I HATE rich people...

[Sylreick]

Generalizing is bad, mmkay?

I'm not against rich people in general, but I do loathe the actions of some. The main ones I have an issue with are the ones that buy political candidates, or use their wealth to influence a major media bias, or just sit on the wealth and create the endless upward flow.

I'm also against the ever increasing wage gaps between the "classes". An increase in wage gap is NEVER a good thing for an economy.

[Ghostpanther]

Trump is destroying it for his own face

No need. I think he wants a full figure one of himself down on the Southern Border, over the entrance way for those entering the US. Kind of like what the Statue of Rhodes was. Or maybe one with him standing next to the Statue of Liberty with a raised sword in his hand.

[alexw]

I guess my argument on the tax aspect (and trust me, I can't think of a better solution) is really one of me not thinking it's right that I should, for some reason outside of me having more money than you, be expected to give 40% of my money, while you receive (most likely to sub $40k/y workers) a refund.

Think of it this way. Should I pay 40% more for ANYTHING just because I have more money than you? Should you receive a discount on something because you make X amount of money only?

That is also irrelevant, at least in my view of things. Taxation generally should not be set to what one group or another believes is fair, which is entirely subjective, but at what level creates the most well-functioning economy, that creates the greatest amount of widespread prosperity. Right now there is too much saving going on by the wealthy and it is having all sorts of strongly negative outcomes on society and the economy. In fact the 2008 crash was a direct outcome of this. That is why I think taxes need to be higher on the wealthy. It has nothing to do with fairness, nothing to do with envy. But that we literally need to save the wealthy from themselves and prevent them sawing off the branch we all sit on. This, written about the great depression, sums it up to me because it encapsulates exactly how we have repeated the mistakes that led to it -

Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951).

As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.]

Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spend by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.

The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.

Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.

[Cthulhu 2020]

did I say that?

I'm pretty sure I've said that corporations are not blameless, but I also recognize that they are doing what is the in their best interest, and its not shocking.

the GOVT are the ones with the power to create regulations that favor large business.

Do you actually believe creating a power vacuum will fix it?

Or will it just remove the government from the equation, and have the same outcome, because businesses aren't going to just behave because you worship them.

Taking away the government's power over business takes away their ability to reign them in when we actually get legislature and executive who are willing to do so. Taking away the powers of OSHA, EPA, DOT, etc. leaves workers open to injury with no recourse. It leaves our environment open to destruction, poisoning water, polluting air, burying toxic waste, all in the name of saving money. Yes, these are the agencies that create crony capitalism, but they also protect us. So how do you remove their teeth without opening people up to harm from companies? And let me be clear, I do not believe businesses deliberately cause harm to do so because they're evil, since I know you like to make stupid hyperbole about people believing businesses are evil. It happens due to negligence, and it happens when they cut corners to save money.

Sorry Tony, the government simply "having" power isn't inherently bad, as it does a lot of good as well. When it gets into the wrong hands, it can do bad. Governmental power is not inherently good nor bad, which is why it is big business who needs to be reigned in, not government.

[Deleted]

If the wealth is obtained legally, through free market economy, I couldnt care less about what anyone does with their own money.

[starlord]

people can be trashy regardless of their income levels. its more of an attitude.

[Theinquisition]

Oh agreed. It's insane how it can be so accurately pinpointed when the state of American politics made a major shift and turned to the total shit show it is today.

Indeed, I have very little faith in our "leaders"

[Deleted]

It isn't that I think rich people are bad. It's that I think they cannot relate to the struggles of the poor and middle-class. They can't relate to their issues.

They have never known what it is like to have to choose between eating and having your power cut off. They probably never will. You can be cynnical, and say that that happens from making poor decisions, but how many of us are two or three missed payments away from something as drastic as that? How many people live paycheck to paycheck? An unexpected illness could put most of us in a very compromising position, I would wager.

Again, it's not that I think they're bad. It's just that they'll never know what it's like to do without, at least to that degree.
That in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's when a person who is in that position starts talking down to those who are, or starts offering "advice" (which is based on ideals, and "how it should work", and not actual experience) that it starts to become tiresome and oftentimes disrespectful.

People are people. When we die, we don't take our money with us. Ultimately, it doesn't make you a good or a bad person.

What you do does.

You seriously think people can't become "rich"? I have a friend who spent her worst years (early 20s) searching trash for cans that she could turn in for recycling money to buy food. She now (8 years later) is pushing a 6 figure income because she finished her educatoin, got a job, then started a business. I assure you she can relate to the struggles of being poor.

[Theinquisition]

You're going to hate no matter what.

If you look at what was going on at the time, locking them up was a lot better than genocide. (Which the majority of the country supported. And had you been in the country...unless you're Asian, you likely too would have supported that opinion)

cool, so hey it was alright to violate a groups constitutional rights because, hey at least we didn't massacre them right?

Pfffft, they should be thankful.

[Shadowferal]

Indeed, I have very little faith in our "leaders"

I'm sure that includes the corporate oligarchy as well.

[Felya]

And FDR is not a part of Mount Rushmore. Hehe. Which Teddy, Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington is. Kennedy should be in my opinion. I do not think I even mentioned FDR as one of the great ones.

Kennedy should not be up there. He was a great president for two years, but specifically Cuban missile crisis was mishandled badly. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but I learned about it first in USSR and then in U.S. The similarities of how one side teaches and the other were nearly identical, but with sides flipped. Neither USSR nor US wanted that issue to escalate. Neither one wanted direct involvement. It was pretty much USSR showing off, without any intent to go hot over Cuba. Similar to Vietnam... If either one, at any point, realized they are negotiating from the point of strength, the crisis wouldn't have become known as probebly the closest we got the Cold War turning hot. Many forget, but he was the other side of the Berlin wall... Nor realize how much we screwed up with Bay of Pigs...

Then, a lot of Kennedy mystique is draped in celebrity culture, not his work. He was American Camelot. If it were not for the mob, the Marilyn Monroe, family drama from how many were politically involved, the tragedies, the fashion, the how pretty and young the Kennedys were, he wouldn't be as relevant right now. They were our royals... Meeting an end that is pretty common for royals...

He might have been great for 2 years... but, he didn't get a chance to be that great...

[Zeek Daniels]

money doesnt change people. People will act a certain way depending on multiple factors but money only lets you do w.e you were doing b4 more lavishly.

[Shadowferal]

cool, so hey it was alright to violate a groups constitutional rights because, hey at least we didn't massacre them right?

Pfffft, they should be thankful.

Let me guess, you're a teenager right? Refuse to go beyond any study of the period and see the social issues going through the country...and thus refuse to understand the underlying emotions of the time.

Always so easy to hate....back then as well. (Of course they had people dying at the time. What's your excuse? Ignorance? looks like it)

[enragedgorilla]

I want to post about this topic anonymously under a new profile since it is kind of controversial…

I have heard many people say they hate rich people. Some say all rich people are arrogant. Some say they feel entitled. Have also heard people talk about all the money they waste on expensive luxuries when they could be feeding the poor in third world countries.

Personally, I know some rich people who are the most arrogant people you have ever met. They think they own the world and everyone in it. I also know rich people who are extremely nice and would give you the shirt off their back. Before I was financially successful myself, I was about to lose my car and my house. A rich friend loaned me money and said pay me back whenever.

I do agree that a lot of rich people waste a lot of money. I know of a really wealthy guy that has a $1.5 million Ferrari. Crazy thing is this... he is too old to drive the dang thing. So it just sits in one spot and no one drives it. He has a son, but he will not let his son drive it for whatever reason. This $1.5 million piece of metal literally just sits there taking up space. That $1.5 million definitely could have been used in a less wasteful way.

At the same time, I also know a rich family where the most family members drive a Kia, though they could all drive Porsches if they chose.

How do you feel about rich people? Do you hate them all? Do you feel most of them carry themselves in a certain way?

I don't feel better or worse about the rich..if anything I would rather be rich than poor or work a day 9-5.

I don't hate them.

No , I try not to make blanket generalizations about peoples financial statuses.

and the bit about the car,
I am sure the guys employed at Ferrari are happy he bought the car, so they can make a paycheck,pay back loans on their houses,student loans etc.
I am sure the guys at the place he ordered/bought it from are happy he did buy it,so they can make money off the sale,maint./repair of the vehicle.
I am sure the state he lives in/ country is happy he bought it because of the taxes involved,reg fees,etc he pays (not cheap on an exotic car)
That seems a lot of people who are glad he bought the car...and you are mad he did?

It is HIS car, why do you care so deeply about what another human possesses when it does not effect you in any way,shape or form ..other than "Meh Feelz!!"

[Shadowferal]

Kennedy should not be up there. He was a great president for two years, but specifically Cuban missile crisis was mishandled badly. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but I learned about it first in USSR and then in U.S. The similarities of how one side teaches and the other were nearly identical, but with sides flipped. Neither USSR nor US wanted that issue to escalate. Neither one wanted direct involvement. It was pretty much USSR showing off, without any intent to go hot over Cuba. Similar to Vietnam... If either one, at any point, realized they are negotiating from the point of strength, the crisis wouldn't have become known as probebly the closest we got the Cold War turning hot. Many forget, but he was the other side of the Berlin wall... Nor realize how much we screwed up with Bay of Pigs...

I remember my mother telling me about the Cuban Missile Crisis. She said for those few days everyone was worried, scared even.

[Felya]

money doesnt change people. People will act a certain way depending on multiple factors but money only lets you do w.e you were doing b4 more lavishly.

It does change people. You might not realize it, but financial security will eliminate a lot of stress, so it does change a person. I think too many people simply think the crushing anxiety of paying your bills is just how it is for everyone. Nope... It's what lets people like Trump and Paris Hilton say anything they want. It's also what lets bums pee on the corner. Neither one has much to lose...

[Theinquisition]

Do you actually believe creating a power vacuum will fix it?

Or will it just remove the government from the equation, and have the same outcome, because businesses aren't going to just behave because you worship them.

Taking away the government's power over business takes away their ability to reign them in when we actually get legislature and executive who are willing to do so. Taking away the powers of OSHA, EPA, DOT, etc. leaves workers open to injury with no recourse. It leaves our environment open to destruction, poisoning water, polluting air, burying toxic waste, all in the name of saving money. Yes, these are the agencies that create crony capitalism, but they also protect us. So how do you remove their teeth without opening people up to harm from companies? And let me be clear, I do not believe businesses deliberately cause harm to do so because they're evil, since I know you like to make stupid hyperbole about people believing businesses are evil. It happens due to negligence, and it happens when they cut corners to save money.

Sorry Tony, the government simply "having" power isn't inherently bad, as it does a lot of good as well. When it gets into the wrong hands, it can do bad. Governmental power is not inherently good nor bad, which is why it is big business who needs to be reigned in, not government.

Pretty sure I said that organizations like OSHA,EPA, and even the DOT were necessary.

Outside of those, and anti-monopoly and collusion laws, what does the gov't need to be doing interfering with free commerce.

We live in a society where social media can make a business's misdeeds known worldwide in a matter of hours. Modern business spends TONS of money on social responsibility projects to not only give themselves as good reputation and expand the consumer base, but to stay in business in a competitive environment. The problem isn't big business in general because they know that with one wrong move they can come crumbling down, hell look how chipotle is doing now compared to a year ago. Big business doesn't have the ability to create cumbersome regulation, gov't does, they are the ones that need to be reined in.

Government in and of itself isn't a bad thing, people however are inherently self-serving and corrupt. the level of corruptness is directly proportional to the amount of power they wield. The sphere of gov't power has expanded far outside of what the constitution would dictate, and has also expanded on a state level as well.

You want to keep big business from ripping off the little man, take away the gov't power to create and enforce regulation that benefits big business

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure that includes the corporate oligarchy as well.

They are not really elected leaders are they?

Big business is only as powerful as we allow it to be. Don't like wal-mart don't shop there, start a consumer awareness program to spread information and get others to stop shopping there.

- - - Updated - - -

Kennedy should not be up there. He was a great president for two years, but specifically Cuban missile crisis was mishandled badly. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but I learned about it first in USSR and then in U.S. The similarities of how one side teaches and the other were nearly identical, but with sides flipped. Neither USSR nor US wanted that issue to escalate. Neither one wanted direct involvement. It was pretty much USSR showing off, without any intent to go hot over Cuba. Similar to Vietnam... If either one, at any point, realized they are negotiating from the point of strength, the crisis wouldn't have become known as probebly the closest we got the Cold War turning hot. Many forget, but he was the other side of the Berlin wall... Nor realize how much we screwed up with Bay of Pigs...

Then, a lot of Kennedy mystique is draped in celebrity culture, not his work. He was American Camelot. If it were not for the mob, the Marilyn Monroe, family drama from how many were politically involved, the tragedies, the fashion, the how pretty and young the Kennedys were, he wouldn't be as relevant right now. They were our royals... Meeting an end that is pretty common for royals...

He might have been great for 2 years... but, he didn't get a chance to be that great...

I think he provided a "vision" for what we should be and could be. Look at the Apollo program for example, he provided a vision of what we should accomplish, and we did. It's rare to find that type of motivating leadership.

[Ghostpanther]

Kennedy should not be up there. He was a great president for two years, but specifically Cuban missile crisis was mishandled badly. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but I learned about it first in USSR and then in U.S. The similarities of how one side teaches and the other were nearly identical, but with sides flipped. Neither USSR nor US wanted that issue to escalate. Neither one wanted direct involvement. It was pretty much USSR showing off, without any intent to go hot over Cuba. Similar to Vietnam... If either one, at any point, realized they are negotiating from the point of strength, the crisis wouldn't have become known as probebly the closest we got the Cold War turning hot. Many forget, but he was the other side of the Berlin wall... Nor realize how much we screwed up with Bay of Pigs...

Then, a lot of Kennedy mystique is draped in celebrity culture, not his work. He was American Camelot. If it were not for the mob, the Marilyn Monroe, family drama from how many were politically involved, the tragedies, the fashion, the how pretty and young the Kennedys were, he wouldn't be as relevant right now. They were our royals... Meeting an end that is pretty common for royals...

He might have been great for 2 years... but, he didn't get a chance to be that great...

He was great for 2 years. Mainly in what his vision was for America and how much he was beloved and admired by Americans and his enemies. Of course this is opinion. But I will stick to it.

[Felya]

I remember my mother telling me about the Cuban Missile Crisis. She said for those few days everyone was worried, scared even.

Yep, same in USSR. They both teach that, but they are scared because of the aggression of the other. The bunkers and all of that iconic stuff from that era (I need to play more Fallout 4) is pretty much a giant misunderstanding from a dick measuring contest, which got way out of hand. USSR measured from the base...

Edit: by teach I mean pre-1989.

[Ragnarohk]

We sure as shit aren't on a 16h a day schedule, though I'm not in the 5th year yet and I'm not from Guatemala.

Eh, it's not 16 hours a day. Mon-Fri: 6am-6pm Saturday: 6am-12pm and 36hour shifts every 4 days without the next day off. But yeah, I guess it's different where you live.