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

I do NOT believe on a "cap" for success.

I DO believe that the wealthy SHOULD involve themselves in voluntary philanthropy.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]

No. And besides I said most not all. The same way you came to the conclusion about poor people based on what you've seen, I come to my conclusion about what Ive seen about most rich people.

Tjeremiah1988

I didnt stereotype poor people. I said theyre their own worst enemy. Theres different reasons for being poor, all it takes is a look in the mirror and youll start doing better.. You said rich people think they own the world. A lot of rich people dont even have lives because theyre so busy.

You probably never even met a real rich person. Guys like bill gates, donald trump etc represent the most wealthy in this coutry. theyre people to look up to. I respect them both (even if I hate windows)

yes you did stereotype poor people based on what you witnessedand yes Ive meant a rich person. Ive meant Donald Trump, heck I even look up to the guy and once I received 2 tix to hear him speak at one of his conventions.

You met one rich person.

ive met many many many poor people. One must assume if nobody wants to be poor and theyre the only ones who cant make it something must be wrong in their lives. as I said, everyone has a different reason. Sometimes theyre legit, most of the time I doubt it. I grew up poor, grew up in a trailer park, section 8, went to private school free because we couldnt afford it (no government hand outs, it was a catholic school and they just didnt charge). So yeah, I definitely have a first hand experience with poor people.

You make it sound so evil. "Exploiting the hard work of many other people to reap your massive salary" They are called entrepreneurs. They took risks, risks that anyone could have taken. They risked failing miserably and ending up poor just as well.

And since when was hiring someone to work for you exploiting?! Last time I checked, all those people who work for Coca Cola get paid as well. It is called an agreement. They aren't slaves, they don't have to work for Coca-Cola. But they agreed to the agreement Coca-Cola offered and said that they would work for so-and-so hours for so-and-so amount of money. If the workers don't like it, they can quit. That's how society works.

It isn't exploitation.

Yes, they get paid less, but they didn't take the risks. Big risk, big reward.

Poor people don't hire other poor people. If we start taxing the rich, it will have a dripple effect where less people will be hired, and people will lose jobs. We can't assume that they will just settle for having less profits.

helium_flash

I didn't say it was slavery, I said it was exploitation. By convincing someone to work for you, you are benefitting from their effort while you put no effort in. Even if you pay the person, you're exploiting him or her for your own purposes. I'll just re-iterate - it's NOT slavery, and I don't think that this form of exploitation is in any way comparable to the evil that is slavery. But it's not innocent or fair, either. Think of a pyramid scheme - one guy at the top reaps the benefits of having convinced others to work for him, and very soon, he's making a lot of money by doing nothing more than what he was doing when he started. Well, a business is organized in the same way as a pyramid scheme when you get right down to it. One person (the owner) convinces other people to work for him, pays them a small share of the company earnings, and takes the rest for himself. That's opportunistic exploitation of the need for the workers to earn SOMETHING for their time - and the owner isn't going to pay them any more than he has to in order to ensure he doesn't have to do their jobs himself.

Sure a worker can quit a job he doesn't like... but then what does he do? Again, it's that theory vs. practice idea - in theory we're free to do whatever we want for work. Provided we produce something for society, we'll make money. But in practice, people can very easily get stuck on a dead-end street, because they can't muster the energy or intelligence to escape from such jobs. Or maybe they're pretty bright, but were forced into bankruptcy by Walmart - something that simply couldn't be avoided. The point is that peoples' REALISTIC options are very different from their perceived options. Many life factors come into play when determining what a person realistically can or can not do.

I don't think people should be rewarded more highly for gambling. I think they should be rewarded more highly for contributing. Again, I think my musical endeavors provide more of a benefit to my community than do my investing endeavors, but I have MUCH greater earning potential with my investments, because they are more risky. That fellow I mentioned before (Henry Kravis) makes billions buying out businesses, cutting jobs and benefits, then re-selling them. There's risk involved... but again, what he's doing is not doing much to benefit society or progress. In fact, it's making the lives of the people who get fired and those who are left with an increased workload much harder. Is that worth billions of dollars?

Taxing the rich much more than we already do isn't going to result in the catastrophe that people think it will, just as long as we realize that there's a difference between a company and an individual. Over-taxing companies WILL limit growth. Companies need to be allowed to retain their earnings so that they can continue to grow. But the individuals profiting handsomely from those earnings do not need to keep nearly as much as they do to continue doing business. A man can live well enough with one palatial mansion. He doesn't need four.

Instead of using our tax dollars to have a welfare system that keeps people poor id rather have the government print how-to financial books.

Then we might see some changes.

H8sMikeMoore

Hmm... we're broaching a different subject here. I'm not sold on the idea of welfare for doing nothing if you're able-bodied, though I would support a system of 'government employment,' where people do unskilled labour for their welfare payments.

As for the financial education, that needs to happen in school. Why the hell are we taught calculus, yet no one bothers to teach us how to invest or create a budget unless we explicitly ask for it?

[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]

No. And besides I said most not all. The same way you came to the conclusion about poor people based on what you've seen, I come to my conclusion about what Ive seen about most rich people.

H8sMikeMoore

I didnt stereotype poor people. I said theyre their own worst enemy. Theres different reasons for being poor, all it takes is a look in the mirror and youll start doing better.. You said rich people think they own the world. A lot of rich people dont even have lives because theyre so busy.

You probably never even met a real rich person. Guys like bill gates, donald trump etc represent the most wealthy in this coutry. theyre people to look up to. I respect them both (even if I hate windows)

yes you did stereotype poor people based on what you witnessedand yes Ive meant a rich person. Ive meant Donald Trump, heck I even look up to the guy and once I received 2 tix to hear him speak at one of his conventions.

You met one rich person.

ive met many many many poor people. One must assume if nobody wants to be poor and theyre the only ones who cant make it something must be wrong in their lives. as I said, everyone has a different reason. Sometimes theyre legit, most of the time I doubt it. I grew up poor, grew up in a trailer park, section 8, went to private school free because we couldnt afford it (no government hand outs, it was a catholic school and they just didnt charge). So yeah, I definitely have a first hand experience with poor people.

And?! You said I probably never met a rich person and I present you with Donald Trump and you reply that I only met 1 rich person :| Also, good for you. Born and raised in the ghetto as my mom struggled to take care of me and my sister as we were once on foodstamps. I was the first male in my family to graduate from HS and now in college. See, I can play too :roll: Im done with this discussion.

How much money someone has doesn't have anything to do with how much I like them.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

Instead of using our tax dollars to have a welfare system that keeps people poor id rather have the government print how-to financial books.

Then we might see some changes.

pianist

Hmm... we're broaching a different subject here. I'm not sold on the idea of welfare for doing nothing if you're able-bodied, though I would support a system of 'government employment,' where people do unskilled labour for their welfare payments.

As for the financial education, that needs to happen in school. Why the hell are we taught calculus, yet no one bothers to teach us how to invest or create a budget unless we explicitly ask for it?

Government education is designed to make American dumber and easier to control. That is why they dont teach you how to actually live.

As far as welfare is concerned. I would accept a system of temporary aid to people in "hardship" i.e. disaster relief, ect. But not a system of long-term prop-ups.

I have something to say to you, pianist. I'm currently working my way towards med school and know many doctors/surgeons. Specifically cardiologists. Cardiologists make around $300,000 a year. They do not exploit anyone. They worked hard, and anybody could do it if they REALLY tried to (atleast become a regular docter because cardiologists have 5-7 years of more schooling). What do you find with them. They are rich, and they did not exploit anybody to do it (like you claim is the only way to massive wealth). How do you explain this?seals44

$300 000/year for a surgeon is perfectly appropriate to me. That's not exorbitant wealth, and surgeons serve a very worthy cause and must commit significant effort to becoming what they are. I wonder how many times I'm going to have to say that I'm NOT an opponent of the profit motive, but simply of exorbitant wealth. :P

Incidentally, good luck to you. That's an ambitious goal you've set for yourself, and I hope you attain it.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

Instead of using our tax dollars to have a welfare system that keeps people poor id rather have the government print how-to financial books.

Then we might see some changes.

pianist

Hmm... we're broaching a different subject here. I'm not sold on the idea of welfare for doing nothing if you're able-bodied, though I would support a system of 'government employment,' where people do unskilled labour for their welfare payments.

As for the financial education, that needs to happen in school. Why the hell are we taught calculus, yet no one bothers to teach us how to invest or create a budget unless we explicitly ask for it?

i dont know about you but in seventh grade i was taught the basics of the stock market.

School might fix most of the problem, the problem we have now is that the money is attatched to the school and not the student. If the schools compete then poor people might be better off. Im talking about vouchers not paying out of pocket so to speak.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]

No. And besides I said most not all. The same way you came to the conclusion about poor people based on what you've seen, I come to my conclusion about what Ive seen about most rich people.

Tjeremiah1988

I didnt stereotype poor people. I said theyre their own worst enemy. Theres different reasons for being poor, all it takes is a look in the mirror and youll start doing better.. You said rich people think they own the world. A lot of rich people dont even have lives because theyre so busy.

You probably never even met a real rich person. Guys like bill gates, donald trump etc represent the most wealthy in this coutry. theyre people to look up to. I respect them both (even if I hate windows)

yes you did stereotype poor people based on what you witnessedand yes Ive meant a rich person. Ive meant Donald Trump, heck I even look up to the guy and once I received 2 tix to hear him speak at one of his conventions.

You met one rich person.

ive met many many many poor people. One must assume if nobody wants to be poor and theyre the only ones who cant make it something must be wrong in their lives. as I said, everyone has a different reason. Sometimes theyre legit, most of the time I doubt it. I grew up poor, grew up in a trailer park, section 8, went to private school free because we couldnt afford it (no government hand outs, it was a catholic school and they just didnt charge). So yeah, I definitely have a first hand experience with poor people.

And?! You said I probably never met a rich person and I present you with Donald Trump and you reply that I only met 1 rich person :| Also, good for you. Born and raised in the ghetto as my mom struggled to take care of me and my sister as we were once on foodstamps. I was the first male in my family to graduate from HS and now in college. See, I can play too :roll: Im done with this discussion.

sounds like you're just bitter to me.

[QUOTE="seals44"]I have something to say to you, pianist. I'm currently working my way towards med school and know many doctors/surgeons. Specifically cardiologists. Cardiologists make around $300,000 a year. They do not exploit anyone. They worked hard, and anybody could do it if they REALLY tried to (atleast become a regular docter because cardiologists have 5-7 years of more schooling). What do you find with them. They are rich, and they did not exploit anybody to do it (like you claim is the only way to massive wealth). How do you explain this?pianist

$300 000/year for a surgeon is perfectly appropriate to me. That's not exorbitant wealth, and surgeons serve a very worthy cause and must commit significant effort to becoming what they are. I wonder how many times I'm going to have to say that I'm NOT an opponent of the profit motive, but simply of exorbitant wealth. :P

Incidentally, good luck to you. That's an ambitious goal you've set for yourself, and I hope you attain it.

the problem with your belief is that you're sayin what you think other people are worth.

Why not let people decide that for themselves?

If I own a business and want to pay some guy 50,000 a year for some job then he has the right to say "Im worth more than that" or "Wow, I agree lets do business"

Theres no exploitation either. If someone works at a coke factory theres a mutual benefit. The guy could invest his money he makes working at the bottom, he could make it so he gets educated as well.

i dont know about you but in seventh grade i was taught the basics of the stock market.

School might fix most of the problem, the problem we have now is that the money is attatched to the school and not the student. If the schools compete then poor people might be better off. Im talking about vouchers not paying out of pocket so to speak.

H8sMikeMoore

I was taught nothing about the stock market in school. My parents introduced me to it, and I paid for an educational course online that proved to be very helpful. Knowing the basics won't help you much, though. Investing is complicated - it needs to be a course in and of itself in high school. I'd go so far as to say that we should extend the school day for one term to teach teens that course, because there are few things that will be as important to them in the long run as knowing how to manage their money.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with the vouchers... how would inter-school competition foster a better curriculum that involves financial training?

Anyways, this has been fun, but it's time for me to work. Enjoy your evening, and thanks for the engaging discussion.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

You make it sound so evil. "Exploiting the hard work of many other people to reap your massive salary" They are called entrepreneurs. They took risks, risks that anyone could have taken. They risked failing miserably and ending up poor just as well.

And since when was hiring someone to work for you exploiting?! Last time I checked, all those people who work for Coca Cola get paid as well. It is called an agreement. They aren't slaves, they don't have to work for Coca-Cola. But they agreed to the agreement Coca-Cola offered and said that they would work for so-and-so hours for so-and-so amount of money. If the workers don't like it, they can quit. That's how society works.

It isn't exploitation.

Yes, they get paid less, but they didn't take the risks. Big risk, big reward.

Poor people don't hire other poor people. If we start taxing the rich, it will have a dripple effect where less people will be hired, and people will lose jobs. We can't assume that they will just settle for having less profits.

pianist

I didn't say it was slavery, I said it was exploitation. By convincing someone to work for you, you are benefitting from their effort while you put no effort in. Even if you pay the person, you're exploiting him or her for your own purposes. I'll just re-iterate - it's NOT slavery, and I don't think that this form of exploitation is in any way comparable to the evil that is slavery. But it's not innocent or fair, either. Think of a pyramid scheme - one guy at the top reaps the benefits of having convinced others to work for him, and very soon, he's making a lot of money by doing nothing more than what he was doing when he started. Well, a business is organized in the same way as a pyramid scheme when you get right down to it. One person (the owner) convinces other people to work for him, pays them a small share of the company earnings, and takes the rest for himself. That's opportunistic exploitation of the need for the workers to earn SOMETHING for their time - and the owner isn't going to pay them any more than he has to in order to ensure he doesn't have to do their jobs himself.

Sure a worker can quit a job he doesn't like... but then what does he do? Again, it's that theory vs. practice idea - in theory we're free to do whatever we want for work. Provided we produce something for society, we'll make money. But in practice, people can very easily get stuck on a dead-end street, because they can't muster the energy or intelligence to escape from such jobs. Or maybe they're pretty bright, but were forced into bankruptcy by Walmart - something that simply couldn't be avoided. The point is that peoples' REALISTIC options are very different from their perceived options. Many life factors come into play when determining what a person realistically can or can not do.

I don't think people should be rewarded more highly for gambling. I think they should be rewarded more highly for contributing. Again, I think my musical endeavors provide more of a benefit to my community than do my investing endeavors, but I have MUCH greater earning potential with my investments, because they are more risky. That fellow I mentioned before (Henry Kravis) makes billions buying out businesses, cutting jobs and benefits, then re-selling them. There's risk involved... but again, what he's doing is not doing much to benefit society or progress. In fact, it's making the lives of the people who get fired and those who are left with an increased workload much harder. Is that worth billions of dollars?

Taxing the rich much more than we already do isn't going to result in the catastrophe that people think it will, just as long as we realize that there's a difference between a company and an individual. Over-taxing companies WILL limit growth. Companies need to be allowed to retain their earnings so that they can continue to grow. But the individuals profiting handsomely from those earnings do not need to keep nearly as much as they do to continue doing business. A man can live well enough with one palatial mansion. He doesn't need four.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

i dont know about you but in seventh grade i was taught the basics of the stock market.

School might fix most of the problem, the problem we have now is that the money is attatched to the school and not the student. If the schools compete then poor people might be better off. Im talking about vouchers not paying out of pocket so to speak.

pianist

I was taught nothing about the stock market in school. My parents introduced me to it, and I paid for an educational course online that proved to be very helpful. Knowing the basics won't help you much, though. Investing is complicated - it needs to be a course in and of itself in high school. I'd go so far as to say that we should extend the school day for one term to teach teens that course, because there are few things that will be as important to them in the long run as knowing how to manage their money.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with the vouchers... how would inter-school competition foster a better curriculum that involves financial training?

Anyways, this has been fun, but it's time for me to work. Enjoy your evening, and thanks for the engaging discussion.

competition creates specialization. If parents arent happy with what the kid is being taught in school theyll just leave and the school will lose money. this will generate innovation. I think in this system they would without a doubt involve financial education as that would make the parents really happy.

The way I see it, if you have such a problem with the rich work your way up to the top and do it your way. Show everyone that your way is the best way to do it and soon people will change. This is the Unites States and the opportunity is there, as long as you're willing to take advantage of other people's missed opportunity.SuperVegeta518

damn straight.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

You make it sound so evil. "Exploiting the hard work of many other people to reap your massive salary" They are called entrepreneurs. They took risks, risks that anyone could have taken. They risked failing miserably and ending up poor just as well.

And since when was hiring someone to work for you exploiting?! Last time I checked, all those people who work for Coca Cola get paid as well. It is called an agreement. They aren't slaves, they don't have to work for Coca-Cola. But they agreed to the agreement Coca-Cola offered and said that they would work for so-and-so hours for so-and-so amount of money. If the workers don't like it, they can quit. That's how society works.

It isn't exploitation.

Yes, they get paid less, but they didn't take the risks. Big risk, big reward.

Poor people don't hire other poor people. If we start taxing the rich, it will have a dripple effect where less people will be hired, and people will lose jobs. We can't assume that they will just settle for having less profits.

pianist

I didn't say it was slavery, I said it was exploitation. By convincing someone to work for you, you are benefitting from their effort while you put no effort in. Even if you pay the person, you're exploiting him or her for your own purposes. I'll just re-iterate - it's NOT slavery, and I don't think that this form of exploitation is in any way comparable to the evil that is slavery. But it's not innocent or fair, either. Think of a pyramid scheme - one guy at the top reaps the benefits of having convinced others to work for him, and very soon, he's making a lot of money by doing nothing more than what he was doing when he started.

Sure a worker can quit a job he doesn't like... but then what does he do? Again, it's that theory vs. practice idea - in theory we're free to do whatever we want for work. Provided we produce something for society, we'll make money. But in practice, people can very easily get stuck on a dead-end street, because they can't muster the energy or intelligence to escape from such jobs. Or maybe they're pretty bright, but were forced into bankruptcy by Walmart - something that simply couldn't be avoided. The point is that peoples' REALISTIC options are very different from their perceived options. Many life factors come into play when determining what a person realistically can or can not do.pianist

That fellow I mentioned before (Henry Kravis) makes billions buying out businesses, cutting jobs and benefits, then re-selling them. There's risk involved... but again, what he's doing is not doing much to benefit society or progress. In fact, it's making the lives of the people who get fired and those who are left with an increased workload much harder. Is that worth billions of dollars?pianist

Taxing the rich much more than we already do isn't going to result in the catastrophe that people think it will, just as long as we realize that there's a difference between a company and an individual. Over-taxing companies WILL limit growth. Companies need to be allowed to retain their earnings so that they can continue to grow. But the individuals profiting handsomely from those earnings do not need to keep nearly as much as they do to continue doing business. A man can live well enough with one palatial mansion. He doesn't need four.

pianist

A man may not need four mansions, but should he be punished for be successful enough for having the ingenuity and intelligence to afford four mansions?

[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]

No. And besides I said most not all. The same way you came to the conclusion about poor people based on what you've seen, I come to my conclusion about what Ive seen about most rich people.

H8sMikeMoore

I didnt stereotype poor people. I said theyre their own worst enemy. Theres different reasons for being poor, all it takes is a look in the mirror and youll start doing better.. You said rich people think they own the world. A lot of rich people dont even have lives because theyre so busy.

You probably never even met a real rich person. Guys like bill gates, donald trump etc represent the most wealthy in this coutry. theyre people to look up to. I respect them both (even if I hate windows)

yes you did stereotype poor people based on what you witnessedand yes Ive meant a rich person. Ive meant Donald Trump, heck I even look up to the guy and once I received 2 tix to hear him speak at one of his conventions.

You met one rich person.

ive met many many many poor people. One must assume if nobody wants to be poor and theyre the only ones who cant make it something must be wrong in their lives. as I said, everyone has a different reason. Sometimes theyre legit, most of the time I doubt it. I grew up poor, grew up in a trailer park, section 8, went to private school free because we couldnt afford it (no government hand outs, it was a catholic school and they just didnt charge). So yeah, I definitely have a first hand experience with poor people.

And?! You said I probably never met a rich person and I present you with Donald Trump and you reply that I only met 1 rich person :| Also, good for you. Born and raised in the ghetto as my mom struggled to take care of me and my sister as we were once on foodstamps. I was the first male in my family to graduate from HS and now in college. See, I can play too :roll: Im done with this discussion.

sounds like you're just bitter to me.

and you dont :|? (yes, i replied)

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]

No. And besides I said most not all. The same way you came to the conclusion about poor people based on what you've seen, I come to my conclusion about what Ive seen about most rich people.

Tjeremiah1988

I didnt stereotype poor people. I said theyre their own worst enemy. Theres different reasons for being poor, all it takes is a look in the mirror and youll start doing better.. You said rich people think they own the world. A lot of rich people dont even have lives because theyre so busy.

You probably never even met a real rich person. Guys like bill gates, donald trump etc represent the most wealthy in this coutry. theyre people to look up to. I respect them both (even if I hate windows)

yes you did stereotype poor people based on what you witnessedand yes Ive meant a rich person. Ive meant Donald Trump, heck I even look up to the guy and once I received 2 tix to hear him speak at one of his conventions.

You met one rich person.

ive met many many many poor people. One must assume if nobody wants to be poor and theyre the only ones who cant make it something must be wrong in their lives. as I said, everyone has a different reason. Sometimes theyre legit, most of the time I doubt it. I grew up poor, grew up in a trailer park, section 8, went to private school free because we couldnt afford it (no government hand outs, it was a catholic school and they just didnt charge). So yeah, I definitely have a first hand experience with poor people.

And?! You said I probably never met a rich person and I present you with Donald Trump and you reply that I only met 1 rich person :| Also, good for you. Born and raised in the ghetto as my mom struggled to take care of me and my sister as we were once on foodstamps. I was the first male in my family to graduate from HS and now in college. See, I can play too :roll: Im done with this discussion.

sounds like you're just bitter to me.

and you dont :|? (yes, i replied)

im actually quite content :)

I didn't say it was slavery, I said it was exploitation. By convincing someone to work for you, you are benefitting from their effort while you put no effort in. Even if you pay the person, you're exploiting him or her for your own purposes. I'll just re-iterate - it's NOT slavery, and I don't think that this form of exploitation is in any way comparable to the evil that is slavery. But it's not innocent or fair, either. Think of a pyramid scheme - one guy at the top reaps the benefits of having convinced others to work for him, and very soon, he's making a lot of money by doing nothing more than what he was doing when he started. Well, a business is organized in the same way as a pyramid scheme when you get right down to it. One person (the owner) convinces other people to work for him, pays them a small share of the company earnings, and takes the rest for himself. That's opportunistic exploitation of the need for the workers to earn SOMETHING for their time - and the owner isn't going to pay them any more than he has to in order to ensure he doesn't have to do their jobs himself.

pianist

You don't get someone to work for you by /convincing/ them, you get them to work for you by /paying/ them. Paying them /your/ money. If an employee gets paid for more than they're worth to the company they might as well be exploiting the company.

Employees aren't doing you a favor by working for you. They are doing it for the money. That's not exploitation. That's a trade in which both parties benefit.

What are business owners paid for? They are paid for assuming a risk. They are paid for decision making. They are paid for being the brains behind providing something other people will pay for. They aren't paid for working hard, although they usually do, they are paid for producing. Directly so. They are paid for what they are worth to society; not for anything else, and I think that's the most honestly earned income a person could have.

Sure a worker can quit a job he doesn't like... but then what does he do? Again, it's that theory vs. practice idea - in theory we're free to do whatever we want for work. Provided we produce something for society, we'll make money. But in practice, people can very easily get stuck on a dead-end street, because they can't muster the energy or intelligence to escape from such jobs. Or maybe they're pretty bright, but were forced into bankruptcy by Walmart - something that simply couldn't be avoided. The point is that peoples' REALISTIC options are very different from their perceived options. Many life factors come into play when determining what a person realistically can or can not do.

pianist

That's the individuals problem and responsibility; not society's. Today there is a lot of opportunity for any intelligent person from any background, especially in computing and networking. If you don't like being a Greeter at Walmart, if that doesn't make you happy, buy 100 bucks worth of books, take a 100 dollar test and get Cisco certified or an A++ certification. Write a business plan and get a SBA loan -- start a bar or something.

If Walmart does a better job providing society with what society wants, then they deserve to succeed, and the business that fail to provide equal service for whatever reason deserve to fail. If anyone would be to forcibly interfere with that, they would be cheating society.

I don't think people should be rewarded more highly for gambling.

painist

People should be rewarded for producing. For being the guiding force behind a valable service. A service people will trade their money for.

Business owners aren't paid for gambling, they are paid *directly* for producing.

I think they should be rewarded more highly for contributing. Again, I think my musical endeavors provide more of a benefit to my community than do my investing endeavors, but I have MUCH greater earning potential with my investments, because they are more risky. That fellow I mentioned before (Henry Kravis) makes billions buying out businesses, cutting jobs and benefits, then re-selling them. There's risk involved... but again, what he's doing is not doing much to benefit society or progress. In fact, it's making the lives of the people who get fired and those who are left with an increased workload much harder. Is that worth billions of dollars?painist

Society provides value for value. If they aren't willing to paymuch for what it is you offer, then whatever it is, by definition, is not as valuable as things they would be willing to pay more money for. Having good prices is more valuable to most people than having a rich variety of local stores to buy from. Its not a question of "rewards"; its an exchange of value for value.

Kravis is an invester, and without his money, many now successful entreprenueral ventures may not have succeeded. Since they have, it means that they are now responsible for providing some value to society, a value society would not have if it wasn't for his investments.

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

Exactly! They've worked to get where they are and that's why they're rich. The people who complain are probably on the doll and should continue working at Walmart. It's pathetic to hear or read peoplewhineabout how poor they are or how they hate rich people. Go out and work if it annoys you so much. Yes they sometimes work less than people who earn less money, say a builder for example, but they obviously have a job which takes a lot more skill oppose to a job that anyone can do. As for the tax part, why should they be taxed any differently from anyone else? I think we need a set income tax. So we don'tdiscriminateagainst people who have worked hard when they have needed to and continue to contribute to society. Their money doesn't go to waste either. It's not like they store it so poor people don't get it. They keep the money which they've earnt for their children to have theopportunitieswhich will set them up for a good life.

competition creates specialization. If parents arent happy with what the kid is being taught in school theyll just leave and the school will lose money. this will generate innovation. I think in this system they would without a doubt involve financial education as that would make the parents really happy.

H8sMikeMoore

I actually like this idea a lot! It certainly works at the post-secondary level, and surely one can demand that a certain core curriculum still be adhered to despite the unique specialization of individual schools. I can see a couple of problems with the idea, though - firstly that it may become awfully inconvenient for some kids to be forced to commute long distances to reach a school with the proper specialization, and secondly that the best schools may soon be dominated by the wealthy, because the best schools will, in all likelihood, raise their fees as high as they can like any business.

The latter problem could be solved by tying admission to academic achievement, so that an extremely bright kid from a poor family isn't left out in the cold while a slacker kid with rich parents wastes the educational talent to which he's exposed. But that leads to another problem - extreme inequality of education. In a manner of speaking, the smart will get smarter, and the dumb will get dumber. Something would need to be done to ensure that children with more difficulty learning do not find themselves in a vicious circle where they underachieve because of their disability, then are forced into the poorest schools by competition, thus essentially dooming them to a life of underachievement.

Still, this idea has potential. And we really need some fresh thinking in the K-12 education system...

The way I see it, if you have such a problem with the rich work your way up to the top and do it your way. Show everyone that your way is the best way to do it and soon people will change. This is the Unites States and the opportunity is there, as long as you're willing to take advantage of other people's missed opportunity.SuperVegeta518

Sure thing! Earn as much as you possibly can - a cap on earnings is a stupid idea. But increasingly demanding tax isn't. The more pie you take, the more you should pay for it. Those who feel a flat tax is the answer would do well to calculate how much worse the already disastrous national debt situation would be if the upper cIasses weren't already paying more than the lower cIasses do - and they would also do well to figure out how much better off the situation would be had the upper cIasses been taxed more, though not so much that they do not still possess a significant advantage over the much less wealthy majority.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

competition creates specialization. If parents arent happy with what the kid is being taught in school theyll just leave and the school will lose money. this will generate innovation. I think in this system they would without a doubt involve financial education as that would make the parents really happy.

pianist

I actually like this idea a lot! It certainly works at the post-secondary level, and surely one can demand that a certain core curriculum still be adhered to despite the unique specialization of individual schools. I can see a couple of problems with the idea, though - firstly that it may become awfully inconvenient for some kids to be forced to commute long distances to reach a school with the proper specialization, and secondly that the best schools may soon be dominated by the wealthy, because the best schools will, in all likelihood, raise their fees as high as they can like any business.

The latter problem could be solved by tying admission to academic achievement, so that an extremely bright kid from a poor family isn't left out in the cold while a slacker kid with rich parents wastes the educational talent to which he's exposed. But that leads to another problem - extreme inequality of education. In a manner of speaking, the smart will get smarter, and the dumb will get dumber. Something would need to be done to ensure that children with more difficulty learning do not find themselves in a vicious circle where they underachieve because of their disability, then are forced into the poorest schools by competition, thus essentially dooming them to a life of underachievement.

Still, this idea has potential. And we really need some fresh thinking in the K-12 education system...

they tried a system like this is wisconsin for a tiny bit and the bad schools got better out of fear of closing. i dont know why it didnt last though.

in the system i envision with vouchers being wealthy means nothing when it comes to education. just enroll. every kid has the same amount attatched to him, this way they just compete for enrollment. As the school gets better they grow and can accept more students. Also, this will show which areas have a big number of students which will create competition since theres a profit motive.

its win win as far as I can see. A lot of countries do something similar to this, and go figure they all beat us on international tests.

You make it sound so evil. "Exploiting the hard work of many other people to reap your massive salary" They are called entrepreneurs. They took risks, risks that anyone could have taken. They risked failing miserably and ending up poor just as well.

They're certainly not risks anyone could have taken. Taking risks requires that you have something to risk. Getting a big enough loan to launch a competitive business when you're poor is not an easy thing to do, so unless you're a savvy investor, you're not going to be able to do much with a small nest egg. And let's face it - most people are NOT savvy investors, which is why a few people become enormously wealthy playing the markets.

Capitalism isn't evil, but it is most assuredly built on the notions of greed and selfishness, which aren't endearing qualities. And it is most certainly built on the notion of getting others to work hard for you and to buy into your ideas, because that's how you generate wealth - by gleaning it from other people. It doesn't magically pop out of no where. Even if your idea is pure crap, if you can get gullible people to pay for it, you can become wealthy. Telemarketing businesses count on that.

And since when was hiring someone to work for you exploiting?! Last time I checked, all those people who work for Coca Cola get paid as well. It is called an agreement. They aren't slaves, they don't have to work for Coca-Cola. But they agreed to the agreement Coca-Cola offered and said that they would work for so-and-so hours for so-and-so amount of money. If the workers don't like it, they can quit. That's how society works.

It isn't exploitation.

It's most assuredly exploitation. From the dictionary:

1. use or utilization, esp. for profit

2. Selfish utilization

3. The combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Simply put, exploitation is at the very heart of capitalism, and it's the only reason that capitalism works so well for successful entrepreneurs. They alone would have no hope of running a huge corporation on their own, so they utilize other peoples' talents for profit. It is selfish - they really don't have a vested interest in their employees, except for the work they do. As for the notion of slavery, no worker in a free nation is a slave - in title. But people very easily become glorified slaves when they do not have a special ability or talent that is highly valued by our society. If you're only average in every capacity, then you'll probably get stuck working for low wages, and because of your inability to improve yourself and in so doing increase your employability, you won't easily escape from the rut. Life circumstances can make things even harder on you - like having a child too early. Now it IS possible to get out of the rut, but it's extremely difficult, and frankly, most people just can't do it. Unfortunately, statistics bear out that people born into certain circumstances are far more likely to get caught than others.

There are a LOT of people like that, and they accept their circumstances simply because they have no choice. Either you work for low wages, or you get nothing at all and you don't eat. Sure, you're not a slave in title. But in reality, you are. I've seen this happen to people. I'm sure you have, too. Yes, that's how the world works. That doesn't mean we have to agree with it or that we can't recognize that it is unfair.

Yes, they get paid less, but they didn't take the risks. Big risk, big reward.

Risk or no risk, a company's success is every bit as much a function of its employees as it is the owner. A great owner alone could not run Coca Cola Corporation, no matter how talented he is. A single person can't run a busy restaurant alone, and frankly, it's the front-end staff and the people doing the cooking which will generate the restaurant's business - not the guy owning it. I don't go to a restaurant because I know so and so owns it.

Anyways, I don't really care one way or another if people make a lot of money with a business. As I've mentioned earlier, there's no reason to cap income. This is all about taxation for me - ensuring that those who eat the most pie pay the most for it. So if you make 8 million dollars, you pay much more than someone making 80 000. And you pay MUCH more than you would right now. Had this ideal been applied a decade ago, the national debt situation would not be nearly so grim as it is at the moment, because the people who benefit the most from society would be contributing a sum of money that more worthily reflects the enormous advantages society is providing to them.

Poor people don't hire other poor people. If we start taxing the rich, it will have a dripple effect where less people will be hired, and people will lose jobs. We can't assume that they will just settle for having less profits.

Rich people NEED employees to keep them rich. And as we've seen in the past, giving more money to the rich often doesn't lead to the trickle down effect that everyone expects. Instead, the rich spend the money on themselves, hoard it, or invest it in foreign growth, which does very little to benefit North America. Again - an individual is looking out for himself. He could give a rat's behind whether what he does will help human progress or not, provided his pockets are filled.

A man may not need four mansions, but should he be punished for be successful enough for having the ingenuity and intelligence to afford four mansions?

Higher taxation really shouldn't be seen as punishment for success. It should be seen as a justifiable reaction to success. You take more, therefore you give more. Realistically speaking, a nation can't operate any other way. The things the government pays for are very expensive, and if you charge a flat rate, the rich pay much less in dollar amounts, and so the burden falls much more on people who take much less pie and thus have much less to give.

helium_flash

they tried a system like this is wisconsin for a tiny bit and the bad schools got better out of fear of closing. i dont know why it didnt last though.

in the system i envision with vouchers being wealthy means nothing when it comes to education. just enroll. every kid has the same amount attatched to him, this way they just compete for enrollment. As the school gets better they grow and can accept more students. Also, this will show which areas have a big number of students which will create competition since theres a profit motive.

its win win as far as I can see. A lot of countries do something similar to this, and go figure they all beat us on international tests.

H8sMikeMoore

Thing is, a school has a limit to how many students it can accept, and then there just won't be any more space. So everyone will be vying for the best schools, and the crappier schools will be under-attended. It would be interesting to know why this experiment was shut down. Again, I think the idea has a lot of potential.

What do you mean by rich? I know a guy who is always in a good mood and he isn't rich. He got shot at work from a robber and it didn't faze him. They asked him if he was allergic to anything at the hospital and he said, "yea, bullets". lolVarese_basic

Dude, do you live in London ON? My management teacher tells us the exact same story, with the exact same line at the end every year.

You don't get someone to work for you by /convincing/ them, you get them to work for you by /paying/ them. Paying them /your/ money. If an employee gets paid for more than they're worth to the company they might as well be exploiting the company.

Employees aren't doing you a favor by working for you. They are doing it for the money. That's not exploitation. That's a trade in which both parties benefit.

What are business owners paid for? They are paid for assuming a risk. They are paid for decision making. They are paid for being the brains behind providing something other people will pay for. They aren't paid for working hard, although they usually do, they are paid for producing. Directly so. They are paid for what they are worth to society; not for anything else, and I think that's the most honestly earned income a person could have.

Offering a low wage to a person is like dangling a little piece of chocolate in front of a starving kid. Yeah, they'll accept what you're offering, because they REALLY need to eat - but that doesn't mean that whatever it is they're doing for you isn't much more important to your success than what you're offering. Problem is there are a whole lot of people who are willing to work for practically nothing, so if you stand up and say "this isn't fair," the boss will just should "Next!"

Again, capitalism is built on the notion of exploitation. The use of labour for selfish goals fits perfectly with the term's definition. The fact that you have to surrender a small part of the earnings that are generated by your work force is small issue to the fact that you are using someone else's work to earn more money than you could working on your own.

I have no issue whatsoever with people earning as much as they can possibly earn - just so long as they give back to society a value proportionate to their earnings when the time comes. Heck, I would like to be wealthy some day, too. But I wouldn't be one of the people crying foul about having to pay the government more because I earn more. Without my society, I'd probably be living in a mud hut in a barren field.

That's the individuals problem and responsibility; not society's. Today there is a lot of opportunity for any intelligent person from any background, especially in computing and networking. If you don't like being a Greeter at Walmart, if that doesn't make you happy, buy 100 bucks worth of books, take a 100 dollar test and get Cisco certified or an A++ certification. Write a business plan and get a SBA loan -- start a bar or something.

If Walmart does a better job providing society with what society wants, then they deserve to succeed, and the business that fail to provide equal service for whatever reason deserve to fail. If anyone would be to forcibly interfere with that, they would be cheating society.

Key phrase - any intelligent person. This leaves most people in the gutter, because most people couldn't handle starting a business. I suspect you will immediately indicate that this is why owners deserve to be paid more, and you're correct. Again, my issue is not with how much they earn, but rather with the notion that they shouldn't pay more as a result. Provided that you're still making much more than your employees, you have nothing to whine about if you're paying much higher taxes. And provided that enough of an incentive still exists, people will continue to pursue higher profits. You don't need the incentive of $1000/h to push yourself to excel. If most people make $20/h and you could make $200/h by applying yourself, you'll chase the $200/h if you're ambitious.

People should be rewarded for producing. For being the guiding force behind a valable service. A service people will trade their money for.

Business owners aren't paid for gambling, they are paid *directly* for producing.

They are paid indirectly for producing. Once a company has been established, the owner is of no consequence if he hires a CEO and operating staff. He could die the next day, and business would proceed as usual. Obviously the situation is different if the owner IS the CEO, but that's usually only the case with smaller upstart companies.

The notion that production will always be a valuable service is also flawed. The fact that people merely use a service will not necessarily make it valuable as a contribution to society. Take the tobacco industry, for instance. Billions of dollars are generated through a product that makes people ill. Ill people are of little use to society, and are expensive to care for (regardless of whether your health care system is private or public, someone pays for the treatment, and it usually isn't the sick person). That's not valuable to society. In fact, it's exactly the opposite of valuable.

And then you also need to consider that we have a very skewed view of what is valuable and what is not, and that the financial circumstances of the majority are going to directly affect how much an ESSENTIAL service can charge. Education vs. entertainment is a great example. Realistically speaking, an educator is far more important to society than an entertainer is. Society would eventually collapse without education, but without entertainment, it could continue to function, even if life would be less fulfilling. But we NEED thousands of educators for every entertainer we have, because there are far more people that need education, and because a teacher can only handle a small number of 'clients' at a time, whereas an entertainer can reach millions through mass media. So by looking at the salaries, you'd think the entertainer produces a far more valuable service for society. Does he really?

Society provides value for value. If they aren't willing to pay much for what it is you offer, then whatever it is, by definition, is not as valuable as things they would be willing to pay more money for. Having good prices is more valuable to most people than having a rich variety of local stores to buy from. Its not a question of "rewards"; its an exchange of value for value.

That's just the thing - $52/h isn't a bad wage, or at least I don't think it's inappropriate for what I offer by comparison to what most other people get paid for their work. But I can only handle one person at a time. If I try to teach a group cIass or set up an internet course, I KNOW that the quality of my product is going to diminish, because I know full well that individual instruction in music is vastly superior to group instruction given the way people learn. So I choose not to sacrifice quality for quantity. But we live in a society that advocates just the opposite, don't we? Walmart drives people out of business because it can offer lower prices, not because it's products are of better quality, but because it exploits cheaper labour to mass produce merchandise that will NOT be of the same quality as a craftman's work. And people will gravitate to the lower prices, because people don't have that much money to spend and don't like to spend what they do have.

So is that situation really better for society? Should we reward quantity over quality? Should low prices be the end all and be all of production, regardless of the sacrifice to quality? Or do we just think it's better because we spend a little less at the till?

Kravis is an invester, and without his money, many now successful entreprenueral ventures may not have succeeded. Since they have, it means that they are now responsible for providing some value to society, a value society would not have if it wasn't for his investments.

Kravis is a scavenger. What he does is not earth-shattering - any fool can fire people, sell a company's assets, and slash worker benefits to create the illusion of a newly streamlined business that can be passed on to someone else. All you really need is the capital to make the initial purchase, then the people skills to convince someone else that you've improved the product by slashing it up. But he leaves that responsibility of turning the company into a successful contributor to whoever buys it from him. He doesn't hold these companies and turn them into producers himself.

I really can't see how anyone would condone this. One of the most disturbing trends we've witnessed in society in the past few decades is increased stress and fatigue in the work force, which is primarily the result of companies forcing employees to do more and more at the risk of being fired and replaced with another desperate person. That will catch up to us, big time. Is it any wonder households are falling apart because neither parent is ever home, or is too burned out to help their kids with their homework when they do get home? Is it any wonder people fall ill so frequently, costing their companies lost production? Is it any wonder that we're starting to see a variety of stress-related medical conditions hampering people as they age, or that anti-depressants are becoming an industry in and of themselves? And these people have little choice. Again, it's a situation where you work in less-than-stellar circumstances, or you can't afford your basic necessities.

MeanQuestion

I agree. People like him don't deserve the money they make. But the vast majority of the rich didn't make their fortune like that. They made their fortune through calculated decisions and working helium_flash

The problem is that when you say Henry Kravis doesn't deserve his money but producers do, you'll invariably have to ask why. Let's try a thornier example - does a tobacco tycoon deserve his billions? Yes, he's producing something, but no, it is not helpful to society at all. In fact, it is harmful and costly to society.

And how about a day trader? If I buy 1000 shares of a stock at 48.30 and sell it an hour later for 48.90, I've just made $600 without providing any benefit or service to anyone. And trust me - a LOT of wealthy people make their fortune this way. It's one of the few legitimate ways that a person with little capital can become wealthy, providing he or she is an investment savvy individual. Sure, most of these people won't make as much as Kravis, but the idea is identical - getting rich by producing exactly nothing (or in Kravis's example, by producing very little, then dumping the venture on someone else who may or may not turn it into a successful company).

Oi. It's getting late... I think that's it for me.

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.

Greatgone12

Because most people could be a septic tank cleaner, while most people can't be actors.......

Things that take barely any skill or intelligence are things that you're not going to get paid much for. This is how the world works buddy....

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

*sigh*

Yet another ignorant person who thinks being "rich" in America means being a multi-millionaire......

It's sad really....

[QUOTE="metaldude05"]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 pianist

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?

No, it doens't. You have to have intelligence, be qualified for the job (I don't want a dishwasher becoming the CEO of a company just because "he/she works hard", and hard work. Most of the time, you have to know what you're doing to become "rich".

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

I don't hate them. It's just that there are the rich sucessful people and then there are the thousands of people in poverty.

The rich people should do something nice with that money! Do they really need all of it? Bill Gates donated to charity! Hes nice!

I don't hate them. It's just that there are the rich sucessful people and then there are the thousands of people in poverty.

The rich people should do something nice with that money! Do they really need all of it? Bill Gates donated to charity! Hes nice!

Rikusaki

My family never got a hand out. We came from absolutely nothing, and we asked for no help in accomplishing what he did. Don't I deserve a hand out?

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

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.

Tjeremiah1988

No, it really isn't. Be realistic, dude. If it were simply a matter of following an easy plan to go from rags to riches, we wouldn't have so many poor people in the world. The cards are stacked against you - and most of these things are beyond your control. It's so simple to say that a person just needs to get educated and get a good job. But the problem is that receiving a good education is not just about a person's natural ability, but also the situation at home and at school. If you come from a poor background, your chances of success are simply lower, and that's really all there is to it. The statistics bear it out. You're not really trying to claim that poor people are just naturally more stupid from birth, are you?

One rags to riches story does not justify a system that will see thousands fail.

I am being realistic. theres some very simple solutions to creating wealth, or at the veyr least being able to sruvive.

I think most poor people are poor because of themselves. Theyre their own worst enemy. That guy decided that he would not follow in the footsteps of someone who did bad things and he made it.

that guy didnt just come from a poor background. He had absolutely nothing. infact at one point he didnt even have clothes. He decided not to be like his step father and be everything that he isnt.

I think poor people are typically pretty lazy, or just comfortable being at the bottom. The ones who arent get out of it, the ones who dont just say its societies fault.

The moral of the story is, the guy got sick of it. He didnt just say he got sick of it, he actualyl did something. Like ive said ive worked around a lot of poor people and they were all sick of it and said they were done. What did they do? they just kept coming back to the same job getting their hours cut while not even bothering finding a NEW job.\ so much as looking for education.

it doesnt just work out like that. Because someone is poor you figure they are lazy and doesnt want out of their condition? Again, most poor people work harder than most rich people. Not everyone can come out of a troubled place and blossom with success.

I dont think poor people work harder than rich people. At all. Ive known waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many poor people to fall for that. Everyone thinks they work harder than the next guy.

Not all poor people are lazy. Theres millions of different reasons for people not making it. The trick is to look into the mirror and wondering why YOU arent doing it and not why society isnt "allowing you."

I think poor people do in fact work harder than most that are rich. Once most that are rich, they become lazy and figure the world is theres. They feel they no longer have to work as hard as they may have done because of their position.

If that happens, then most likely they will lose their job.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="Skylarkell"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"]

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.

Skylarkell

Some dont work hard at all. :?

Rich people will always be rich even if the poor person does everything in their power to rise to the top. There is no chance for improvement really in my eyes.

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

theres a chance for improvement.

One dude, theres millions out there. I loved that movie though. I just feel for the mexcian working at the chinese food place or the other guy working at Mc Donalds. Even if you have smarts, rich people will continue to invest and make money.

Look at all the heir and heiress that do nothing to get millions and millions.

And if the governemnt only cares about making money from the middle class who barely has enough to make money to pay for their house and not even ask for anything from the rich.

You've gotta be kidding me.....the rich pay the majority of the taxes!! Do you have any idea the percentage of their income they pay in taxes?

[QUOTE="seals44"]I have something to say to you, pianist. I'm currently working my way towards med school and know many doctors/surgeons. Specifically cardiologists. Cardiologists make around $300,000 a year. They do not exploit anyone. They worked hard, and anybody could do it if they REALLY tried to (atleast become a regular docter because cardiologists have 5-7 years of more schooling). What do you find with them. They are rich, and they did not exploit anybody to do it (like you claim is the only way to massive wealth). How do you explain this?pianist

$300 000/year for a surgeon is perfectly appropriate to me. That's not exorbitant wealth, and surgeons serve a very worthy cause and must commit significant effort to becoming what they are. I wonder how many times I'm going to have to say that I'm NOT an opponent of the profit motive, but simply of exorbitant wealth. :P

Incidentally, good luck to you. That's an ambitious goal you've set for yourself, and I hope you attain it.

Do you realize the tax bracket that he would be in? He'd probably be getting taxed for 40% of his income........

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"]

Instead of using our tax dollars to have a welfare system that keeps people poor id rather have the government print how-to financial books.

Then we might see some changes.

H8sMikeMoore

Hmm... we're broaching a different subject here. I'm not sold on the idea of welfare for doing nothing if you're able-bodied, though I would support a system of 'government employment,' where people do unskilled labour for their welfare payments.

As for the financial education, that needs to happen in school. Why the hell are we taught calculus, yet no one bothers to teach us how to invest or create a budget unless we explicitly ask for it?

i dont know about you but in seventh grade i was taught the basics of the stock market.

School might fix most of the problem, the problem we have now is that the money is attatched to the school and not the student. If the schools compete then poor people might be better off. Im talking about vouchers not paying out of pocket so to speak.

Yep, I'm all for vouchers. The students who want to improve themselves and their lives will be able to get a better education to do so. I really don't understand why liberals are against this.

No, it doens't. You have to have intelligence, be qualified for the job (I don't want a dishwasher becoming the CEO of a company just because "he/she works hard", and hard work. Most of the time, you have to know what you're doing to become "rich".

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

trix5817

:|

The point here - the one that apparently flew right over your head - is that hard work alone won't make a person rich. You know... kind of like you just pointed out yourself.

Do you realize the tax bracket that he would be in? He'd probably be getting taxed for 40% of his income........

trix5817

So what. He would bring home $180 000. Most people don't make $180 000 before taxes, let alone after. And the same statement would be true even if he was taxed much more. How many people do you know that make even $100 000 before tax?

Look, I don't care how much you earn. Go out and earn as much as you can - but the more you earn, the more responsibility you have to pay. Every dollar you earn is STILL going to provide you with a portion of the dollar after tax, unless the tax rate is 100%.

You know what I can't understand? How intelligent people fail to grasp the fact that you can not, as a government, impose a flat tax rate and hope to break even when the vast majority of the wealth belongs to a very small minority of the population. Not only will you fail to bring in the necessary revenue, but you'll be placing the burden much more on those who can least afford to pay. Losing 40% of $300 000 will NOT affect your life the way losing 40% of $30 000 will. You'll still be wealthy. The person making $30 000 will really struggle. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy haven't even come close to flattening the rates, and look what it has done to governmental debt in the past 8 years. Reagan's supply side economics, which were supposed to balance the budget in two or three years, led to a fiscal crisis and economic slump in 1982, and a 290 billion dollar budget deficit (from 77 billion) by the time he handed the reins over to H.W. National debt QUADRUPLED in just 12 years (from about 1 trillion to 4.3 trillion) because of Reagan's policy, which H.W. foolishly failed to amend.

As Einstein once said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. Sheesh. The writing's all over the walls and people just won't read it. Cutting taxes for the rich is not a sound fiscal strategy.

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

Here's why

I work 10 hours a day and I'm broke. There's some things in this world like ignorance, bad luck, and minimum wage.