The "super rich" are super rich because someone in their family worked their ass for it. Yes, some do inherit the wealth, but their forefathers were responsible why they were born rich in the first place. You see, the "American Dream" or whatever you wanna call it doesn't come to you -- you have to get it yourself. If you're just slouching all day, relying on food stamps or government aid, then you won't get that "dream."
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygonOr lied, cheated, stole. Maybe exploited the third world through resources or perhaps slavery.... Perhaps they were a usury, maybe an unscrupulous one. Some people have even made fortunes off the back of wars, through blood and death.
The "super rich" are super rich because someone in their family worked their ass for it.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I know what you mean. Those are the few exceptions (ie. Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Kochs, Soros, and the like.) Those good-for-nothings know how the economy runs in the back of their hands.
I think you'd be surprised that the exceptions are probably the ones who did it through just hard work. When someone says I made my money through hard work, the first question that springs into my mind is, whose? The second is, was it legal? The third, was it moral?
That could be a tax write-off.Not saying it is, as I don't know you personally, but on it's own giving to charity isn't automatically a sign of goodness in America.
Not all rich people are cheaters or inherited their wealth. Not all poor people are lazy. These extremes are dumb as all hell.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I mean it obviously is but I couldn't care less about the write off. I recognize where I am in life is better than most and I don't take that for granted. Also, I'm a vehement supporter of our veterans.Not all rich people are cheaters or inherited their wealth. Not all poor people are lazy. These extremes are dumb as all hell.
Nope, a belief that social mobility is common is far dumber.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Dumber than "all rich people are cheaters that inherited their wealth" and "all poor people are lazy"? Not even close.
No, not all poor people are dumb, but the percentage of very rich who at least in part inherited their wealth is a number of magnitudes higher than self made super rich.... Who would be a very low number indeed. As for social mobility, the figures don't lie. Money makes money, it also creates more poor as wealth moves more and more into the hands of the few.
An example I adore.
http://theinternationalcoalition.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/how-war-made-bush-family-rich.html
Rich people are often keen on helping out veterans. 😉
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. So what if some rich people inherited their wealth? How in the Hell does that make them bad people? Is it their fault that other people are poor?
Often yes, fair days pay for a fair days work... Yet everybody loved Steve Jobs...
No, not all poor people are dumb, but the percentage of very rich who at least in part inherited their wealth is a number of magnitudes higher than self made super rich.... Who would be a very low number indeed.
Originally posted by psmith81992
You'd have to provide some kind of statistical analysis of self made millionaires vs. inherited. Otherwise it's presumptuous. Unless you're narrowing it down to "super rich" to benefit your argument. And even "super rich", you'd have to throw out a number.
Haha, no it isn't presumptuous and no I don't have to provide a statistical analysis. The one I provided on social mobility yesterday will do nicely thanks.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Haha ok wonderful, so you just voiced your opinion and passed it off as fact. Gotcha 👆
Um no....
In the United States, inheritance is primarily responsible for the fortunes of no less than sixty-seven percent of men who qualifies as “ultrarich”. In countries like France, inherited wealth accounts for a large part of all wealth possessed (generally estimated at around 40%) and represents the largest descending monetary transfer : three times as much as wealth received in the form of inter vivos gift for example [2]. In
general, transfers of property by means of inheritances and gifts also play a very important role in the processes which determine the distribution of income and wealth. Therefore the problem of
distribution lies, for an important part, in the accumulation of wealth, especially through inheritance.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/03/inequality
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/26/inherited-wealth-injustice-lets-end-it
Oh my, this seems way out of hand...
Regarding rich people , of course there is some who inherited it, and many of the ones that are "self-made" really benefited from privileges others have not had. But this really misses the point, I don't think very many people advocate for rich people to have to give up all of their money, generally people just don't like that there's as many loop holes that rich people and corporations can take advantage of, and perhaps that the top income bracket gets raised somewhat. Rich people would still be richer than others, but society around them would generally be more pleasant.
tbh, that's really good for rich people as well, it's odd to me that there aren't more rich people advocating for social safety nets, and who want to ensure that there's a stable and safe society for them to remain rich in.
Re: Socialism Failures
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
With Venezuela, Greece collapsing isn't it time to admit socialism doest work? Yet we have politicians in America who say we need to be more like these countries.
*Looks at the most economically successful and stable countries in the world*
*Notices they have a good share of 'socialism'*
*Also notes that we should judge on individual policies not on whether or not a policy can be described as socialist or not. I.e. health care is actually cheaper per person with better coverage when done 'socialistically'*
Greece's collapse has little to do with socialism and much more with an unwillingness to pay taxes, all aided by the world economic crash of '08. It doesn't matter what system they used, they were going down.
Remember that gigantic financial crash that hit the world back in '08? Not caused by socialism, but rather caused by capitalism-in-a-way-that-really-should've-been-regulated. More government controls could've prevented that. Also, the more active government responses- sometimes decried as 'socialism'- proved much much better at recovery than the austerity measures people like the US Republicans called for.
Socialism isn't a cure-all, but the Scandinavian countries have had a very high standard of living with it and high stability a couple times longer than you've been alive. Germany is the strongest economy in Europe, among the least affected by the crash, and is further on the socialist spectrum than us.
Long story short, this is hating on 'socialism' as a buzzword without actually understanding the economics.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh my, this seems way out of hand...Regarding rich people , of course there is some who inherited it, and many of the ones that are "self-made" really benefited from privileges others have not had. But this really misses the point, I don't think very many people advocate for rich people to have to give up all of their money, generally people just don't like that there's as many loop holes that rich people and corporations can take advantage of, and perhaps that the top income bracket gets raised somewhat. Rich people would still be richer than others, but society around them would generally be more pleasant.
tbh, that's really good for rich people as well, it's odd to me that there aren't more rich people advocating for social safety nets, and who want to ensure that there's a stable and safe society for them to remain rich in.
The best way to get a communist revolution is to continue expanding the gap between rich and poor by expanding salaries without having those same people pay back in to the system that made them rich in the first place. That's what started them last time, after all.
Heck, that's a large part of why we have social security- the rich of the time supported it because they didn't want an uprising.
One thing I'll note is that everyone benefits from the existing infrastructure paid for with taxes. Roads, electricity, etc.. In other words, those businesses that allow people to become rich, are utterly dependent on government-maintained-and-regulated infrastructure that some of these same people don't want to pay for.
And while a lot of rich people deny that they owe anything above the bare minimum, the *very* richest, your Warren Buffets and Bill Gates, are quite aware of that.