Why do many people on this site hate the rich so much?

A lot of people feel that the rich should pay tons of money to support all kinds of other people and pay huge amounts of taxes. And my question is.. why? Why should the rich be penalized so heavily for working hard and succeding? They put in the work, they earned the money.

Probably because they arent.

I don't hate the rich. I don't mind if they pay more taxes either.duxup

Most working people work just as hard as the enormously wealthy and are not enormously wealthy. I hate the myth that hard work will make you rich. In reality, getting others to work hard for you is what makes you rich, so it's being manipulative and opportunistic that makes you rich, not hard work.

I don't hate the rich - I just feel that they have an obligation to give back to the society that props them up, and that unfortunately, too many of them can not be trusted to honour that obligation. I also believe that the profit motive and the drive to excel (the only societally beneficial reason to allow for capitalism) can still exist without such a massive gap between rich and poor. If Henry Kravis paid a 95% tax rate, he'd earn $2500/h. If he paid a 99% rate, he'd still be making $500/h. How many people do you know who make anywhere CLOSE to that amount? And do you HONESTLY believe that what Henry Kravis does is 10-20 times more important to human progress than what everybody else does? If so, I recommend you look into what he does, then tell me how it benefits anyone but Henry Kravis and certain other extremely wealthy individuals.

The argument against exorbitant wealth is that no one needs it, nor is any one person's contribution enough to warrant it. It's not 'fair' or 'moral' to the rich person to take away the money he or she was able to con away from everyone else, but by the same token, it's not 'fair' or 'moral' to exploit people for your own purposes, nor is it 'fair' or 'moral' for one person's contribution to be deemed vastly more important the most other peoples' contributions when that clearly is not the case.

Most of the time it's also because so many of the rich are rich for stupid reasons.

Why do the men behind these "Parody" Movies make so much money? Why does [insert football player here] make so much money doing what ten year old kids do for fun after school?

Yeah, I get it. Capitalism, capitalism. I don't even hate capitalism, but it's stupid that a man who spends his life cleaning septic tanks doesn't get nearly as much money as a guy who plays a septic tank cleaner in a movie.

pianist

Most working people work just as hard as the enormously wealthy and are not enormously wealthy. I hate the myth that hard work will make you rich. In reality, getting others to work hard for you is what makes you rich, so it's being manipulative and opportunistic that makes you rich, not hard work.

I don't hate the rich - I just feel that they have an obligation to give back to the society that props them up, and that unfortunately, too many of them can not be trusted to honour that obligation. I also believe that the profit motive and the drive to excel (the only societally beneficial reason to allow for capitalism) can still exist without such a massive gap between rich and poor. If Henry Kravis paid a 95% tax rate, he'd earn $2500/h. If he paid a 99% rate, he'd still be making $500/h. How many people do you know who make anywhere CLOSE to that amount? And do you HONESTLY believe that what Henry Kravis does is 10-20 times more important to human progress than what everybody else does? If so, I recommend you look into what he does, then tell me how it benefits anyone but Henry Kravis and certain other extremely wealthy individuals.

The argument against exorbitant wealth is that no one needs it, nor is any one person's contribution enough to warrant it. It's not 'fair' or 'moral' to the rich person to take away the money he or she was able to con away from everyone else, but by the same token, it's not 'fair' or 'moral' to exploit people for your own purposes, nor is it 'fair' or 'moral' for one person's contribution to be deemed vastly more important the most other peoples' contributions when that clearly is not the case.

pianist

[QUOTE="pianist"]

Jandurin

He's a buy-out tycoon. He makes a business of buying out companies, streamlining them (i.e. stripping benefits from employees and firing as many people as he can), then selling the business to someone else for a handsome profit.

[QUOTE="duxup"]I don't hate the rich. I don't mind if they pay more taxes either.cell_dweller

I agree with the mods!! I don't have a problem with rich folk but...

Discriminating wages and the manipulation of subordinates and employees are simply incedental aspects of the competitive enterprise that so 'incedentally' happens to facilitate economic growth. It may well be neither fair nor moral, but it ultimately makes a countries richer as a whole, and richer countries do incedentally happen to have wealthier, more well-off citizens. Without rich, corporate elite to construct companies and jobs society slowly begins to collapsedeepdreamer256

I agree. But my argument here is not that the profit motive should be eliminated, but rather that it should be regulated so that it does not reach ridiculous proportions. If you can make $500/h doing one job or $50/h doing a less strenuous job, a competitive, money-oriented individual will still go after the $500/h. You do not need the incentive of $50 000/h (what Henry Kravis makes) to pursue a particular job.

One of two options would be acceptable to me - keep the taxes on the exorbitantly wealthy exorbitantly high and re-invest the tax in the people who make the exorbitantly wealthy what they are, or demand that they give away the same percentage of their profits, either to charities of their choosing, or directly to their business in either the form of higher pay for the employees who make them what they are or growth.

What I do not condone is a person keeping $50 000/h (or anything beyond a few hundred dollars an hour, frankly) to himself. I really don't care if it's not 'fair' to take so much money away from a person, because once again, it's not a fair system to begin with. People need not be rewarded so grandly for their ability to exploit and manipulate. They'll do it for far less, because they'll still be much better off than those they exploit and manipulate.

I think it's funny that people often try to vindicate the rich by wanting to tax them so heavily, but yet in practice it makes the system somewhat regressive in design. So that means if the poor/ middle class themselves want to be richer (and so often they do), it would be that much harder for them. But maybe that's to say we don't have a good idea about who is rich and therefore who should be heavily taxed. If you look at the income tax brackets, they are geared significantly towards people who have some money, but not terribly large amounts. jetpower3

No it wouldn't. They could rise just as easily into the wealthy income bracket, they'd just pay more when they get there. It's the tax rates that would be adjusted, not gross income. ANY person who makes a huge amount of money, regardless of their background, should be taxed a huge amount of money. Again, they would NEVER make a huge amount of money if not for the hard work of their employees (who are far more numerous than they are). When it comes to money, too many people seem to have this sense of entitlement, this 'finders keepers' mentality. Selfish and greedy, they fail to realize that they would not be in the position they are in (having much more than most other people) if not for their society, and that if they could no longer exploit the desperation of their workers who need to pay their basic living expenses, they would not be wealthy, because they sure as hell couldn't run their whole operation on their own.

We don't want an even playing field. We NEED the profit motive to exist, because it serves a real advantage to human progress. But it doesn't need to be nearly so exorbitant.

I don't hate the rich. I don't mind if they pay more taxes either.duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"]I don't hate the rich. I don't mind if they pay more taxes either.horgen123

I'm not opposed to either.

[QUOTE="deepdreamer256"]Discriminating wages and the manipulation of subordinates and employees are simply incedental aspects of the competitive enterprise that so 'incedentally' happens to facilitate economic growth. It may well be neither fair nor moral, but it ultimately makes a countries richer as a whole, and richer countries do incedentally happen to have wealthier, more well-off citizens. Without rich, corporate elite to construct companies and jobs society slowly begins to collapsepianist

I agree. But my argument here is not that the profit motive should be eliminated, but rather that it should be regulated so that it does not reach ridiculous proportions. If you can make $500/h doing one job or $50/h doing a less strenuous job, a competitive, money-oriented individual will still go after the $500/h. You do not need the incentive of $50 000/h (what Henry Kravis makes) to pursue a particular job.

One of two options would be acceptable to me - keep the taxes on the exorbitantly wealthy exorbitantly high and re-invest the tax in the people who make the exorbitantly wealthy what they are, or demand that they give away the same percentage of their profits, either to charities of their choosing, or directly to their business in either the form of higher pay for the employees who make them what they are or growth.

What I do not condone is a person keeping $50 000/h (or anything beyond a few hundred dollars an hour, frankly) to himself. I really don't care if it's not 'fair' to take so much money away from a person, because once again, it's not a fair system to begin with. People need not be rewarded so grandly for their ability to exploit and manipulate. They'll do it for far less, because they'll still be much better off than those they exploit and manipulate.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]I think it's funny that people often try to vindicate the rich by wanting to tax them so heavily, but yet in practice it makes the system somewhat regressive in design. So that means if the poor/ middle class themselves want to be richer (and so often they do), it would be that much harder for them. But maybe that's to say we don't have a good idea about who is rich and therefore who should be heavily taxed. If you look at the income tax brackets, they are geared significantly towards people who have some money, but not terribly large amounts. pianist

No it wouldn't. They could rise just as easily into the wealthy income bracket, they'd just pay more when they get there. It's the tax rates that would be adjusted, not gross income. ANY person who makes a huge amount of money, regardless of their background, should be taxed a huge amount of money. Again, they would NEVER make a huge amount of money if not for the hard work of their employees (who are far more numerous than they are). When it comes to money, too many people seem to have this sense of entitlement, this 'finders keepers' mentality. Selfish and greedy, they fail to realize that they would not be in the position they are in (having much more than most other people) if not for their society, and that if they could no longer exploit the desperation of their workers who need to pay their basic living expenses, they would not be wealthy, because they sure as hell couldn't run their whole operation on their own.

We don't want an even playing field. We NEED the profit motive to exist, because it serves a real advantage to human progress. But it doesn't need to be nearly so exorbitant.

It's unfair to say that everyone who is wealthy did it at the expense of someone else/ a lot of other people. There are plenty of people in this world who have made it well on their own in small operations/ sole proprietorship without having other people carry them on their shoulders to success. Similarly they are also plenty of blue collared millionaires in the world. I wouldn't quite say that exploitation is the key to success. It's just working hard and working smart at the same time. Or so the story would go. I can accept my story just as well as I can accept yours.

I'd personally go with the first option. Tax them up to 80% for profits exceeding a certain amount. Bear in mind, though, that exorbitantly high taxes require a skilled government to spend those amounts of money appropriately. If the system satisfied that condition, then my only problem is that it would be more difficult to attract foreign investment. Really, if a country establishes a good balance then there shouldn't be any problems.deepdreamer256

Indeed - and that can be a real problem. Certainly no system is perfect. You can say this, though - at least a government is going to putting most of the money it takes in back to SOMETHING that will benefit society, whereas an individual with that same money is far more likely to spend it on something that will benefit just himself or those close to him. As for foreign investors, I don't think they care about the personal wealth of the owners and high level management. All they care about is the profits of the company itself - and I encourage companies to make as much money as they can, providing they are doing so with ethical business practices, then funnel that money into further growth or worker benefits / higher wages.

Well the rich should pay more taxes as they are much more capable of dealing with extra financial strain.

The poor need a bit of a break on taxes in order so they can afford neccessities and possibly schooling for a future career. The rich don't need millions of dollars to blow on having 50 different cars and such. Yes they definitely need to still have a bit of a financial gap over the middle class, but not to the ridiculous extent some do....

Well the rich should pay more taxes as they are much more capable of dealing with extra financial strain.

The poor need a bit of a break on taxes in order so they can afford neccessities and possibly schooling for a future career. The rich don't need millions of dollars to blow on having 50 different cars and such. Yes they definitely need to still have a bit of a financial gap over the middle class, but not to the ridiculous extent some do....

Thechaninator

I wonder how many people are aware of the percentages in which wealth is divided in this world. I think they would be most surprised to see how insane it is.

It's unfair to say that everyone who is wealthy did it at the expense of someone else/ a lot of other people. There are plenty of people in this world who have made it well on their own in small operations/ sole proprietorship without having other people carry them on their shoulders to success. Similarly they are also plenty of blue collared millionaires in the world. I wouldn't quite say that exploitation is the key to success. It's just working hard and working smart at the same time. Or so the story would go. I can accept my story just as well as I can accept yours.

jetpower3

That depends on how you define wealthy. But if you're talking about exorbitant wealth, it simply isn't possible to generate it on your own. If you do it through a business, you're exploiting the hard work of many other people to reap your massive salary. If you do it through investing, you're taking money away from a lot of other people. Sure, YOU made the right decision, but a lot of people had to be used to get where you ended up.

If you gamble your way to exorbitant wealth, you're just born with a horse shoe up your behind...

When you look at any business that's earning the big bucks, you have owners and upper management making a huge amount of cash, and then you have a hundreds or thousands of people who are the ones making the business successful that are being paid practically nothing by comparison. No matter how you look at it, the ones at the top are dependent on the ones that are working for them to make as much as they do, because simply put, one person or even 1000 people couldn't run Coca Cola Corporation on their own.

i dont really understand why the rich would pay more taxes. for the most part they have worked hard to get there or continue to work hard to stay. i realize there are exeptions to this but everyone should pretty much pay the same percentage metaldude05

Yeah, they worked hard. So does everybody else who has a job. Again, working hard won't make you rich. If you think it will, then I encourage you to sign up as a dishwasher and make your fortune. It's hard work - expecially the psychological strain of doing something so boring day in and day out. And it's more physically demanding than being a paper pusher. So give it a try, because hard work automatically leads to riches, right?

[QUOTE="Thechaninator"]

Well the rich should pay more taxes as they are much more capable of dealing with extra financial strain.

The poor need a bit of a break on taxes in order so they can afford neccessities and possibly schooling for a future career. The rich don't need millions of dollars to blow on having 50 different cars and such. Yes they definitely need to still have a bit of a financial gap over the middle class, but not to the ridiculous extent some do....

jetpower3

I wonder how many people are aware of the percentages in which wealth is divided in this world. I think they would be most surprised to see how insane it is.

It's really hard to tell what side of the argument you're on. Yes, the percentages ARE insane - and that's why any sane person should be a staunch advocate of regulation, so that the ridiculous gap between rich and poor can be kept in check.

A lot of people feel that the rich should pay tons of money to support all kinds of other people and pay huge amounts of taxes. And my question is.. why? Why should the rich be penalized so heavily for working hard and succeding? They put in the work, they earned the money.

The_Mac_Daddy

What makes you think business executives work harder than a factory workers? If anything, the latter work harder.

everyone says the only wayt o get rich is to make other people work for you. everyone says working hard dosent mean anything.

Creating/running your own business is harder than just working at one.

if the rich have more of their money theyre more likely to create more jobs for people.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

It's unfair to say that everyone who is wealthy did it at the expense of someone else/ a lot of other people. There are plenty of people in this world who have made it well on their own in small operations/ sole proprietorship without having other people carry them on their shoulders to success. Similarly they are also plenty of blue collared millionaires in the world. I wouldn't quite say that exploitation is the key to success. It's just working hard and working smart at the same time. Or so the story would go. I can accept my story just as well as I can accept yours.

pianist

That depends on how you define wealthy. But if you're talking about exorbitant wealth, it simply isn't possible to generate it on your own. If you do it through a business, you're exploiting the hard work of many other people to reap your massive salary. If you do it through investing, you're taking money away from a lot of other people. Sure, YOU made the right decision, but a lot of people had to be used to get where you ended up.

If you gamble your way to exorbitant wealth, you're just born with a horse shoe up your behind...

When you look at any business that's earning the big bucks, you have owners and upper management making a huge amount of cash, and then you have a hundreds or thousands of people who are the ones making the business successful that are being paid practically nothing by comparison. No matter how you look at it, the ones at the top are dependent on the ones that are working for them to make as much as they do, because simply put, one person or even 1000 people couldn't run Coca Cola Corporation on their own.

Well, I guess it depends on how you define exorbitant wealth. Some people have made so much on their own or by working in relatively small groups (i.e. youtube).

[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="Thechaninator"]

Well the rich should pay more taxes as they are much more capable of dealing with extra financial strain.

The poor need a bit of a break on taxes in order so they can afford neccessities and possibly schooling for a future career. The rich don't need millions of dollars to blow on having 50 different cars and such. Yes they definitely need to still have a bit of a financial gap over the middle class, but not to the ridiculous extent some do....

pianist

I wonder how many people are aware of the percentages in which wealth is divided in this world. I think they would be most surprised to see how insane it is.

It's really hard to tell what side of the argument you're on. Yes, the percentages ARE insane - and that's why any sane person should be a staunch advocate of regulation, so that the ridiculous gap between rich and poor can be kept in check.

I guess you can say that I'm quite mixed on the issue. Not confused, but just taking different sides on different things. It's not quite black and white as far as I'm concerned. But for the record, I'm not an advocate for income tax as it is for that sort of regulation. I'm more for a single lump retail/ sales tax (i.e. the Fair Tax Act), which I feel will help get more of the best of both worlds. I mean, it would encourage people who don't have the money to buy less, and for the people who buy the most (which is most often the rich-they've got to show off after all) to continue to buy and give back in the same way they've been doing with regular retail sales tax. Only this time it would be a greater percentage.

I don't hate the rich, I have a best friend that is rich. Rich people are nice and polite, don't see what the big deal is. They worked hard and deserve the money they get.ClassicPlayer

theres a lot of people who cant look in the mirror, so they blame the system. its not perfect by any means but anyone can make it

proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vkmQklbdU

homeless black guy with a kid becoming a millionaire. According to society its harder for blacks, its harder for people who have nothing, and if you have a kid forget about it.

This guy proves everyone wrong.

everyone says the only wayt o get rich is to make other people work for you. everyone says working hard dosent mean anything.

Creating/running your own business is harder than just working at one.

if the rich have more of their money theyre more likely to create more jobs for people.

H8sMikeMoore

No it isn't. It's RISKIER than working for someone else, but there are only so many hours to spend in a day, and you can thus only work harder than anyone else to a certain extent.

My friend is a young, talented engineer. He designs technology that earns his company millions of dollars in sales, yet he is paid $60 000/year. Without his contribution, the owners of this company would not be making money, because they aren't designing the technology they're profiting handsomely from. The only thing that sets them apart is that they took the risk to start the business. It has nothing to do with how hard they work in relation to each other, how talented they are, or how innovative they are.

And I don't care if the rich create more jobs. It's in THEIR best interests to do so, and they'd still do it if their earning potential was far less than it is, because everybody would rather have people do the grunt work for them rather than do it themselves. Nobody starts a business so that they can work hard. They do it with the dream of eventually not having to work hard - to get a lot of cash for very little effort expended. And yet we criticize the employees for being lazy and unmotivated. Go figure.

[QUOTE="ClassicPlayer"]I don't hate the rich, I have a best friend that is rich. Rich people are nice and polite, don't see what the big deal is. They worked hard and deserve the money they get.H8sMikeMoore

theres a lot of people who cant look in the mirror, so they blame the system. its not perfect by any means but anyone can make it

proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vkmQklbdU

homeless black guy with a kid becoming a millionaire. According to society its harder for blacks, its harder for people who have nothing, and if you have a kid forget about it.

This guy proves everyone wrong.

It's possible to win the lottery, too. It just happens so rarely that it's almost impossible. For every success story, there are hundreds of examples of people trying to become rich through their own initiative and failing miserably, often because they can't compete with those who are already rich.

Just as there are stereotypes on Black, Hispanic, asian, disabled people, and Women, there are stereotypes of rich people. Like that all rich people are Ebenezer Scrooge. Stereotypes of ALL people will never end. Do I think the rich should pay more in taxes than the rest of us? They already do. Should they be relied upon to put my kids thru college, or pay for my medical procedure. Nope.wslacker2

Society as a collective whole generates wealth. No society = no wealth. So the rich have more of an obligation to the people who make it possible for them to be wealthier than the majority than you think they do. If we were still resorting to an 'every man for himself' mentality, do you honestly believe we'd have come as far as we have?

This is especially true of education. Why the hell should a society place the luxuries of a small group of individuals on a higher pedestal than the advancement of the nation (and indeed, humanity) as a whole? Education is the MOST important thing in society, and it is most effective when the people who pursue it are free to pursue it without the distraction and worry of debt. I beat the hell out of my colleagues who were forced to work in university because my scholarships allowed me to devote my time and effort to my studies, not paying for them. And I'm a far more productive individual as a result.

Wealth is built on the back of an educated society. If you are wealthy, you need to do your part to keep that system running, and that means you need to give back a hell of a lot of what you earn - leaving you with only 50 times more than an average person rather than 5000 times more than an average person.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

everyone says the only wayt o get rich is to make other people work for you. everyone says working hard dosent mean anything.

Creating/running your own business is harder than just working at one.

if the rich have more of their money theyre more likely to create more jobs for people.

pianist

No it isn't. It's RISKIER than working for someone else, but there are only so many hours to spend in a day, and you can thus only work harder than anyone else to a certain extent.

My friend is a young, talented engineer. He designs technology that earns his company millions of dollars in sales, yet he is paid $60 000/year. Without his contribution, the owners of this company would not be making money, because they aren't designing the technology they're profiting handsomely from. The only thing that sets them apart is that they took the risk to start the business. It has nothing to do with how hard they work in relation to each other.

And I don't care if the rich create more jobs. It's in THEIR best interests to do so, and they'd still do it if their earning potential was far less than it is, because everybody would rather have people do the grunt work for them rather than do it themselves. Nobody starts a business so that they can work hard. They do it with the dream of eventually not having to work hard - to get a lot of cash for very little effort expended. And yet we criticize the employees for being lazy and unmotivated. Go figure.

are you kidding me? you mean to tell me the warehouse workers in sears work as hard as the CEO's? have you even had a job in your life? I worked at the sears warehouse they hired drop outs, they hired people who knew they could sit in a corner while everyone else worked. These people were some of the least educated people ive ever seen in my life and you have to audacity to say they work just as hard as a CEO?

the CEO's keep the company together, the warehouse guys can be replaced because you dont have to work hard at it and you dont have to be educated.

Theyre only going to create more jobs if they have more of their money. The more theyre able to keep, the more theyll make which benefits the lower class.

So, in other words its in your interest to have 5 new jobs created rather than 1 or 2. Everyone starts a business with the idea of working hard and having it PAY OFF. Rich people arent like those guys you see in the informercials talking about sitting on the beach all day while you make money.

I mean you said it yourself "EVENTUALLY" you wont have to work hard.

Not all employees are lazy, but they have skills that are less needed than others. Its more important that you have someone keeping the business together because well trained CEO's arent exactly a dime a dozen.

I think its pretty clear you dont like rich people.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

[QUOTE="ClassicPlayer"]I don't hate the rich, I have a best friend that is rich. Rich people are nice and polite, don't see what the big deal is. They worked hard and deserve the money they get.pianist

theres a lot of people who cant look in the mirror, so they blame the system. its not perfect by any means but anyone can make it

proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vkmQklbdU

homeless black guy with a kid becoming a millionaire. According to society its harder for blacks, its harder for people who have nothing, and if you have a kid forget about it.

This guy proves everyone wrong.

It's possible to win the lottery, too. It just happens so rarely that it's almost impossible. For every success story, there are hundreds of examples of people trying to become rich through their own initiative and failing miserably, often because they can't compete with those who are already rich.

comparing that to the lottery is completely stupid.

That guy had a plan, other people can follow a plan. You cant follow winning the lottery instructions.

Do what he did, and youll be alright. He was at the bottom of the barrel, worse than any story you're talkig about more than likely. No excuses.