-What is your philosophy, rich pay for the poor or everyone for themselves? Why?
Starving child by the roadside, feed them or let them die? It's the same question, the only difference is volume.
Everyone pays for themselves. Otherwise all you do is that from those who work and give to those who do not. That's a quick road to slavery. Especially in a democracy. Think about it. If you depend on the government for your livelihood, are you going to rock the boat by voting someone in who is going to end those programs. Especially when those programs have been shown not to work.
Don't forget that the rich also engage in charity. American's of all classes gave 285 billion to charity in 2006, an increase even over 2005 with the bump in giving due to Katrina. Of course, the rich are in a better position to give more than a wage earner, so by punishing the rich for making too much, you also lower the amount of money given to charity.
So given the fact that those who become dependent on government programs "sell their votes" and charities are adversely affected by "progressive" taxes, I'd say that overall entrusting government with too much tax money is a bad thing.
My philosophy is to help your fellow humans to the greatest extent that you can! However, I don't believe the role of government is to be a central clearing house for wealth distribution. People need to be free to decide who and how they will help others. We need to be free so we can reach our highest pontential! Communism doesn't work and that's been proven over and over throughout history!
there are people who are able-bodied who don't work and people who do work pay for them. it's a fact of life. but i think the President's plan to penalize wealthier Americans is ridiculous. who says they didn't work hard for their money for many years, or that they weren't poor when they started? the government doesn't have a right to force anyone to give their money away. i think wealthy people should help those who need it, but i think people who are just lazy and don't want to work shouldn't see wealthy people as thier personal gravy train.
Logically, to me at least, the only reasonable approach requires a bit of a mix--not simply one or the other. Examples:
1. We as a people certainly do not feel right about leaving citizens who are deeply disabled (physically, mentally, or emotionally) to the extent they literally cannot fend for themselves. My wife being one such, a brilliant individual no longer able to produce. What wealth I have is hers, and I made that decision long before we were a couple. So in that case, "rich pays for poor".
2. Alternatively, we're shooting ourselves in more than a few feet if we simply say "rich pays for poor" in all cases. If such were the absolute in all situations, the disincentive to ACT AT ALL would be enormous. Potential entrepeneurs would be thinking, "Hey, this idea of mine could make me millions and renovate our alternative energy industry at the same time, but I'd only have to give everything I earned to those who didn't earn it, so the heck with that. Gimme a beer."
Likewise, those without entrepeneurial instincts but who could still be highly productive in "regular" jobs would be thinking, "Hey, why go drive that freaking truck today? If I'm poor enough, they'll send me a check anyway. Gimme a beer."
Although that approach would, per my illustration, be an obvious boon for the beer industry!
Self reliance is the only true way to progress as an individual, family and nation. Providing the means of enabling people to obtain self reliance is key. However, we have fallen into a dangerous trap in which we are now in an age where people feel "entitled" to certain privileges and succoring from friends, neighbors and government. This is among the beginnings of societal degradation. It has become common mindset to expect something for nothing. In fact it has become more profitable to do nothing in order to gain something. Government handouts and reallocation of wealth is not the answer. Continue to further incentives to donate to causes but don't mandate, legislate and penalize the wealthy for the sake of the poor. By and large they have acquired it through proper means. If anything we should celebrate their success. Just give them opportunities to choose charitable giving. Eventually it will happen but we should all be in the attitude and drive to provide self reliance means for the poor and the needy.
I think it's a fundamental part of an evolved human society that the fortunate care for the less fortunate. "Everyone for themselves" is a caveman outlook.
Why think in terms of dollars. Contributions to society don't always come in dollars. Society needs people to fill all types of jobs even those that do not pay a living wage.
If "society" needs a job to be filled, it should be willing to ensure that the person doing that job makes a living wage, don't you think?
When I was in School I could only work part time. I took several jobs that didn't pay a living wage. I was young with little experience. I was happy to have the job at the time for extra money.
Jobs like Library Help, Evening Life Guard. So NO not every job needs to pay a living wage. Some jobs pay more in experience from the training than just dollars.
If you look back on history most of the most important inventions came from people who were NOT looking to make a profit. Einstein wasn't thinking... "Gee I wonder how much money I can make". He wanted to learn and discover.
Somebody has to scrub the floors, clean the toilets, flip the burger, etc.
These jobs will always be in demand, but will likely not make people rich.
So what does it mean to be rich... the accumulation of material property?
No. Being rich means massive financial wealth, consisting of cash and material net worth value.
Someone who owns 7 houses is considered rich.
Someone who has more than 3 cars of their own is considered rich.
Someone who can afford to vacation on a whims notice and not have it financially hurt them is considered rich.
There are some people who are rich in experience and spirituality, but that's not taken into account, when describing or explaining a person's individual wealth.
Just a thought.
Those who can provide for themselves and have a bit extra should help those who can't provide for themselves, in my opinion. You don't have to be a billionaire to contribute, and not all "poor" people deserve the help...if someone is able-bodied, there are jobs available and life circumstances allow, I believe they should have to work for what they have just like everyone else.
We should keep American jobs here and make sure everyone benefits from our bounty. Greed is horrible and if you have everything you need you should make sure those who helped you be successful are also rewarded.
I give willingly to several charities, as well as to individual families who need help. I don't, however, like the idea of being FORCED to do so.
this is about what I was thinking too. I have no problem giving extra to folks who have a genuine nedd, when I can. Otherwise, my "contribution to society" is to take care of my familly, so no one else HAS to. I am agianst the idea of anyone being MADE to help.
HI Habee, nice interview.
Gotta love the misconceptions politics can have on society.
I mean, corrupt politicians taking business funding.
I mean, business corrupting politicians for their own gain.
I mean, a foreign policy made of appearances than anything else.
I mean, a monetary policy of mythic proportions, tyrannts?
Plus, we have a religious bias, where selfishness rules above all else.
What philosophy do you possibly think could account for all of it?
Insanity comes to mind.
I'm very sad you feel religious people are selfish.
We lived by the democratic belief of that of :
For the people
By the people
Of the people, but sad so say now it it all become,
Poor the people
Buy the people
Off the people......Hello people its time for reality check......
And it doesn't quantify what your affiliation is either politics or religion or to any group....!It is the values you live in life and the kind of person you are!!!!
I think the real question should be, should the rich be forced to help the poor?
The real question is why do so many people fail to appreciate the value of their work? The rich aren't shy, they dive head first into the money trough, mouths wide open. Ordinary people need to be a bit less shy.
But I would love some millionaire forcing some millions on me !
Please don't take this wrong.
there will always be poor people no matter what we do.
I just think it would help diminish the volume if our jobs were kept in America and given to legal Americans. I also believe in helping each other through rough times. there is no greater joy that leaving a bag of groceries on someones door step anonomously. Yes there are those who refuse to work that could. but I think we are all smart enough to know who is who.
The poor pay towards the rich and the rich wipe their arse with the poor people, sad but true!
Take care of YOU and YOURS first. Then help those who truly cannot help themselves.
Help if you can and so desire. Do not be coerced by guilt trips from others.
I'm a social democrat and we should be responsible for those who can't look after themselves through our taxation system. that is what we do in NZ.
How do you tell the difference between someone who can't take care of themselves and someone who just leeches off the system?
The problem with social democracy is that tends to make everyone comfortable, materially. This will never suit the very rich. Shift even a little money toward ordinary people and suddenly they have the self confidence (and power) to demand a say in their lives.
Nice balanced view there ghost. I gotta know. I missed you before... how is the house coming on? Some friends just bought a one room shack on 3/4 acre for a retreat. Looks OK too.
rich pay for the poor is ideal so that everyone we be equal
though for the active poor
Seems like a reorganization of Govt priorities would solve the problem.
A couple of less aircraft carriers,maybe a few less tanks,throw in some of the aircraft being developed,stop giving research grants for wetland snails etc.
Put that money into realistic job education programs and mental health enhancing programs etc.
Walla! problem solved...
I say the Government should ensure everyone has a Job. Punto.
Yeah, that's why we so often see the rich out picketing: "Less money for poor people, more money for us!"
Don't be silly, Aya. The rich don't need to picket. They have lawyers, lobbyists, PR men, Ad agencies and Broadcasting networks to make sure that the nations wealth flows their way.
If they do need some pickets, they send the help.
they rich don't need to picket - they have already picketed your pockets !!
Are you sure you are not confusing the rich with politicians?
The politicians are the only people you will ever get to vote for. They are your voice in how your country is run.
If they are lousy, look into your political system and demand it changes. They are the only hope of any kind of genuine democracy.
A democracy that disregards the rights of minorities is not worth having. The very rich are always a minority, by definition, and only a republic that makes sure that their rights are protected affords any protection to the rest of us.
Of course the rich pay for the poor. I was shopping last night for an LCD tv, there was a couple there who were buying 2 top of the line LCD's, I overheard the wife tell the store employee that they received over 8 thousand dollars back in a tax refund.
Thats 2thousand less than I will pay this year, and I ain't rich!
Depends how you define "poor."
If it means people who literally have no food and shelter and clothing due to circumstances outside their control, then yes, something should be done.
If it means not having stuff as good as mine because they won't work or educate themselves, then no.
(I realize this opens up a "how you define 'outside their control?'" issue, but I am, for the sake of brevity, just going to say I don't grant much to bleeding-heart social theorists making excuses for sloth.)
That's part of the problem with trying to discuss wealth. Everybody has a different frame of reference. Most people are sure they are not wealthy, but people who have less may think they are. It's all relative. And it is not only in our mind. It's also our state of mind that helps to produce wealth.
If rich is owning two ten year old and one 25 year old vehicle, then call me rich. I own two homes, one I live in and one I stay in when I'm hunting, that house is 80 years old and came with the property I bought. I can vacation at any time and it not kill me financially but I wont be going to the South of France or on a cruise, so am I rich? I don't believe so, but what do I know?
No one should be denied the fundamental means of survival: food, shelter and, in our society, a job that pays a living wage -- period.
Some equate poor with lazy, shiftless and, perhaps, even criminal. That's prejuice, no less. No one, and I mean no one, wants to be poor (without food, shelter and the necessities of life.)
Wealthy people simply know how to gain the system whereas poor people don't have a clue. Virtually no one becomes wealthy through wages or salaries. Real wealth under our system (a mixture of capitalism, socialism and a few other isms) comes from interest, dividends, capital gains, oil depletion allowances, Swiss bank accounts and other tax avoidance methods.
To help the poor efficiently it would be far better to have government coordinate all giving so that the money is spent wisely.
This reminds me of something I read in our news recently. A company put up a vacancy listing in a local Job Centre for a cleaner, specifying that they wanted someone "honest and reliable". The Job Centre staff took the listing down. Why? Because they said that it was discrimination against unreliable people. Seriously, I kid you not.
Sad to say, but some people are just unemployable... should they be given jobs just because they exist?
Yes, it's true that wealth begets wealth in the ways you've described, but there are a lot of people out there who have become wealthy through hard work and enterprise.
Governments don't necessarily spend money wisely. And they're notoriously inefficient at co-ordinating things.
LOL, where on earth did I say that?
I've been unemployed myself and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But the truth remains that there is a small but real minority of people out there who are just completely unemployable. Are you saying that companies should be forced to give such people jobs? If so, then that's not exactly going to do wonders for our economy.
1% of the population owns 90 of Americans wealth so who is taking care of who? Who are those 90%? This means that the bottom 90% is comprised of:
1) Every member of the middle class
2) Every member of the lower class
3) Half the members of the wealthy upper class
by kerryg6 years ago
Funding for our country's children is being cut, but we allow a hedge fund manager to make enough money to pay the salaries of every public school teacher in New York City. Most of his earnings are taxed at a rate less...
by Billy Hicks4 years ago
There has been a lot of discussion about class warfare, and the wealthy not paying "their fair share",so my question for you, my esteemed fellow Hubbers is this:Assuming that they are complying with all...
by annvans2 months ago
Do you personally know of any rich people who have found a poor person and helped them? I am not talking about people standing in front of grocery stores handing out $10.00 gift cards to anyone that walks...
by Tanya Jones2 years ago
Sounds like the catchy title of a rock-n-roll hit, right? Actually, I've been thinking about my approach to pursuing things of interest such as hub pages, visiting with terminal patients, watching tv or engaging in...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
There Are MANY POOR People Who Also Have A Sense Of Entitlement! There seems to be a strong animus against the wealthy, affluent, and highly successful among us. There are folks who claim that such people...
by Eric Newland4 years ago
Myth: The Republican Party is the party of the rich.Fact: Conservative-headed households earn 6% less than liberal-headed households, on average.The flip side: Granted, an average doesn't tell the whole picture of...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.