a savings with 7 figures? wow.....

2.) people don't mind helping their own race

thoughts or opinions?

1) They wroked for it they get to keep it. When they (the rich) may have been at a very low ebb, and perhaps broke and hungry, how quick were you to find them and give them a couple of hundred bucks? I will bet never.

2) wtf? Own race?

So, Im driving down the street and see a Korean girl injured/broke/starving I can keep on going?

Cool ! Saves me money , except I am breaking the law on one of those 3 scenarios.

Ridiculous.

[Cuzzin E]

Having as a young guy been involved at one time with a powerful corporate family, I learned why they eventually ejected me from their realm..If you are going to be part of this power structure there is one qualification that you must have as far as your personal set of values...Are you willing to hurt and harm people on mass in order to maintain your position - I could not and so I had to go.

Exactly. It is not enough to be willing to die for your country, you must be willing to kill

So, Im driving down the street and see a Korean girl injured/broke/starving I can keep on going?

Cool ! Saves me money , except I am breaking the law on one of those 3 scenarios.

What law would that be? this isn't sienfeld, there is no good samaritan law

Edited March 19, 2009 by Cuzzin E

[Oleg Bach]

Exactly. It is not enough to be willing to die for your country, you must be willing to kill

What law would that be? this isn't sienfeld, there is no good samaritan law

Once they make a law that forces one to be a good Samaritan then the term "Good Samaritan" does not apply - you can not legislate goodness - in fact laws usually in the long run protect the evil bastards. Being good is a choice...although within some family lines genetically speaking they are void of goodness. They know how to mimic it but there really is no substance to their presented benevolence.

When you kill for your country you are killing for big buisness - war has always had a huge profit margine for those to stupid to figure out another way of making big bucks. My original point was that the super rich justify their actions by resorting to what they call

"The human nature factor" - They attempt to believe that all of humanity is base - animalistic and void of goodness so they are fair game to abuse and consume like product.

[capricorn]

We live in a bad economic time. If someone has $2,000,000 or more they should have to share like 10% with unemployed people of the same race.

If I was in that category, I would give one dollar away. That would leave me with $1,999,999.00. so I wouldn't be forced to give 10% away.

Cuzzin, people with far less money than that donate to charities on a regular basis. And those charities are not always of the same race as the donor.

[cybercoma]

There is so much wrong with what you said that I don't even know where to begin.

[charter.rights]

1) They wroked for it they get to keep it. When they (the rich) may have been at a very low ebb, and perhaps broke and hungry, how quick were you to find them and give them a couple of hundred bucks? I will bet never.

Even if they never really worked for it but gained it through usury? You are assuming that those with gobs of money really worked themselves into it. Many were either mentored or given a financial helping hand and many have burned quite a few people in their climb to the top.

Few people at the top, born into privilege ever really work for their money. Major investors actually gain their money through usury. Would you exempt them?

Edited March 20, 2009 by charter.rights

[kimmy]

Isn't this the reason we have escalating tax brackets?

-k

[charter.rights]

Isn't this the reason we have escalating tax brackets?

-k

Not when we put in loop holes to hide the tax.

Taxes are a middle income burden and proportionally we pay far more tax than someone with a $500k and up salary. The rich get a free ride for the most part.

[DrGreenthumb]

We live in a bad economic time. If someone has $2,000,000 or more they should have to share like 10% with unemployed people of the same race.

reasons why:

1.) economy is bad and unemployment is at a record high yet greedy fat cats get to have a savings with 7 figures? wow.....

2.) people don't mind helping their own race

thoughts or opinions?

i heard 4 fat guys were stealing billions of dollars and buying jets with our taxes

Yikes! Are you bloody serious? That is just sooooo many kinds of wrong.

I'm in favour of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor, but you can't just go and steal money out of their accounts that has already been taxed. Tax inheritances, and create luxury taxes, by all means, but you can't just go and demand that people give up 10 % of their wealth. The ultra rich would just hide the money away as gold or find other ways to smuggle it out of the country, anyways. The ones that would really get kicked in the nuts are the guys that started their own business's and through their own dedication and hard work made that business thrive. Over the course of their lives they have bought a nice home and socked away 3 or 4 million for retirement and to give their kids a head start. Why should they have to give 10% of that to some numbnut who sits on his ass and plays videogames all day or drops out of school and has 3 kids with 3 different dads and watches Oprah and collects welfare cheques?

Give it to someone of their own race??!! There is only one race buddy, its called the human race. GAWD!

[charter.rights]

Yikes! Are you bloody serious? That is just sooooo many kinds of wrong.

I'm in favour of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor, but you can't just go and steal money out of their accounts that has already been taxed. Tax inheritances, and create luxury taxes, by all means, but you can't just go and demand that people give up 10 % of their wealth. The ultra rich would just hide the money away as gold or find other ways to smuggle it out of the country, anyways. The ones that would really get kicked in the nuts are the guys that started their own business's and through their own dedication and hard work made that business thrive. Over the course of their lives they have bought a nice home and socked away 3 or 4 million for retirement and to give their kids a head start. Why should they have to give 10% of that to some numbnut who sits on his ass and plays videogames all day or drops out of school and has 3 kids with 3 different dads and watches Oprah and collects welfare cheques?

Give it to someone of their own race??!! There is only one race buddy, its called the human race. GAWD!

So you are saying it would be ok for the rich to hide their wealth or illegally smuggle out of the country to avoid having to pay a greater tax amount?

True capitalists would not have a hard time giving some of their hard earned wealth to support less fortunate. The real criminals are the corporatists who steal our money, that of their employees and of investors and then claim they are in need of their full paychecks. In a true capitalist society shareholders would have demanded the executive get canned right away and then would fire all the Borad of Directors and replace them with people who would really look out for their interests.

But then again we lost capitalism along time ago and instead replaced it with the kind of corporatism that sees top executives paying themselves with our tax money, or banks who boast that they are still making huge profits while gouging user fees for doing nothing directly out of our accounts.

[DrGreenthumb]

So you are saying it would be ok for the rich to hide their wealth or illegally smuggle out of the country to avoid having to pay a greater tax amount?

.

Where exactly am I saying THAT? I said they WOULD do it not that it would be ok.

[blueblood]

Few people at the top, born into privilege ever really work for their money. Major investors actually gain their money through usury. Would you exempt them?

Bullsh*t. People born into privelege have to make smart financial decisions so they keep their money and have to work at staying afloat or expanding their wealth.

Major investors are taking huge risks, and not only expect but deserve returns on their investment.

As much as you hate rich people, by imposing your anti-rich agenda would end up hurting everyone in the country.

[charter.rights]

Bullsh*t. People born into privelege have to make smart financial decisions so they keep their money and have to work at staying afloat or expanding their wealth.

Major investors are taking huge risks, and not only expect but deserve returns on their investment.

As much as you hate rich people, by imposing your anti-rich agenda would end up hurting everyone in the country.

Major investors are taking huge risks... kind of obtuse don't you think when you also say this:

"....deserve returns on their investment."

It is all usury and no one "deserves" a return. They are lucky if they realize one, just like a gambler is lucky if he wins a poker pot.

Investment is a huge risk and taxpayers should not be bailing out companies that took those risks and lost. That is what capitalism is all about.

If the rich in the western world lose their riches, then the countries will not collapse nor will people suffer. The bulk of the tax burden tat pays for our joint welfare is born by the middle and lower income earners. If the rich lost their wealth then it would just mean there would be more middle income earners paying their share.

However, no matter what happens when you involve yourself in the kind of usury that has been prevalent over the last 20 years, you are bound to suffer...if only financially. No one "deserves" their wealth. They either earn it legally and morally, or they are not entitled to it. If they take a risk expecting higher returns more power to them, but when there are no returns no one should feel sorry for them.

They do have to pay their share of the social burden however and that would include having to pay extra for the burden they have created by screwing up the economy with their "risks", as well as paying forward for the destruction they have caused by funding environmental disasters like the tar sands, or oil spills, or deforestation.

[DrGreenthumb]

Bullsh*t. People born into privelege have to make smart financial decisions so they keep their money and have to work at staying afloat or expanding their wealth.

Major investors are taking huge risks, and not only expect but deserve returns on their investment.

As much as you hate rich people, by imposing your anti-rich agenda would end up hurting everyone in the country.

Ummm to me this is a little like guys I know whose fathers worked hard farming and buying up land then give it to their son's to take over. The sons never "earned" that wealth, it was handed to them on a silver platter. They obviously have a huge advantage over people who have to make it on their own. Its a little dishonest to claim that those born into wealth did anything to deserve it. That said I do not think we should go take over 10% of that farm, the father earned it and can give it to his son if he wants to. I think a tax should be placed on inheritance, but it has to be reasonable.

[Alta4ever]

We live in a bad economic time. If someone has $2,000,000 or more they should have to share like 10% with unemployed people of the same race.

reasons why:

1.) economy is bad and unemployment is at a record high yet greedy fat cats get to have a savings with 7 figures? wow.....

2.) people don't mind helping their own race

thoughts or opinions?

i heard 4 fat guys were stealing billions of dollars and buying jets with our taxes

sounds like you are jealous.

[Oleg Bach]

sounds like you are jealous.

He's not jealous, maybe you just feel left out - Awhh to sit on the gold plated toilet set of a Lear Jet and let go a big one at 30 thousand feet - so god like..

[Topaz]

I think being poor can make some people a little mental. I know of a guy went through the Depression, went to war in the WW2, was nearly killed on last mission, came back, went into business, ended up a manager of the investment company. During his time to become a multi-millionaire, he made his family go without, he was very tight with the money. As he grew older, he did loosen some what, but his kids hated him, the mother died of Alzheimer's after 16 years in a home and the dad died of a heart attack. In his Will, yeah he had millions but the government really got a lot too. 14,000 just for probate and thousand more for taxes on investments etc. The kids learn that family and your health are important than being rich. Besides, rich people have other problems with money and has the saying goes , you can't take it with you!!

[Oleg Bach]

Pretending you have none must be a real strain..

[Pliny]

My original point was that the super rich justify their actions by resorting to what they call

"The human nature factor" - They attempt to believe that all of humanity is base - animalistic and void of goodness so they are fair game to abuse and consume like product.

Some of them like their pets. We all get upset if our pets bite us.

Being willing to kill is not the same as killing just like being willing to die is not the same as dying. The reasons for both must never be selfish.

I see no difference between the sense of entitlement of the rich and that of the poor on welfare. They both have to learn that entitlements are earned and not a birthright. If they want to keep their entitlements and maintain respect they must earn it and not use them as a weapon. They will only have the weapon as long as people will tolerate them......and so life goes on as weapons change hands in the land of unearned entitlements.

[Pliny]

Pretending you have none must be a real strain..

[Oleg Bach]

Some of them like their pets. We all get upset if our pets bite us.

Being willing to kill is not the same as killing just like being willing to die is not the same as dying. The reasons for both must never be selfish.

I see no difference between the sense of entitlement of the rich and that of the poor on welfare. They both have to learn that entitlements are earned and not a birthright. If they want to keep their entitlements and maintain respect they must earn it and not use them as a weapon. They will only have the weapon as long as people will tolerate them......and so life goes on as weapons change hands in the land of unearned entitlements.

Good little essay. In full agreement with you - there is not much different in the mentality of the intergenerational rich and those who have been on welfare for generations. BOTH believe the world owes them a living - The welfare type is to stupid and lazy to water a garden and beautify his home - and the rich hire someone to bring about the glory of nature - but really do not care to ponder the gardern for it's natural richness. One is no better than the other.

[guyser]

Even if they never really worked for it but gained it through usury?

Let me put it into words you understand.

It is none of your business.

It is theirs to do with it as they see fit. Best we can do is hope they may be charitable.

You are assuming that those with gobs of money really worked themselves into it. Many were either mentored or given a financial helping hand and many have burned quite a few people in their climb to the top.

And the relevance of that is?

IOW there is no relevance how anyone got the money, apart from criminal activity.

Few people at the top, born into privilege ever really work for their money. Major investors actually gain their money through usury. Would you exempt them?

I exempt anyone who did the work (legally) and reaped the rewards.

[segnosaur]

Even if they never really worked for it but gained it through usury?

Ummm.... not sure if you actually understand the definition of the word, but Usury is a crime of charging people more interest than you're legally allowed (e.g. loan sharking). I doubt that any significant number of rich people got that way by being 'loan sharks'.

You did referr to people being given a 'financial helping hand' later on... perhaps instead of referring to 'usury' you should have used the word 'inheritance'. (more on that later).

You are assuming that those with gobs of money really worked themselves into it. Many were either mentored or given a financial helping hand and many have burned quite a few people in their climb to the top.

Few people at the top, born into privilege ever really work for their money. Major investors actually gain their money through usury. Would you exempt them?

Actually, the majority (69%) of wealthy people (more than $500,000 in investable assets) actually obtained their wealth through either work, business ownership, or investments (based on their own efforts). Only a tiny portion (6%) are rich ONLY because of inheritance, and of the remaining 25%, they may have inherited some of their money, but they have also increased their wealth through their own efforts.

So, 2/3s of all wealthy people actually did work for their money.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/04/11/ear...rs/?mod=WSJBlog

Edited March 20, 2009 by segnosaur