I HATE rich people...

[Deleted]

Actually, there is. Especially considering once you hit a certain threshold there just isn't "much" to buy outside of stupid things like $100,000 bottles of water and the like. Like, there comes a point (if you weren't born into it, and you actually "made it" in life) where there's just nothing else you need/want to buy for yourself.

At that point they should be spending that money on contributing to society, not just get richer and richer. That's why we had a wealth tax here before.

[Spectral]

We need a president like Teddy or Kennedy who can tell the corporations to fuck off with influencing government.

In principle, Trump could. I apologize for using "Trump" and "principle" in the same sentence though.

I suppose in principle, Clinton could. She just... well, she won't.

[dd614]

I'm not rich myself, but I don't hate rich people because that would be giving into base feelings like envy and/or jealousy.

[Theinquisition]

This isn't how burden of proof works. If you're claiming a collective conspiracy, it's not on me to prove that there is no conspiracy.

To the extent that real estate bubble was a problem, very little of that was a result of collective action and less still was the result of deliberate conspiracy on the part of "the rich" (which, again is not a real group). On the contrary, the problems were about bad incentives and lack of coordination to solve the problem.

- - - Updated - - -


If the problem is policy and regulation, shouldn't you be angry that the government has sufficient power for the ultra wealthy to leverage in that fashion?

Spectral gets it.

I've never said that corporations and large companies are innocent, they are doing what they were designed to do, make money. It's not exactly a murder she wrote mystery to understand that they will utilize every advantage they can to further that cause, including manipulating the gov't.

The gov't is the real culprit here, they have an excess of power that is used to enact the legislation that limits growth, puts small business at a disadvantage, and ultimately hurts the economy.

Somehow though, the tools of MMOC have the misplaced view that if *only* we would just strengthen gov't just a lil more they will solve all our problems and stick it to the man!!!

Ahem...the Gov't is the man.

Why some folks believe that gov't workers are somehow uncorruptable and accountable is laughable at best, frightening at worst.

[HumbleDuck]

The net effect of corporations and capitalism is obviously positive. Everything has tradeoffs and I would not like to make the trade that anti-capitalists suggest.

Socialism has all the benefits and almost non of the negatives.

[Thetruth1400]

I've got two cousins that came into a ton of money via their married in family side of things (their mom / my aunt married a guy whose parents owned a bar, he was the only child, the parents died, they sold the bar and made about $2 million on it, uncle died, then aunt died about a year later, leaving them with about $750K a piece inheritance) as well as them both being married with stable, decent jobs. I also have one more cousin with a much higher net worth too.

I don't fault them at all, and frankly, they're free to spend their money on whatever they like, because honestly, the reason people are rich is because people chose to make them so. People chose to buy things, and someone else made that item. They're free to do what they want with that money, and lots of rich people are also the major contributors to charity, so I don't see the problem.

If Bill gates wants to drive his quarter million dollar Porsche, I'm not going to tell him he can't, because he has also donated $28 billion dollars to charity. Also, when he dies he has said he's only leaving his children about $10 million each. Considering he has 3 kids, that means he's donating 79.3 billion to charity once he dies. So again, he's free to drive whatever the hell car he wants, eat at any restaurant he wants, wear fancy clothes, etc.

[alturic]

At that point they should be spending that money on contributing to society, not just get richer and richer. That's why we had a wealth tax here before.

Contribute to society? Are we talking about tax shelters and how you think they should pay what they truly owe in taxes or are you suggesting we start randomly handing out money to people because we have excess money?

[Draco-Onis]

In principle, Trump could. I apologize for using "Trump" and "principle" in the same sentence though.

I suppose in principle, Clinton could. She just... well, she won't.

We all know Clinton won't and I find it laughable when people mention Trump if the financial crisis taught us anything it's that those who are insanely rich can be even greedier than those who don't have money.

[twiddler]

It's all behavioral to me whereas, in terms of bearability,

Foreign wealthy kids < broke American dreamers (we have a few here) < upper middle class kids < lower class inner city kids < Eastern wealthy adults.

Everyone else doesn't go out of their way to be an asshole.

[Spectral]

Socialism has all the benefits and almost non of the negatives.

Can you point to the country that doesn't have corporations, but does have impressive economic success?

Keep in mind that your claim is that corporations and capitalism are harmful. My claim is that corporations and capitalism are a net positive for humanity.

- - - Updated - - -

upper middle class kids < lower class inner city kids

How ridiculous. Virtue signal duly noted though.

[Deleted]

I have a lot of "rich people" in my social circle and I can't say they are arrogant at all.

I think you are just projecting some personal problems on a group of people.
Try to find a solution for your own situation instead. It's much healthier and you might actually get some results that way.

[Deleted]

Contribute to society? Are we talking about tax shelters and how you think they should pay what they truly owe in taxes or are you suggesting we start randomly handing out money to people because we have excess money?

Spend the money in society or get the wealth taxed.

[alexw]

Of course they can and do. You think the poor makes a factory and then sells that product?

The rich do not create jobs. Do you think anyone would be hired to produce a product if there was no consumer demand for it? Yes/no?

And if that factory did not exist then although that product might not exist, the consumer would still have that income and use those monies to buy another different product lower on their hierarchy of needs, and if there were no factories at all anywhere, then they'd buy something produced by hand as happened hundreds of years ago. There are reasons why we want a certain amount of inequality but job creation is not one of them. That idea is a complete and total self-serving myth perpetuated by the political right as a means to justify redistributing ever more money to the already wealthy. It's just ludicrous really and flies in the face of all reality. If it had any basis in fact, then given the tripling in share of national income of the 1% we should be drowning in jobs if they were job creators, so why aren't we? Why in fact was the time period of highest job creation when we WERE drowning in jobs the 60's and 70's when we had the lowest levels of inequality in hundreds of years? Could it be because that was when the bottom 90% had the highest consumer spending power and so demand was at its highest relative to potential economic output? Come on think for yourself on this and don't just swallow the propaganda whole.

[Ghostpanther]

We need a president like Teddy or Kennedy who can tell the corporations to fuck off with influencing government.

Yes. I have great respect for those two. And there is a reason Teddy Roosevelt is one those we can see on Mount Rushmore along with Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.

[alturic]

Spend the money in society or get the wealth taxed.

Well, I can't say I got out of my way to hide any of our money but I do invest it. :P Perhaps I'm reading too much into your words 'spend it in society', but are you trying to say "I don't care what you buy, just spend it"?

[Theinquisition]

Yes. I have great respect for those two. And there is a reason Teddy Roosevelt is one those we can see on Mount Rushmore along with Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.

Teddy was the only good Roosevelt.

[Feel The Power]

I'd say there is probably even more poor or not so well-off people who are terribly arrogant pricks as well, many who also waste what little money they have on frivolous nonsense. People who just need to have some nice car or expensive clothes that they can't afford in the first place, to show off to their other poor friends and poor people who live in the neighborhood. The thing with these kind of people is they have the added "bonus" of trying to look/act like something they are not, which makes them even bigger pieces of crap. Arrogance also knows no economic bounds, I've known a few homeless gutter-punks who were some of the most stuck up, self righteous people I ever met.

[Deleted]

I hate arrogants and self entitled people but rich people spend money on things that people make so it pays peoples wages the tax on them also goes towards things like police and schools etc. I feel that people shouldnt be mad at rich but at how the bottom is undervalued by the min wage by an an ever increase population supplying more people than there are jobs.

[alturic]

The rich do not create jobs. Do you think anyone would be hired to produce a product if there was no consumer demand for it? Yes/no?

And if that factory did not exist then although that product might not exist, the consumer would still have that income and use those monies to buy another different product lower on their hierarchy of needs, and if there were no factories at all anywhere, then they'd buy something produced by hand as happened hundreds of years ago. There are reasons why we want a certain amount of inequality but job creation is not one of them. That idea is a complete and total self-serving myth perpetuated by the political right as a means to justify redistributing ever more money to the already wealthy. It's just ludicrous really and flies in the face of all reality. If it had any basis in fact, then given the tripling in share of national income of the 1% we should be drowning in jobs if they were job creators, so why aren't we? Why in fact was the time period of highest job creation when we WERE drowning in jobs the 60's and 70's when we had the lowest levels of inequality in hundreds of years? Could it be because that was when the bottom 90% had the highest consumer spending power and so demand was at its highest relative to potential economic output? Come on think for yourself on this and don't just swallow the propaganda whole.

The rich (well, I'd say business owner, but not all business owners are "rich") certainly create jobs. I created 5 the instant I opened my business and current count is 37.

Perhaps you mean not ALL rich people create jobs. Again, the definition of "rich" is very subjective. Are we talking celebrity rich, or mid-six figure rich?

[Ghostpanther]

The rich do not create jobs. Do you think anyone would be hired to produce a product if there was no consumer demand for it? Yes/no?

And if that factory did not exist then although that product might not exist, the consumer would still have that income and use those monies to buy another different product lower on their hierarchy of needs, and if there were no factories at all anywhere, then they'd buy something produced by hand as happened hundreds of years ago. There are reasons why we want a certain amount of inequality but job creation is not one of them. That idea is a complete and total self-serving myth perpetuated by the political right as a means to justify redistributing ever more money to the already wealthy. It's just ludicrous really and flies in the face of all reality. If it had any basis in fact, then given the tripling in share of national income of the 1% we should be drowning in jobs if they were job creators, so why aren't we? Why in fact was the time period of highest job creation when we WERE drowning in jobs the 60's and 70's when we had the lowest levels of inequality in hundreds of years? Could it be because that was when the bottom 90% had the highest consumer spending power and so demand was at its highest relative to potential economic output? Come on think for yourself on this and don't just swallow the propaganda whole.

There has to be incentive to make the product the consumer demand is for. You think that is mainly just a "Feel good for mankind" thing? Money for sure is a motivator. I saw that clearly working over 20 years in supervising a work group on 3 shifts. The people working 3 rd shift only did so because of the 10% extra bonus per hour for doing so in 99% of the cases. :P