What's the big deal about being rich?

[Dwalin2010]

Can you substantiate that claim?

I don't like having things forcibly taken from me, the rich probably don't either. You shouldn't expect charity from people simply because they have more. That defeats the purpose of altruism.

I was mostly referring to the tycoons of organized crime who continue to kill for money even when they already have enough to live 100 lives without problems.

As for the rest, I don't really understand what you are saying. Why shouldn't I expect it from them and why does it defeat the purpose of altruism? I you already have hundreds of millions, what will you do with billions? Just lie on them and guard them like a dragon with its treasure?

[bottlegnomes]

You want me to find one time in United States history where a corporation, because of a lower tax rate, invested more, which led to any poor person being in a better state? Like higher wages? Better technology?

What part of this process are you saying is fundamentally false? Are you saying that corporations will not invest more when they have more? Or that investment can't possibly help the poor?

I'm saying the Reagan Era was an example of a time when investing in the rich didn't help the poor. It raised inflation far more than it raised the minimum wag leaving poor people in search of jobs with a higher wage just so they could keep a the same standar of living.

They'll invest more in what is good for them with little regard for how much it helps anyone else. That doesn't help the lower classes.

I'm not saying being concerned about your own wellbeing is bad, but it doesn't help anyone but yourself as trickle-down economics would have us believe.

Edited May 6, 2013 by bottlegnomes

[Esau of Isaac]

As for the rest, I don't really understand what you are saying. Why shouldn't I expect it from them and why does it defeat the purpose of altruism?

It defeats the purpose of altruism so --so long as you are arguing from this position as I assume you are-- because it is mandatory. How is something charitable if it is a requirement? Do you consider taxes charity? If so then the rich give out quite a bit more in charity than anyone else.

I you already have hundreds of millions, what will you do with billions? Just lie on them and guard them like a dragon with its treasure?

I don't know. It depends on who you're talking about. Who cares, they're not harming anyone by holding it. They are taxed like everyone else, they just happen to have more afterwards.

They'll invest more in what is good for them with little regard for how much it helps anyone else. That doesn't help the lower classes.

You keep saying this as though it is a necessary truth but it is not. Once again, what part of this are you disagreeing with? Stop saying "trickle-down" and point out for me where in the process the poor will never benefit from investors benefiting. Are you saying that investors will never invest when faced with greater profits? Are you saying that their investments cannot possibly help the poor?

A corporation's taxes drop. It spends more of this money hiring workers, raising wages, or expanding business to reach more markets of consumers. Some of these people that benefit are poor, sometimes more. Are you saying this cannot happen? Are you saying that it has not happened countless times throughout history?

Either way, corporations will always invest for their sake. I never said that they will directly work to benefit the poor. Their bottom line is profits. That's why they exist. If they don't, it's the board's responsibility to elect new executives to get the job done. If they can't do it then it's the shareholders' job to elect a new board. Everyone can benefit from investors investing, but that doesn't mean that investors are trying to help everyone. This is the basis of capitalism.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Dwalin2010]

It defeats the purpose of altruism so --so long as you are arguing from this position as I assume you are-- because it is mandatory. How is something charitable if it is a requirement? Do you consider taxes charity? If so then the rich give out quite a bit more in charity than anyone else.

If it won't be charity anymore, it's still better if it will help starving people. As for taxes, much of the public money is simply stolen by people in the government administration and never reaches its charitable purpose. Don't know how much this fact is valid in the USA, but in the country where I come from (Russia) and the country I live in now (Italy) it's pretty much common practice.

To be honest, you were the last person on this forum I expected to try to find a justification of social injustices. From you position in the "Truman war criminal" topic I thought you were more compassionate towards the suffering.

[Esau of Isaac]

As for taxes, much of the public money is simply stolen by people in the government administration and never reaches its charitable purpose. Don't know how much this fact is valid in the USA, but in the country where I come from (Russia) and the country I live in now (Italy) it's pretty much common practice.

I am not familiar at all with operations in Italy and Russia. How does this happen?

To be honest, you were the last person on this forum I expected to try to find a justification of social injustices. From you position in the "Truman war criminal" topic I thought you were more compassionate towards the suffering.

To say that I am not compassionate towards the suffering is coming to the wrong conclusion from what I have said; on the contrary, I deeply care for people who are in need. I simply don't believe it's morally justifiable to steal from those that are not as badly off because of that, nor that it is ethically indefensible to keep income and not donate. The rich are not actively harming others by being rich. Many of them attempt to help suffering communities and that is marvelous. Many others want to live day to day lives like the rest of us, and I don't find any fault in that. I mean sure, I harbor resentment towards many mega-rich individuals, but much of it tends to stem from jealousness at not being able to live a life as comfortably.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Dwalin2010]

I am not familiar at all with operations in Italy and Russia. How does this happen?

I can't really describe the details, as I am not good in understanding economy and financial crimes and schemes, but the fact is that large sums of money directed at helping the poor, building hospitals, schools etc. are simply pocketed by the people who are supposed to organize this. In Italy, in the southern regions, there is also the demand by the local mafia (or camorra, 'ndrangheta etc.) for a cut of any money investment used on their territory. If they are supposed to spend a certain amount of money to build schools from good materials, they often pocket most of the money and buy materials of lesser quality, so the buildings later crash on the children's and teachers' heads.

As for Russia, I haven't been there for years, maybe things got better now, but there is really a strong association between the concepts "big businessman" and "mafia boss". The violent solution of business conflicts is rather common.

Don't get me wrong, these countries aren't war zones (at least no more), but the organized crime problem is VERY strong.

[viyut]

As for taxes, much of the public money is simply stolen by people in the government administration and never reaches its charitable purpose. Don't know how much this fact is valid in the USA, but in the country where I come from (Russia) and the country I live in now (Italy) it's pretty much common practice.

That happens in Brazil too, in fact according to this site the destination of R$832Billion (about $407 billion) of money collected from taxes in 2012 is unknown.

I you already have hundreds of millions, what will you do with billions? Just lie on them and guard them like a dragon with its treasure?

Well, no one wants the result of their hard work to vanish, so yes.

Edited May 22, 2013 by viyut

[Bishop Rodan]

Money destroys everything it touches; it has literally torn my family apart over the years. My father's side of the family is fairly wealthy, and for pretty much my entire life my dad and my uncle have been fighting over the money because they each beleive that the other one got a bigger share of it then them, despite the fact that both of them had more than most hardworking people will ever have in their entire lives handed to them on a silver platter. It got so bad that my dad ended up moving our family to the other side of the Atlantic. Thank christ my mum/aunt were actually sensible and raised my sister and I/my cousins to realise that money isn't everything and that we have it pretty damn good and should be bloody grateful for it.

When people say "money is the root of all evil", they're completely right.

Quote

I you already have hundreds of millions, what will you do with billions? Just lie on them and guard them like a dragon with its treasure?

Well, no one wants the result of their hard work to vanish, so yes.

Literal "fuck you, got mine", I'm impressed.

[Esau of Isaac]

When people say "money is the root of all evil", they're completely right.

Money is coveted because it is power. It gives its user the power to exchange it for their desires. Money is no more the root of all evil than guns are the root of all killing. It is only a resource controlled by people. If anything is the root of evil, it lies within humanity. After all, we created the concept.

Literal "fuck you, got mine", I'm impressed.

That is not what he said at all.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[viyut]

Literal "fuck you, got mine", I'm impressed.

More like: "i worked to earn it, why would i give it away!"

[I.M. Gei]

oh look at all that herd work it takes to inherit billions of dollars from daddy or to be born a white male into a wealthy family that can afford elite prep schools and shelling out money for the Ivy League!!!!!!

edit: I'm not saying "rags to riches" doesn't happen or isn't possible, but studies prove that it is an incredibly, incredibly small percentage of people and the US has one of the worst rates of upward mobility among the Western world.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Black★Rock Shooter

[viyut]

oh look at all that herd work it takes to inherit millions of dollars from daddy or being born a white male into a wealthy family that can afford schooling!!!!!!

edit: I'm not saying "rags to riches" doesn't happen or isn't possible, but studies prove that it is an incredibly, incredibly small percentage of people and the US has one of the worst rates of upward mobility among the Western world.

Well, maybe it doesn't happen in US, but it happens quite often in Brazil. There is lots of people who were dirt poor in their childhood but were smart and worked hard and ended up rich. My grandfather was like that, he was from a really poor family that couldn't even afford to send him to school, but he learned math by himself, built a store (it was both a bar and a store, and he had some interesting tricks to keep the customers for very long, and the longer they stay, the more they consume) and that turned him into the richest person in his town for some time.

But like a famous phrase in brazil says: "dinheiro na mão é vendaval" money in hand goes away like the wind.

Edited May 23, 2013 by viyut

[Esau of Isaac]

edit: I'm not saying "rags to riches" doesn't happen or isn't possible, but studies prove that it is an incredibly, incredibly small percentage of people and the US has one of the worst rates of upward mobility among the Western world.

It depends on how you categorize rich. If rich is being in the top 20% of income earners, then attaining an $80,000 yearly income is definitely not ridiculously unheard of. I can't speak of comparative upwards mobility, so I'd like to see some statistics in that area, but it certainly doesn't seem that bad. Either way it's disingenuous to imply people sitting on money is the reason why social mobility is weakened, if that's indeed what you are saying.

[Vorena]

I think you can build wealth and eventually make it out of absolute worst living conditions. However, in order to do so I think requires a pretty good education. By education, I am not talking about random historical facts you might know. Rather having the information about your current situation and resources available too you, How to be clever with what is available to you and make the most out of it.

Each generation of a family can build upon the last and over the course of many generations you see a rags to riches. Sadly, wealth is easier to pass or take away than teaching people. I really wish education was a higher priority. I think this old saying puts it rather nicely,

"You can give a person a fish and feed him or her for a day,

or you can teach her or him how to fish and they are feed for a lifetime"

I see more charities for food donations than I do talk about how to get people who are dependent on such resources a way out of the bloody trap cycle. Then, you have the issue of people not really knowing where money is going or how its spent. Parents kept saying to donate at least a little bit for our local church, but to me I was never educated on how that money was being used. I kept doing it based on the loose fact that its going to something good.

Politics are very similar. How many people here who have the ability to have a vote are properly educated on what is going on with the candidates you are supporting. Even then, probably most of what you believe you think is true might actually be all lies or not the whole true. From my stand point, most of the information I gleam about politics all go through a second hand source before getting back to me. Media being the largest or other people's opinions. I have no way of knowing what is truth from lies.

[Anouleth]

To say that I am not compassionate towards the suffering is coming to the wrong conclusion from what I have said; on the contrary, I deeply care for people who are in need. I simply don't believe it's morally justifiable to steal from those that are not as badly off because of that, nor that it is ethically indefensible to keep income and not donate. The rich are not actively harming others by being rich. Many of them attempt to help suffering communities and that is marvelous. Many others want to live day to day lives like the rest of us, and I don't find any fault in that. I mean sure, I harbor resentment towards many mega-rich individuals, but much of it tends to stem from jealousness at not being able to live a life as comfortably.

It's not about finding fault. Taxing the rich is not done because they don't "deserve" their money, or because they've done anything wrong at all, it is done because they have money, and they will miss it the least. Perhaps it might be "fairer" to have a flat tax, or even a poll tax, or perhaps it might be fairer still to have no taxes at all and leave people to fend for themselves, but I don't believe that the government exists to execute people's ideas of "fairness", or to give people what they "deserve", but rather to make sure that people's needs are met and that society is ordered and peaceful. To that end, you have to tax people, and to that end, it is less disruptive to tax the rich more heavily than the poor. Whether or not they deserve to be taxed is a question far beyond any of us. Who among us gets what we deserve? You might well count yourself lucky that you don't get what you deserve, which might be far less or far more than what you get now, or both. Whatever it means to deserve anything anyway.

I had a marvelous idea the other day about tax. The complaint is often made about tax that by confiscating a portion of a person's income, you reduce the incentive for them to have income. So why don't the government pick names from a lottery, and then impose a large tax on the savings of whoever's names they pick? By rendering a random portion of the population destitute, you would give them a very large incentive to work harder to dig themselves out of poverty, while everyone else would want to save up as much money as possible so that if they get picked by the lottery, they won't be rendered completely destitute. And of course, it's completely fair, because everyone has the same chance of being arbitrarily turned into a penniless scrounger living off of discarded breadcrusts. And for most people, it's win-win, because they don't have to pay any tax at all any more, they just have to live with the knowledge that at any time, their life could be completely ruined! Man, they should employ me at a think-tank or something.

[Chiki]

1. It is not easy to save money in today's society. A lot of people just can't afford to; others have debts to pay, and so on.

2. That would just be unfair. Why would you pick whose money is taken based on luck? You can make the same amount of money by taxing everyone.

3. Imagine taxing a poor person a large percent of their income... that's just not fair. It's rich people we want to target.

4. That doesn't make much money. You can make more money by taxing rich people a lot (I'd say most of their income, and keep them on an equal level with the middle class).

5. People don't have good opportunities. Even if they want to save money, they won't be able to find the right job that would enable them to do so.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Chiki

[Shin]

Aeine, Anouleth wasn't entirely serious with his idea. As good as it was, I don't think he'd do it.

The rich should be taxed more because they can actually afford to be taxed. If you take 40% of a rich person's income, they still have a substantial 60% left. However, if you tax a poorer person 10%, when they're only just making even, they struggle. The dilemma comes about if you tax the rich too harshly, they leave the country for one where income tax is less. There needs to be a balance.

[Esau of Isaac]

It's not about finding fault. Taxing the rich is not done because they don't "deserve" their money, or because they've done anything wrong at all, it is done because they have money, and they will miss it the least. Perhaps it might be "fairer" to have a flat tax, or even a poll tax, or perhaps it might be fairer still to have no taxes at all and leave people to fend for themselves, but I don't believe that the government exists to execute people's ideas of "fairness", or to give people what they "deserve", but rather to make sure that people's needs are met and that society is ordered and peaceful. To that end, you have to tax people, and to that end, it is less disruptive to tax the rich more heavily than the poor. Whether or not they deserve to be taxed is a question far beyond any of us. Who among us gets what we deserve? You might well count yourself lucky that you don't get what you deserve, which might be far less or far more than what you get now, or both. Whatever it means to deserve anything anyway.

I was debating over taking the remainder of a person's income after taxes. These mega-rich individuals already pay taxes, yet still have quite a bit of money afterwards.

[kosmikatzilla]

Where I live -Mexico city- is a very dangerous thing being rich, they can capture you and ask your family for money for you to be released!

What a world!!

and even if you aren´t rich, they can catch you anyway!! and ask your family for money!!!

no matter in my country, if you are rich or poor, they will catch you if you have a high profile!!!

I´m very happy being poor... :o I have a very low profile anyway...it is a very dangerous place anywhere.

[Yay4Saturday]

The main issue is money can influence people in positions of power. These people have a significant advantage over average people because they are able to influence policy makers to introduce policies that are beneficial to them. As a result policy makers are more concerned with helping the elite as opposed to average citizen. That's the big issue about rich people