Coming from a very poor background, I have come to realize that most rich people do not give a rats ass about the poor! If in doubt, show me a rich person and you will see someone that has gone to great lengths to isolate themselves from the poor!
Most rich people like to live in non accessible neighborhoods as a way to not associate with the poor!
Most rich people blame the poor for been poor!
Most rich people would not contribute a dime to charity, if the charitable contributions loopholes suddenly stopped!
Most rich people are afraid of the poor, because they fear the poor will one day wake UP from the religious trance and feel good shows on TVs, and decide to vote a poor person into office!
Do you know 5% of the population control about 45 to 50% of the wealth in AMERICA!
And in the world, maybe 2% control 60% of the wealth!
They live in constant fear of the poor finding out why they are poor whilst the rich are rich.
that is why they wear identifying markers to know themselves! They create exclusive areas to live in and make sure most public transportation will drop you miles away!
They wear certain clothes as a right of passage!
They bury the family wealth in trust funds that pretend to be charity, but in reality a disguise to pay less taxes!
I doubt that what you believe is true. The evidence just isn't there to support it. I can list all of the rich people that give away great sums of wealth to the poor. There is even a group of rich people that have signed a pledge to give away the bulk of all their wealth to the poor when they die.
The truth is, it is in the interest of everyone, including the poor, to make what they can, save what they can and give what they can! Society is served best when we do all we can to be productive members and accept personal responsibility for doing so. Nobody should get a free ride. We all have a role to play and a DUTY to reach our maximum potential as well as a moral obligation to help those that for reasons beyond their control can't survive without it.
Oh get real. What about all these wealthy people who insist that they can't afford to pay a minimum wage but probably salve their conscience with charitable donations that represent just a very small percentage of the money they've robbed off their less than minimum waged employees
All what people? Do you just make stuff up all the time? Why should there be a minimum wage anyway? Who decides what should be minimum? Based on what? How many more people would have a job if there wasn't a minimum wage?
"Why should there be a minimum wage anyway?"
Yes indeed pay people $8 an hour, should be grateful shouldn't they? After all if they worked for $2 an hour then their bosses would have even more money to give to charity.
In fact, why not legalise slavery, 100% employment straight off and no one taking the bosses rightful profits.
Hey it's not all about having a job, it's about being able to provide for your self and family, about being able to hold your head up and say I'm beholden to no man. But you don't understand that do you?
This gets a perfect 10 on the logical fallacy meter. Well done.
Too bad too because you actually had a very arguable point to work with and might have opened someone's eyes with a reasonable response.
Go on then Shades, point me at the logical fallacy.
You tried to create a direct relationship between an opposition to minimum wage with a belief that slavery should be returned.
Do I really need to draw you diagrams to illustrate how that is a fallacious argument?
My point is merely that crime is hardly limited to the poor. Crime is a human thing, sometimes by need, typically by greed and/or an unwillingness to follow the rules established by society.
If you are suggesting that numerically speaking, more crimes are committed by the poor, then I will grant you that, as there are more of them to be sure. But I suspect if you count them up proportionate to their economic status, you would find at least as many of the wealthy per capita break the law (crime) as do the poor.
I think it's too easy to blame economics for morality (and I'm not counting the man who steals bread to feed his children).
But if you have a minimum wage set at a level below that needed to subsist and you cry out for it to be cut further isn't the logical extension of that a return to slavery?
Holden, I know that writing this post will be a complete waste of time, but I simply must address your incorrect statements.
If we want to make people's lives better by making it against the law to pay people less than $7.25 (in the US), this will increase unemployment. And then, on top of that, we'll have a less experienced work force.
If I'm a teenager who needs to enter the workforce, but don't yet have fantastically marketable skills, I will likely engage in "unimportant" jobs, entry level jobs.
If the job that I'm trying to get only produces for the employer up to $7.25/hour, then he won't hire me. Why should he? He'll lose money training and helping me all the time.
If i can't get an entry level job, then I will be less experienced in the work force, and will begin my job experience later in life. Thus I will ultimately be less experienced.
Minimum wage is a plague on society. Before Obama raised it, the wage in the US was about $5.15. But most places were hiring people at about $7.00 despite the law. I know this first hand - i went looking for jobs while the minimum wage was in the $5.00 range, and I couldn't find any that paid less than $7.
Why is this? Because if I went to McD's and asked "how much you pay", and they said $6, but Wendy's was offering 6.50, then McD's would be out a profitable worker.
Rogers, the argument was used in this country that a minimum wage would lose jobs, many people putting up similar arguments to yours. It hasn't happened.
I think it safe to say from this that wages aren't the main driver when it comes to jobs.
Your argument about entry level jobs doesn't apply, the minimum wage doesn't come into full force until adulthood.
One doesn't normally expect to see Anarchists arguing the establishment cause.
"Why should there be a minimum wage anyway? ... How many more people would have a job if there wasn't a minimum wage?"
This makes perfect sense until you look at the dynamics. Joe works at a sandwich at minimum wage, say $8 per hour. Suppose we repeal the minimum wage and all sandwich stores cut wages by half. Will Joe's employer hire a second sandwich maker? Not likely - if everyone got their wages cut, there will be fewer people with money to buy sandwiches.
Joe will probably keep his job, and Joe's employer will pocket the $4 per hour he used to pay Joe. Notice who prospers. Instead of the apartment he had, Joe will move in with the families of 2 other sandwich makers - the only way they can survive. This will result in two apartment vacancies, casualties of the shrinking economy.
Austerity feeds the recession and drives up unemployment like kerosine on a fire.
You are just making conclusions that are not necessarily so!
Eliminating the minimum wage means that Joe could hire help for less, and with the additional profit he could cut his prices and generate more business which would lead to him investing in enlarging his shop and hiring more people to handle the additional sales!
Again, this view that the "rich" are greedy hoarders of cash that will simply use people is not based in any fact!
Oh really! How many billions has Bill Gates got?
A lot more than you that's for sure and since it's his money he should do what he wants with it. Also he did set up a foundation.
how many 'poor' people, here on Hubpages, are benefitting from said foundation? I know I'm not....
Are you poor?
Or do you just feel that you're not rich?
Either way its up to you to solve that particular problem.
A foundation can be set up for any purpose, it doesn't always have to be for the poor. The questions is why do you feel a foundation should be set up to help you?
that's not the point - the point is he set up a foundation. what for? to help the poor? what poor? who's benefitting from this foundation if not the poor? Sure, Bill Gates can do what he wants with his money, but to follow up with the fact that he set up a foundation...um, WOW!!! That's so helpful!! NOT.
It doesn't disprove the rich as greedy hoarders, unless it helps the poor in a significant way.
Oh, so now you want to dictate to a rich man funding his own foundation how to run it?
It's easy to look up Gates' foundation. And it looks to me like he does a lot with it. But then since it might not benefit you directly, you probably don't think it counts.
What Gates does with his foundation has nothing to do with whether or not the rich are greedy hoarders!
How much money did Bill Gates earn from Microsoft? Enough to become the richest man in the world, at the time. How much money did Bill Gates pay his entry-level or lower-level employees? I'm guessing it wasn't a middle-class income - why? Greed. Pure and simple. Was he wrong? Morally? idk Legally, he did nothing wrong.
Now, however, he feels guilty & has decided he needs to give back to the community that made him a rich man. Why couldn't he have done that throughout his climb to wealth by paying his employees a better wage?
It's not greed, you are compensated for your work according to what the market will bear not according to how much Gates makes. You really know nothing about what compensation the people at Microsoft make. It depends on what their skills are and how valuable that skill is to the company. If you are a very good software developer, you will command top dollar and Microsoft will offer it to you. If you are a person with no skills and you apply for a job as a clerk at Microsoft then you have to compete with other people with no skills and there are a lot of them who want to work at Microsoft then you will take what they offer you. It's that simple. Nobody forces you to work at Microsoft, you don't even have to work there. Go someplace else that you think isn't greedy. If Bill Gates didn't drop out of college and develop the operating system there wouldn't be a Microsoft that employs thousands of people in the entire world. What have you done to merit being a billionaire? Did you create something that employed thousands of people and brought billions of tax dollars to the US and other countries?
As for that foundation, he didn't have to be guilted into it. He designed that foundation so that his money was working as effectively as he thought it should where it should and that's his right. He doesn't have to give his money to some whiny, entitled poor person who thinks he should get it because he doesn't have any.
Okay, now multiply your answer times every single corporation in existence that chooses to 'fairly' compensate their 'unskilled' employees (who, by the way, are required to have at least an Associates Degree in order to be hired for an entry level position) at, or barely above, minimum wage.
When understood as a much larger issue than a single employer, do you see the problem of the rich being greedy? The rich get richer by failing to consider the low-income population as being people too. Honestly! Why isn't it possible to pay a better rate? Why isn't it possible to give a higher annual raise? Why isn't it possible to provide health insurance at an affordable rate? Because the employer would have to forfeit the almighty profit! Instead of a 75% profit, they'd only be earning a 50% profit! Can't have that, can they?? Because, OMG!! They'd be losing money!! They don't get a tax break for paying a livable wage, but do get a tax deduction for donating to charity. What's the motive?? MONEY!! GREED!!
Get it now?
Where did you get these numbers from? Oh, and why you don't even consider small businesses, they usually don't require any degree?
It's so obvious that YOU don't get it. I can't think of one corporation that has a 75% profit margin. You really are very ignorant of the expenses that a corporation pays.
Again, when it comes to salary you are compensated according to what the market will bear. You are now competing on global scale. Helloooo! Haven't you seen manufacturing going to China and overseas so that production costs are low and product prices can remain competitive. Do you even know that some of our administrative work is farmed out to Ireland and Eastern Europe. Call Centers are located in Mexico, India, and the Philippines. That's why a company can't pay you as much as you want, the product would be priced out of the market. What do you think happened to the US auto industry? We have one viable auto company, Ford, the other two are owned by the gov't. The labor unions priced the auto workers out of the market. Production went to Mexico. You can't get it into your head that these costs are not abritrary.
@ Misha - are the numbers really all that important? Fact is, Bill Gates earned billions yet employees were paid according to minimum wage standards. I still ask, why? Seems pretty obvious to me he, Bill Gates, didn't care about the poor while he was on his way to becoming the richest man in the world. What changed his mind? Or, has he? Perhaps his foundation isn't to benefit the poor at all -
@ Flightkeeper - I say, again, the numbers are the least important aspect of what I'm saying, therefore, the ignorance shoe must be on your foot.
How did the auto industry get into trouble to begin with??? GREED!! The company may not have made money, but how much did the CEO earn? How much money was given to the CEO's in terms of bonuses (for doing such a terrific job of bringing the company into financial ruin - btw, this goes for the banking industry as well) and perks such as private jets flying to Washington to beg for a bailout?
Why can't you understand this? The employer (whether operating alone or with a paid president/CEO) who chooses to pocket millions while continuing to pay employees as little as possible is doing so out of greed.
So, you were lying in an attempt to convince me in your truth. Very nice of you. Somehow it seems to me that The Truth that needs lies is not that much of a truth.
Oh please, the labor unions with their stupid practices were greedy as well. That's what priced the auto workers out of the market. There are hundreds of companies that go out of business and most startup businesses don't survive past the second year, and most small businesses go through good and bad years, so your claim that businessowners pocket the money is ignorant. CEOs whether you know it or not have to answer to the Board of Directors, therefore CEOs don't pocket the money like it's their own. The bailout was so that hundreds of auto workers wouldn't be out of a job. I thought it was wrong but I'm surprised that you wouldn't think it was a good idea that the government protected those jobs.
But since you don't want to get this and you want to blame all businessowners and CEOs and you want to make the companies pay, don't be surprised if businesses move their base of operations outside of the US which is something that has already started. Then see who you're going to go to for a job.
I think most of them don't take some kind of economics course at school or don't pay attention because it is boring but it's their own fault for not realizing that the stuff has some application to reality. Or they don't know any businessowners and don't realize how hard it is.
I don't think you need an economics course to understand if X country charges 15% tax to do business and Y country charges 35% its cheaper to go to X country.
Which means less jobs in Y.
Sometimes I want to type exactly what I think, but the gentleman in me says stop.
I think, as seen on this forum, that most people take their economics lessons from big business who present the view of economics that they want to be seen and not what is in fact reality.
Take as an example labour costs. Business claims that it could employ more people if labour costs are kept low but in reality they want high unemployment to keep labour costs down.
If companies wanted high unemployment - then who has money to buy their products? That doesn't make any sense.
Doesn't it? Then by the same token, if they pay a minimum wage or less who has the money to buy their products?
High unemployment encompasses more than just the minimum wage earner so it's not the same token.
I say to you that though labour costs are major, they aren't the only major costs and not the only deciding factor in placement.
If labour costs were zero then companies would still move to areas where other costs were cheaper.
Sure there are other factors.
If the U.S. wants to compete with China then the American worker must learn to be a little more flexible.
Ok, a lot more flexible.
But why compete? Unless of course that America admits that it has low skills.
The richest business in the world is American, do they feel the need to compete with china?
"But why compete? Unless of course that America admits that it has low skills."
Yeah, thats it.
But my country can beat your country up.
Which it does frequently.
Take Germany, a successful economy that specialises in high tech areas where China does not compete and labour costs are high.
Have any clue as to why Germany is not experiencing what the US is?
They didn't go along with Obama's plan, they said hell no.
Yes, because they are the worlds best engineers, they used to share that title with the UK but we thought the smart money was in following the US, long before Obama came on the scene.
You'd be surprised, a company will make decisions based on the type of labor that they need. Materials are a commodity and can be shipped anywhere but skilled labor is not a commodity. A company will move to where they think labor is more flexible and valuable if they can't find an inexpensive alternative. Look at the startups at silicon valley, the financial companies near the ivy colleges, the research medical hospitals in New York. Companies that require skilled labor will go to where they can find it unlike manufacturing where labor has become a commodity.
Why should I be surprised by you reiterating almost exactly what I say?
You said that labor costs are not the only deciding factor. I just said that depending on the industry and skilled labor that they need it is a deciding factor.
Yes, if they need skilled labour then the cost of that labour becomes less important than positioning them selves in areas where cheap labour is available.
@ Misha - ya know, I really really do wonder how Bill Gates earned billions of dollars in such a short amount of time if he didn't have at least a 50% - 75% profit.....maybe I didn't "lie" after all.....
@ Flightkeeper - I think you're beginning to understand what I'm saying, but refusing to see it clearly.
I am obviously not talking about all businesses or all employers or all rich people. There are exceptions to every rule - always have been and always will be. So, for arguments sake, I will speak of a home grown company (such as Microsoft) where the employer (say...Bill Gates) stands to earn millions each and every year while paying employees minimum wage or according to the industry standard.
If this employer (rich person - not a company) really cared about the poor (entry-level, low-level, employees earning at or slightly above minimum wage) why not increase wages to a living wage rather than waiting 25-30 years to donate earnings into a charitable foundation he created that may or may not help the poor who truly need it?
Let's change the scenario, because not every employer is Bill Gates.
If this employer (rich person - not a company) really cared about the poor (entry-level, low-level, employees earning at or slightly above minimum wage) why not increase wages to a living wage rather than donating tax-deductible dollars that may or may not help the truly needy?
Okay, now let's change scenario again, because not all employers are a single person entity.
If the employer (company) really cared about the poor (entry-level, low-level employees earning at or slightly above minimum wage; low-income bracket portion of the population; poverty stricken portion of the population) why not keep jobs in America - rather than outsourcing to countries with cheaper labor markets?
The employer (company or rich person) could prove their caring intent by increasing non-executive wages to a living wage and restructuring executive pay packages to reflect a change in attitude toward those who do the work that they (the employer) benefit the most from.
But, it doesn't happen and probably never will. Why? Because the employer, whether a company or a rich person, is full of GREED.
I think it's pointless talking to you about this because you clearly don't understand by the use of your examples and questions.
"I am obviously not talking about all businesses or all employers or all rich people. There are exceptions to every rule - always have been and always will be."
First of all there is no rule except the one you created in your own mind.
"If this employer (rich person - not a company) really cared about the poor (entry-level, low-level, employees earning at or slightly above minimum wage) why not increase wages to a living wage rather than waiting 25-30 years to donate earnings into a charitable foundation he created that may or may not help the poor who truly need it?"
Here's an idea, maybe the entry level person should understand that if you have no skills you don't make the big bucks. They are paid a living wage as mandated by the U.S. government.
"The employer (company or rich person) could prove their caring intent by increasing non-executive wages to a living wage and restructuring executive pay packages to reflect a change in attitude toward those who do the work that they (the employer) benefit the most from."
Just curious, how many families did you help out this past Christmas or thanksgiving? The company I work for sponsored 10 families, thats 10 families who were shown "caring intent" by an evil corporation.
"But, it doesn't happen and probably never will. Why? Because the employer, whether a company or a rich person, is full of GREED."
Greed? The worker who demands more money than a job is worth is the greedy one. If they won't do it for the set wage someone else will.
Bill Gates earned his billions because he was the first to recognize that nerds oriented operating system needs to be adapted for masses, and to implement this understanding.
50-75% profit and even more are certainly not unheard of, but to the best of my knowledge the vast majority of businesses have much lower profit margins, often in the area of single digits and less for very competitive niches.
My parents taught me in early childhood that counting money in someone else's pocket never benefits your own pocket, usually quite the opposite. During my 50 years of life I saw enough examples confirming this, including yourself. May be if you try to stop spying on other pockets for a while, your own pocket get fuller.
It is obvious to me you fail to understand, Flightkeeper.
The rich don't care about the poor because they are too greedy to do anything other than control the oppression of the poverty stricken.
It really is as plain and simple as that.
Here's an idea, maybe the entry level person should understand that if you have no skills you don't make the big bucks. They are paid a living wage as mandated by the U.S. government.
Jim, I have to say, you absolutely infuriate me with your obvious ignorance of situations.
First of all, an entry level position may pay $10.00/hr but requires an Associates Degree and 3-5 years experience. No skills? BS. Big bucks? Hardly. The US government does not mandate a living wage - the US government guarantees a minimum wage. The employer chooses to set a minimum rate of pay (according to some fictitious industry standard, because, OMG! One company can't pay more than another!! It wouldn't be fair to all employers!) and a maximum cap on the amount they are willing to pay for any given position within the company (except executives who must be maintained at any cost - even if it means increasing product pricing, laying off a percentage of the workforce, or outsourcing to a cheaper labor market). Usually a $2 - $3 difference. Then, the company gives annual reviews with the possibility of a 5% raise based on a refusal to claim the employee did an outstanding job.
And yet, there are some employers who have enough money to make tax-deductible donations every year or to set up charitable foundations - which, again, are tax-deductible.
Tell me, does the employer, the rich, really care about the poor? Or, are they driven by greed?
"First of all, an entry level position may pay $10.00/hr but requires an Associates Degree and 3-5 years experience. No skills? BS. Big bucks? Hardly. The US government does not mandate a living wage"
I read that much and said forget it.
My brother pays his helpers 10 bucks an hour to start, they push wheelbarrows.
No degree needed.
Wal-Mart night stockers start at 11.00 an hour.
No degree needed.
You need to venture out into reality.
Misha, Misha, Misha...(shaking head)
I think your parents taught you a wise thing. Me, personally? I don't give a hoot how much anyone else earns because we all have the same opportunities - it's what we do with them that matter. But in all reality, I answered a question regarding whether the rich cared about the poor. My answer stands. No, because they're too greedy to care about anyone other than themselves.
Your response fails to address the rich/poor/care/greed issue, however....
How many people can your brother employ?? And, there are a limited number of jobs available, especially at Wal-Mart, where a degree isn't required. Should I even bother to mention that not everyone can do manual labor?
You, apparently, need to venture out into reality a little more often.
My response shoots down your "got to have an associates degree to get a 10 dollar an hour job" response.
Just as it was intended to do.
Rafini, Rafini... I really can't figure out why I like you that much? But I do
Apparently I don't live wherever it is your brother is hiring, and Wal-Mart where I live pays entry level workers $7.50/hr.
All $10.00/hr available positions, where I live, require an Associates Degree and 3-5 yrs experience, because, obviously, anything without these requirements would pay less.
Oh, and did I mention the actual cost of living, here, is $35,000/yr? Don't know what the national average is, but I can't imagine it would be much different.
Do the rich care about the poor? Doesn't look like it to me...!
You're such a sweetheart! (ps I like you too )
"It doesn't disprove the rich as greedy hoarders"
Its their money.
Why can't you understand that?
They are not obligated to help anyone.
The only greedy people are the ones demanding the rich pay for their bad decisions.
The only greedy people are the ones demanding the rich pay for their bad decisions.
I really don't believe babies decided to be born into poverty, but eventually they will grow up and struggle through life due the inability to earn a living wage because of the greediness of the rich.
Bill Gates and his wife has done MUCH more than Obama to help Africans! He's spend billions of his OWN money fighting malaria and handing out mosquito nets! I believe he also has signed the pledge to give away the bulk of his wealth upon his death. And let's not forget how many people are millionaires BECAUSE of Bill Gates and Microsoft!
What about the billionaires that profited by adding poisonous chemicals to tobacco to make them more addictive? How about Monsanto who created GM crops that fertilize regular seeds, that then forces the farmers to pay Monsanto for the use of the seeds that result from the fertilization as the seeds are now copyright protected? These farmers have to pay for new seeds each year as they are not allowed to collect and re-use the grown seeds from their crops. It is plain evil in my opinion, what they are getting away with. Sure there are companies and businesses with good business practices and charitable activities but there are others with horrible business practices that directly result in the deaths of people. No one group is ever all good, or all bad, period.
I'm glad you brought up Monsanto! The food safety bill passed by Obama and the socialist democrats is responsible for enriching Monsanto!
You see, the government is distorting the free market with regulations that they say are necessary to "protect" our food supply! This is YOUR Democrats, YOUR Obama, YOUR Party FOR the People! They are criminals! Evil people that MUST be resisted, must be stopped IF you want to maintain your freedom!
If you think for a minute that their is a difference between BUSH and OBAMA, then I have a free Bridge to give you!
Obama is just continuing the policies created and started by Bush!
Haha! There are BIG differences between Bush and Obama! Obama is a liar, a narcissist, and a socialist with an agenda to destroy America as we know it, and Bush, well, wasn't!
That said Bush made many mistakes including the wars, and the stimulus, the patriot act, signing statements, and spending, but as a man, he was way more honorable than what we have now! In any case that's not what this thread is about.
Oh, and I can't believe after 2 years of Obama you still want to blame Bush for everything that is wrong! LOL Come on, man up, and give Obama some credit after all, he's done more in his first 2 years than any president I can name!
So the hopey changey guy Obama lied during his election campaign. Thanks for admitting it.
Ummm, Republicans had a Pledge to America, remember? The first thing on it was "to cut the Federal budget by 100 million dollars --the first thing we do!!!"
It's been ONE day so far that they are in charge.....they are now saying they CAN'T cut the budget by 100 million dollars.
O H M Y G -O- O- O - D.....they LIED!!!
Crow tastes kind of sour when you're eatin it, huh?
Goodness I wish! I would sell them to the highest bidder straight away and buy a house
Honestly, I don't think either party is working for the best interest of the people, except for when it profits them to that is. I really do despair of the whole political system, and do not see any alternative that would actually do any better. The more I think about it, the more I learn and hear, the more I wonder if David Icke might not be that crazy (sure do wish he didn't go on about shape shifting lizard people tho)
you're COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that Joe could EASILY quit and work at a separate place for more money.
there's competition on BOTH sides of the dollar.
As much as I hate to point fingers (I'm an Anarchist, after all), but this mistake is made more frequently by liberals than conservatives.
I take from your profile that you are involved in the medical sales field. Perhaps pharmaceuticals, perhaps other equipment. I work directly and have for a very long time with health insurance - all forms of insurance for that fact - and I have to say the following: for someone who spouts the Libertarian view chapter and verse, perhaps you ought to look into how your own industry prospers from what amounts to "price fixing," "corporate socialism," etc. And how does that differ from a government body fixing a minimum living wage? In reading your posts/responses, I see the typical double-standard that emerges in so many conservative arguments/ opinions. So it's ok if private enterprise breaks one off in the consumer, but it's evil if the government says $16,640.00 and some change a year should be the minimum living wage. You wouldn't work for that and neither would I. In fact no one can truly survive on that. I routinely deal with people who are paying about $10,000 a year for family health insurance. Wanna do the math? That's 60% of a "living wage" going for health insurance. Ok, so let's say a wife and husband are both working for minimum wage. That makes $33,000 a year combined salary. Add health insurance and you are still at 33% of your annual income going to ONE INSURANCE payment alone. So yeah, in answer to the original question - the rich may not "hate" the poor, but they certainly are very myopic in their vision and tragically apathetic to the plight of their fellow man...
Pointing out that the highest rate of income tax in the UK, including health insurance, is 40% on incomes over $55,000, below that it's 20%.
Now will somebody explain to me how I'd be better off paying out 60% of my income than I am paying out 20%? Oh and that isn't just for health insurance either.
very well said lady_love.
i really like this part.... i couldn't agree more that we each have a role and responsibility.
"Nobody should get a free ride. We all have a role to play and a DUTY to reach our maximum potential as well as a moral obligation to help those that for reasons beyond their control can't survive without it."
I like you philosophy madam but rose coloured glasses come to mind You haven't seen the arrogance of some of these people
Kenneth Clark for one well healed Brit didn't give a damn about our Ambulance crews in the 80's just recently he's advocated that the immoral compensation paid to muslim scum be kept secret
Thatcher didn't care how many of our people were killed and injured in the Falklands war which could have been avoided
It's ordinary men an women who are in these services not the rich
You are absolutely right.
We must take responsibility and be productive.
Like this guy. He is an example to follow 14 hours a day for $35. This is the ideal Libertarian way of running society right? If only more unemployed would get off their high horse and do their DUTY and take these jobs.
Cuz most people will do the right and moral thing when decided how much to pay their workers with out big government's intervention.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/vi … 5b8c73263d
If only we could all be as productive as him.
Thank you for enlighting me on how we all need to be more productive and have less government.
Oh and how businesses and the rich will you know do the moral thing.
Please go to
This is part one of a documentary by Jamie Johnson, heir to Johnson & Johnson. There are eight parts, you will see links on the right side of your screen for the 7 remaining parts. Each are 10 minutes long.
This will show you how the rich view the poor.
They care, in teh same way I care about african babies starving. I would like to help, but I never really do anything about it.
But then again, is it really the responsibility of the rich to give money to the poor?
Personally I like the charities which organize personal loans to resident people who want to start businesses in poor countries. It is a great way to help not only people, but the economies of the countries which are the most vunerable.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's also not as simple as that.
Whenever I see a "these guys are bad and these guys are innocent" conversation starting, I usually have to sigh.
Most people aren't helpless. Most people aren't victims. Most people aren't living their lives for or against anyone. The victim mentality in this nation is causing more poverty than any "rich people" investing their money does.
Just out of curiosity, how do you define "rich" given that your use of the term and your statistics are all over the board?
Well so you know, I do not despise the rich at all! The rich I would define as not middle class!
In fact I admire them for the subtle ways they use the govt to get richer! My observation is just that, the rules are rigged in their favor, in all instances economically!
I am not a fan of re-distribute the wealth, but I do frown on tax breaks for those that are fabulously wealthy!
If you look carefully at some of my hubs, I do believe we humans are primarily responsible for our conditions in life!
But I have also studied some of the tactics employed by the well to do and it puts to shame any govt handout given to the poor!
Yes! the poor bear 99% of the responsibility for been poor, but the rich have rigged the game of life financially to make sure that is the case!
To make sure what is the case? As your final sentence stands I'm not sure I get your point.
I think the rich are very interested in staying that way. I don't think the rich are overly interested in keeping the poor poor.
Damn I need a cigarette.
For example, do you think the rich would ever allow all deductions to be eliminated? Hell no!
My point exactly, the system is rigged to favor them, why change it!
I'm not sure all deductions should be eliminated. And the poor cheat on their taxes as eagerly as the rich.
You've mentioned the deductions a few times now. That's a whole other topic I think. I'm one of those literal types of people.
The deductions aren't all for the rich. We deduct everything we possibly can.
"Most people aren't helpless. Most people aren't victims. Most people aren't living their lives for or against anyone. The victim mentality in this nation is causing more poverty than any "rich people" investing their money does."
I applaud you.
If people are victims of anything it's artificial class warfare sponsored by the left, and the burden of big government regulation and taxation!
some do some dont but most are greedy and they hoard thier money and they cant get enough of it. They do nothing good for another with their riches!
Hoard their money? Where? How? Do you think they keep billions of dollars in their mattress and cookie jars or coffee cans buried in their yards? They invest their money to make more money and that my friend puts people to work, in other words they are distributing wealth, at least the wealth that the government doesn't confiscate from them!
Big companies are NOT investing money in any kind of growth that would spur new jobs.
"U.S. corporations are piling up cash at the fastest rate in half a century. But instead of signaling a new wave of spending, that cash pile may mean tough times ahead.
Non-financial companies in the United States had stacked up $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September, up from $1.8 trillion at the end of June, the U.S. Federal Reserve said Thursday. Cash made up 7.4% of the companies’ total assets -the largest chunk since 1959."
http://www.thetradingreport.com/2010/12 … -51-years/
So? Again, where is this cash "pile"? Is it actually a pile in a room where greedy CEOs go to roll in it and throw it into the air?
Why are they piling up this cash to begin with? Could Obama fiscal and economic policy have anything to do with it?
The uncertainty in business is why companies are "hoarding cash", because of foolish government spending and regualtion. This cash "hoard" is not sitting in a pile it is obviously in accounts in banks and investment firms and is being used to grow profits and employ people. Wake up man!
I have to add that I don't think the Poor give a Rat's Ass about the Poor !
I came from a pretty proud but humble background and am happy to say that everything I have I worked for. I took my knocks and opportunities with equal grace, I've had my share of luck both good and bad and tried not to blame anyone but myself when I screwed up.
If the work and opportunities dried up in one place I moved while those around me bitched and moaned saying somebody's got to do something.
Life isn't fair, anyone who tells you different is lying to you !
For most of us Life is what you make it, and you're not going to like a lot of what you will have to do to change it
However one small observation I would make all the people I know who moan about their poverty all seem to manage to smoke cigarettes, drink with their friends and watch big screen TV..... Funny That !
This is true. Not in a blanket sort of way, but true enough that us bleeding heart libs are fools if we deny it.
Yes, alot of people REALLY DO NEED HELP. But yes, alot of people -- RICH AND POOR ALIKE -- will truly take every advantage they can to keep from having to do any real work.
And another set of folk are quite satisfied with their very limited lives, and make it something to be quite proud of. Others accept their own self-placed limitations, because it's their right to do so, dammit.
But it's also true that power-hungry politicians have found that catering to the rich is a good way to stay in power.
I have to add that I don't think the Poor give a Rat's Ass about the Poor !
I agree with you on that!
I am not a fan of poverty because many symptoms of the poor are self inflicted and just helped along by the rich!
My preference is to jump in with the well to do crowd, but it is sad to see the huge advantage given to them by idiot politicians who know nothing about economics!
Wow. I am amazed at the different views that are expressed here. Free thinking individuals getting together to discuss the woes of our society.
In my opinion, class warfare does nothing to advance any individual or group. What it does though, is promote envy and greed, which can only profit those who wish to control the masses. If you take a good look at today's political climate, you will find that some idiot politicians are manipulating the poor by promoting class warfare.
Each individual has the right, and responsibility, to do everything they can to create their own wealth in order to care for themselves and those they are responsible for. Worrying about what others have is not in the realm of responsibility of anyone else.
Yes, giving a hand up is a great occupation, but giving a hand out is not. When you take away the pride of an individual by making them dependent upon, let's say big brother, you remove their reason for, and ability to, fend for themselves, making them SLAVES of the system.
So, how does this relate to the subject at hand? Envy leads to blaming others for what we are unwilling to do for ourselves. We all have the same opportunities to build a better life. If you do not believe that, you really should take a look at those who choose to relocate to this country.
Just like we citizens do, they make whatever they can of the opportunities they find here. Many come here with a different mindset than those who have been here all their lives. They decide to do whatever it takes to create their own wealth, with great success.
Maybe we should take a lesson from them and change our mindset from envy and blame to self reliance and gratitude.
Merlin, you said it very well.
The difficulty here is that society has made it difficult for every individual to attain the most simplistic, basic needs.
Can't plant food, can't raise animals, and then if disaster strikes your location--get to the stores now! Because what's on the shelf is all they have; technology has been kind to on demand inventory.
You are right about that, but we don't have to allow it to continue to happen. Self reliance is a gift that we can give to ourselves.
Janet Reno told us that we do not need to hunt because there is a grocery store on every corner. What she was trying to accomplish was to deny us our right to self reliance.
Relying on that grocery store on every corner creates a society that can be led around like sheep.
Everyone that has a place to set a pot of soil, can grow something to eat. What happens when we do this is learn how to become self reliant, teaching us what works and what does not. A spot in a window, on a terrace, patio or small yard affords enough room to plant some kind of produce.
Anyone can provide for disaster relief for themselves by stockpiling non-perishable food as their living space will allow. Water, canned and boxed goods, as well as paper products that you will use anyway, are a good place to start so that you don't have to be part of the hoards who must "get to the stores now."
That way we don't have to be left depending on "big brother" for our basic needs.
Creative individuals can find a way to leave the big cities and raise animals if they want, and hunting is permissible.
actually the percentage is more like 1% control the other 99%.
An extremely dim view to take but the reality is that most rich are not given to ruminating about the poor. And, that is why not many rich people do not but care less. Thinking people, irrespective of their being poor or rich, do what they can to reach out to the poor; only the degree may vary
I think the reality of poverty must be an extremely scary prospect to the rich.
Some rich do care about the poor. I have seen some incredible donations given by wealthy men and women who do seem to care.
Another interesting question similar to this one is that if you just "donate" money do you still care for the poor or is it necessary to "serve" the poor individually? I think a lot of people are willing to donate money but few are willing to get on their knees and help "lift" up the poor out of their state.
In all the so called large donations, the loophole for the tax deductions exists! Let us truly eliminate charitable deductions gimmicks and then see how many large donations you hear about!
I have a lawyer accountant friend and his knowledge about the tax code is amazing. You need to see the section relating to charitable foundations!
Yeah this is all true. Business ethics as someone mentioned is another factor.
But it all gets complicated by what all one thinks is the duty of the rich. Duty's not the word I mean, but I'm not up to par so let's just go with it.
I mean, what duty does the rich have to care about the poor? What duty does the rich have to care about anything, and where does the line get drawn between protecting the ongoing well-being of their own family and giving it all away?
I don't think it's as cut and dry as the rich vs. the poor. My original statement may have been misunderstood.
What I actually meant to say was something along the lines of OMG if I was rich I'd never want to be poor again. There's a huge, vast, indescribable difference, I must imagine. I've been poor, I was raised poor, really poor, not just like lower middle class, like never knowing if the electricty or water is running, or if when you get home from school -where you had your one meal of the day- you'll find landlord locks on the front door poor.
If I was ever rich, I'd do my best to stay that way. I wouldn't knowingly involve myself in being evil. But I wouldn't be all eager to share my good fortune with the world at large either.
I think you need to go here and see how many rich are giving away their wealth!
And by the way, in their life times how many people have made a living thanks to jobs created by rich people. Jobs that have fed and housed and clothed their families allowed them to put kids through college and save for retirement, and jobs that provided them with health insurance! I'm sick and tired of the people on the left hating on the rich that have done so much for this country just because they have more than you! Grow up! Quit bitching and go out and get rich yourself then lets see how generous you are!
Well, now, see it's this extremism on both sides that gets us nowhere.
Extremism? Where do you see extremism? You think my view is extreme? It's the truth!
Most of those jobs are gone, first of all, cut to increase profits. I'm not saying that's wrong, necessarily, just the reality of your reality. The rich did not create those jobs in the first place to help people, but to get richer. It's not that they've "done so much for this country", that's just crazy talk, they did it to get richer. When they found out that instead of making a 100% profit here in America they could make a 1000% profit by moving all those jobs elsewhere, they did it.
Come on, get real, the rich aren't selfless heroes, that's just a stupid argument that can only come from an extremist point of view.
Who's got time? Damn I need another cigarette, and couldn't even smoke the first one.
Pleasant diversions... Going back to the living off the land thread. This is raising my blood pressure, which probably isn't good for my lungs..
I have to say, I don't think Ladylove's intent was to paint the wealthy classes as purely egalitarian. I think the point was that the wealth is still having a net benefit for the poor, regardless of it being used for the purpose of generating more wealth.
I could be wrong, and don't mean to speak for Ladylove, but that's how I read the post.
And I tend to agree with the positions stated above that, if we were to just dump all of the wealth of the rich out into the streets in poor neighborhoods, all of it would be spent on the trappings of wealth, and would shortly be back in the hands of people who understand trade and commerce.
Possessing money is not enough. One must be motivated to learn how it works, and that requires a great deal of effort, discipline and study--the foundation of which is provided for free by tax dollars, even in the worst schools (they are teaching math and economics, whether any of the students choose to pay attention or not). If there is a reason that students don't avail themselves of that information, that can't be blamed on the tax payers. Tax payers merely provide the funding for the buildings, salaries and books. It's up to local families to make a suitable learning environment out of the free stuff they are getting in that deal. Until families value the skill set that makes and holds wealth, we will be listening to people bitch about how the rich are holding them down.
I think it was the things like "the rich have done so much to help this country" and "people on the left mad cuz someone has something you don't" which struck me as extreme.
Right on! I think the hate of the rich is based upon jealousy and envy and by the perception that having more than you need makes you "greedy". This view is promoted by liberal, socialist, progressive, democrats, in an effort to fuel class warfare and garner support for their agenda, the destruction of America by the instillation of a socialist society. These people are evil manipulators and evidenced by the comments here, extremely effective!
Man up people and face the TRUTH! You are being used!
Wow... you're right - without the socialist media and the Democrats, none of us "poor black, white, or Hispanic trash" would EVER realize there are indeed wealthy people in our country or such a great disparity in wealth. Can I fetch yo horse ma'am?
brandon, you are right on the money with your comment.
donations are good for conscience, but street level work to break the poverty cycle is hard and not many want to get that close.
it is a shame and a sham.
It's hard to say what "most" do or feel, unless we have actual studies to back up the statements; but it's also understandable that one's background and experiences will affect their perceptions. The rich people I know personally are pretty varied in their attitudes towards the poor. Some keep themselves separate, and some definitely do not.
My older sister (retired, nearly 70 years old) was in a highly-paid profession. By my standards she is rich (not obscenely so, but definitely rich). For years, she would make sandwiches and drive around her city to hand them out to homeless people during cold months. She did that on her own, without any prompting from anyone else.
Now she engages in a frequent activity to help out impoverished people who are trying to find work to lift themselves up out of poverty. She may be the exception, but I don't know that for certain, and I'm really not sure anyone does.
I think it's helpful to remember that bad examples often outweigh good ones in our understanding of each other. I also think that that is very unfortunate.
"Most" of those rich but not "all" of them don't care for the poor. Just like "most" of the poor, but not "all" of them don't care for a fellow poor. Indeed, if we exhaust our actual observations and studies of documentaries of the rich helping the poor, we might discover yet that there are only few bad examples who are outrun by the "rich with a big heart" for the poor.
I'm not rich, but I care for the poor especially the children. It's a legacy from my parents to share the little we have, feed the hungry everytime we see our chance. When they died, I'd been on my own helping out the most needy. It doesn't hurt me if I share with them the food I eat or bail them out of an urgent need with a little cash.
Every Christmas, it's a family tradition to share our blessings to the neighborhood kids and their families, relatives or not. We throw a Children's Christmas Party for them, let them play games, give prizes, gifts of giveaway grocery items and a little cash to the most deserving.
I really don't bother myself if the rich don't give to the poor. Everybody can, anyway. I have recorded on CD our December 25 Christmas Party and gave it to them. And their happiness in viewing it has more than given me back the joy of sharing. My proof is written in one of my blogs so that others might consider doing the same.
Chances are that more rich people care for the poor than poor people care for the rich.
I think the reverse is the truth! Remember the poor feed the rich!
Maybe so, but we don't care about them one wit. Unless they're famous in some way, and then they likely have as many poor haters as lovers.
How dose the rich care about the poor?
About 44% of the world population makes less than $2 a day and 1/3 of the world is homeless
In Canada in around 1965, a CEO made 25 times more than the average person wage Today a CEO makes 350 times greater than the average persons income.
I made $20 an hour as a brick layer. My wages today would have remains the same if I was still working as in the stated in the 1970s. Then housing has gone up by 30 times or more since 1970. So what gives with the rich?
Is it all about profit, by owning most of us? Not the freedom I signed up for with the Government, and they hasn’t the expensive slick lawyers to confront the very rich on it. We all need to stand up for our selves, people,
I understand what you're saying, and I agree it's bad and I am a dirty progressive liberal. Sign me up, man.
BUT.. Do you think the rich are truly heartless? Do you think rich people as some sort of rule do not care? The question here isn't is everything right in the world, or even should the rich help the poor, the question is do they -the rich- care about the poor.
A blanket no is dumb. Just as dumb, no doubt, as a blanket yes.
Awe, it's actually worse than you think. 2% of Americans control over 90% of the wealth. Historicaly, when the 80/20 threshold is crossed, (80% of wealth held by 20% of people) a bloody revoloution occours. But in modern times, that is hard to gauge. The quality of life enjoyed by a modern "poor" person is not really that bad. A fast-food worker can afford an apartment with heat, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, internet-cable-phone, HD tv, smart phone and a gaming console, and a decent little car like a Hyundai Accent. Compare the quality of life for a millionare in 1911 to that of a minimum wage worker in 2011. The modern "poor" have it way better. The joke is on the modern rich; they forefiet the most important thing in life, their freedom sacrificed at the alter of the great Money religion, on their knees worshiping the Almighty Dollah.
Good points, and it brings me back to my original comment on this thread.
Although to be fair, the trade-off there is pretty nice.
Do tell who normally wins that "revolution" sir. What does history tell us?
let's say your correct and the rich care nothing for the poor they are still forced to spend an far greater amount of money on the poor in the form of taxes than the poor will ever spend on themselves. As far as tax breaks for donations well then close them all. If you want to better yourself then do it it's not the fault of someone who has something that you don't that you can't get ahead. Go and better yourself. No matter what I have. Only you can make your station in life better. Someone said they were working for under minimum wage. QUIT, that job and get a different one. If all the rich donated all the money to all the poor how soon do you think the poor would be broke but would have the fattest HDTV and the biggest SUV out there. Then how long would it take for the rich to become wealthy again because they have a lot of human capital. Education and knowledge that's valuable to others.
You want to close tax breaks for the well to do? Not in America for sure! You have to understand how the system work!
I urge everyone to find a good tax accountant or just look it up yourself and you will be amazed at the tax breaks built into the system!
Personally I do not blame them, but I do think it is unfair how the financial game is rigged to favor the well to do!
If the USA eliminated all tax breaks (all of them) The long term debt would be paid for in less than 10 years!
Let’s just evaluate two words
Charity and Crime
Then lets see, who is it that contributes to charity?
Who benefits from Charity?
Who participates in crime?
Who benefits from crime?
God the Rich are terrible!
Let’s string them all up steal all their wealth and spend it.
Okay, now what do we do tomorrow?
Okay actually the answer to each of your questions is both the rich and the poor.
The answers are, (without being philosophic about being philanthropic)
Naw you're fudging it. Rich and poor alike.
New answers just for you!
Who is it that contributes to charity?
I’d say it is those that have something to contribute, primarily the rich.
Not to say the poor don’t contribute but really can you eat time or a volunteer? Didn’t we outlaw cannibalism?
Who benefits from Charity?
Those that need it, typically not those that can care for themselves.
Who participates in crime?
Those that want and are not willing to earn it. Pretty sure that does not apply to the rich.
Who benefits from crime?
Those that have stolen from others and profit by not earning. Now the rich as a result of crime do get to pay higher insurance premiums, increased security costs to protect their property, and increased taxes to pay for police and prisons.
I take it you never heard of Bernie Madoff.
As we appear to be debating in social generalities basically the rich vs. the poor, your example doesn’t exactly fit the parameter.
However if we were to compare those that have committed crimes on an individual basis, I don’t think there is enough bandwidth to list all the names that could be attached to the “poor” classification that have committed crimes.
Thank you for allowing me to demonstrate my point.
Or the global banking system. Or insurance. Or college education loans. Or credit cards. etc etc etc
percentage wise, the poor and middle class give more to charity than the well to do!
So offering our time and car and its petrol when we were poor goat farmers in Missouri to drive to the big city to collect food donations from poor nuns, baking treats to sell at church bingo's on Friday to raise money to pay for that food was not the poor contributing to the charity in our little town of Willow Springs? Interesting, guess we where wasting our time then!
so the rich do not benefit in the form of a stable society with less need driven crime then?
Never heard of white collar crime then? Haliburton? Hali-who-then?
It is just silly to assume the rich all got that way through hard work, not the slavery that built Americas wealth in the first place, not white collar crime, or selling dangerous things like cigarettes while adding more and more deadly chemicals. There are criminal wealthy people, there are criminal poor people (I somehow feel more sympathy for the poor criminals for some strange reason). There are rich people that contribute to charity, there are poor people that contribute to charity and sometimes there are charities that are started by the poor, supported by the poor that serve the poor that have never seen a rich person donate once.
Many poor people have no choice but to turn to crime as a means of making money. And this should increase right quick, with the way things are going around here.
Or they are forced to go through garbage to find food.
Homelss families, homeless vets, homeless seniors.....it makes me furious!
In the GD "richest country in the world".
Cause by golly---we don't give things away for free...except those big incomes we let the Ubers keep by taking more money from the less well-off.
you always have a choice. Don't enable criminals.
Minimum wage is one reason why people can't get jobs.
Inability to be frugal with money is a reason why some people "have no choice" -- but really they just made the wrong choice countless times.
But we've proved that the minimum wage has no negative effect on jobs.
It could be argued that by stimulating demand for goods it has a positive effect on the availability of jobs.
Think, if you are on a very low wage and you can only afford one loaf of bread, then a pay rise means that you can afford two loaves of bread, how does that destroy jobs?
"Think, if you are on a very low wage and you can only afford one loaf of bread, then a pay rise means that you can afford two loaves of bread, how does that destroy jobs?"
You really don't get this, the money does not originate with the employer but rather his customer.
The employer is paid a set amount to produce something, if the employee produces that good or service faster and cheaper then his employer is making money, if the employer is making money then the employee will earn more based on his performance.
Your theory is just pay them more because its the right thing to do.
Start a business and do that I suspect using your theory you wont last long.
I don't get it! Of course the money originates with the customer and giving the customer more money means that they spend more.
It's far more complex than you make it out to be, you assume that every plant in the country is working at peak production, it isn't. If your bakery is running at 60% capacity then there is 40% capacity that can be used at no additional cost to the baker. That additional capacity can however earn more profit.
I did run a business and I found no problem with paying good wages,in fact I found that I had had incredible labour loyalty and no problems in hiring or theft or anything.
Money doesn't originate from the customer.
Money originates from Barter. when people, in general, in a specific location, begin to choose one item to barter simply because they know that it will be accepted elsewhere as a means of exchange... that's when money is born.
Money doesn't originate from the customer, it originates when it is printed off the press (paper money), created out of thin air by Bernanke (the way it's done today), or mined out of the ground (silver and gold).
"I did run a business and I found no problem with paying good wages,in fact I found that I had had incredible labour loyalty and no problems in hiring or theft or anything."
I'm sure you did.
I agree. You'd be shocked, readytoescape, to see my poverty-stricken students hold fundraisers and do philanthropic activities! I have only 60 students, yet when I held a holiday card drive for deployed military, my students brought in cards, stamps, and envelopes, as well as filling out the cards. We mailed 75 cards!! You underestimate the poor. Many of them give far beyond their means!
Actually I would not, I have seen it as well, since I do a fair share of benefits per year, but I have also seen the opposite on the six-o-clock news and in the newspapers or at the mall everyday.
And sometimes shockingly, it's the same kids.
It is a rather sad state of affairs that there is this much disparity in common values, those that are upheld and those that are ignored. Perhaps that is the difference between the “rich” and the “poor.”
Further these two words, so easily thrown about to describe societal groups, are too effortlessly applied without a defined truth as a demarcation between them.
That's true, that last sentence anyway. One need better define rich and poor when making comparisons.
But I'm intrigued by the third paragraph. Which in your mind is which?
Doesn't matter. Either way I disagree.
I don't know. Overall, I am just amazed by the length of this thread and the many people who are quick to agree that 'the rich don't care about the poor.' As a blanket statement like.
Come on, really?!! It's not so much that I think they're out there in a constant state of worry over the poor, but don't care?
I think it's like ya'll think they catch some sort of disease once they become rich. Human nature -- I think -- makes it very obvious that a great many of them indeed would, actively. I mean, actively with their wallets.
And after dwelling on it a bit, I'm highly offended by the person who said that the charitable giving of the poor or middle class is of no value.
I believe that even if we were to vote a poor person into office, they would become corrupted. Largely in part, due to becoming wealthy and drunk with power themselves. They also would have a hard time changing things that have been in affect, well, forever. So, the only thing we can do is try and better ourselves and not worry about what the rich do.
Your survival and well being is your responsibility and no one else's. If you are a brick mason still making $20 per hour and are upset about it, then create an new profession or job for yourself. Most millionaires in this country are people who worked and saved all of their lives, did without and invested so they could get ahead and they are first generation rich! If you want total security in food, housing, etc; then move to a nation that will provide, but this nation is one built upon the idea that we are not only able, but willing to stand for our freedoms and with those freedoms, run the risk of failure. Remember what was once said, "any government willing to give you anything, is able to take anything", including your life, so becareful what you wish for as you may get your wish if this nation continues upon the road it now travels.
Once I was a millionaire and yet still been an artist for 35 years, Living in the middle ground lifestyle from it all, is best.
That's is all I ask, is move people toward the middle grounds of their desires.
You know, I don't even care. I don't think anyone else ever really cares either, how the rich live, what they do with their money, we don't care. Never did, until people started making a them vs. us issue out of it. We watched lifetsyles of the rich and famous and shook our heads in amazement and that was that.
As long as the system allows everyone a viable living -luck and foolish choices aside- most of us are happy enough.
As a previous poster stated. Poor is now a relative term. You have to narrow down the definition of "poor" to answer this question. Some here are saying that a third of the world is homeless. Are they including nomads and tribal peoples living off the land? They still exist in some parts of the world.
for the un-politically correct definition of the "poor" agenda insert "jealous" "envy" "covet"
It has nothing to do with jealousy envy or covet. It's wanting to be able to provide for your family, and the prices keep going up, while the wages stay low.
Wages have stagnated for the working class...yet ceo's are earning 500 times that of their workers.
It's not envy, it's outright outrage at the injustice!
Poor people have kids too you know.
Poor people work too you know.
Quality of life is as different as night and day.
And why? Because those who have want more and more and more and more. And the system serves them.
totally agree with you chris - also, ceo's insist on receiving annual cost of living raises of say $25,000 and an annual bonus/perks package of $100,000-$500,000 while enforcing a $0.25/hour annual increase for low level employees.
the rich are greedy, no question about it.
Sounds a lot like envy to me.
As for greedy, well...
EVERYBODY is greedy! Everyone wants MORE than what they have! Have you listened to all those here bashing the rich and complaining how they should give up their wealth to the poor? Do you hear them complaining how their wages aren't rising fast enough? They are every bit as greedy as the rich, they just aren't...well... RICH! I mean that in every sense of the word, economically as well as morally!
I don't disagree; a lot of jealousy can be had of riches. It's why the Viking's got a kick out of the down-and-out plague-stricken europe. Run in, loot, pillage, destroy...and many of these gold items were stolen from territories back "east." (See: Crusades)
I don't personally see the value of money. I see value in gold, as a mineral. Fine conductor! Why would I want to wear it around my neck? I need it for circuits.
Do I fear having not enough resources to live off of? Indeed. Especially long-term. The values placed on materials confuse the hell out of me. I see how and I get greed (being a form of power) but does my species need resources (food, clothing, medicine, new technology to replace useless tasks) or bottom line returns on financial investments?
This is why I am so opposed to property taxes and other regulations limiting private property rights! I don't think the government should be allowed to have an interest in MY land! At least then I could support myself in definitely without asking the government for anything.
You are clueless lady.
Maybe if you ever saw a hungry kid, or one who is freezing in the cold winter, you would understand.
Or maybe a senior on a fixed income who has to choose between heat, food or medicine.
I guess they are greedy for not wanting to suffer.
Tell you what....we have new rules around here now. New austerity for all but the wealthy.
You will get to keep your money...you will just take all from the middle class.
Owners can pay what they like, businesses can charge whatever they feel is right.
So what if millions go cold and hungry...America is all about the bottom line for business owners and the bankers that fund them.
Oh, and don't forget that new war we need to get involved in (Iran), and don't forget that we need to stay in Afghanistan permanently (Graham). TONS of tax money spent there....but hey--at least it's not going to those dam greedy poor people, huh?
Yeah, it's not the role of government to help the poor. They just aren't good at it! Just look at Haiti!
If you want to help the poor then get government off our backs and out of our wallets. Let's open America for business again! Cut corporate taxes, eliminate regulations that are driving business out of the country. Shrink government let the people keep more of their money, now everyone that wants a job can have one and with all the extra money in our pockets we can contribute more to our churches and organizations that help the poor! That's what will work lady!
You do have a point in that the govt cannot help the poor, but they do help the rich in tremendous ways!
Actually, corporations never had it so good tax wise!
What we are going through is the phenomenon of globalization and how it is reducing American wages to peanuts!
"Actually, corporations never had it so good tax wise!"
If paying the highest corporate tax in the world is good then they are having a great time.
But it ain't.
They aint paying either!!
"Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.
Google’s income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.
The earnings wind up in island havens that levy no corporate income taxes at all. Companies that use the Double Irish arrangement avoid taxes at home and abroad as the U.S. government struggles to close a projected $1.4 trillion budget gap and European Union countries face a collective projected deficit of 868 billion euros."
Know what's worse???
“Who is it that paid for the underlying concept on which they built these billions of dollars of revenues?” Briloff said. “It was paid for by the United States citizenry.”
The U.S. National Science Foundation funded the mid-1990s research at Stanford University that helped lead to Google’s creation. Taxpayers also paid for a scholarship for the company’s cofounder, Sergey Brin, while he worked on that research. Google now has a stock market value of $194.2 billion.
--"Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes"
By Jesse Drucker - Oct 21, 2010 6:00 AM ET, Bloomberg news
Here's another one from Forbes.com:
"What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes
Christopher Helman, 04.01.10, 03:00 PM EDT
How can it be that you pay more to the IRS than General Electric?"
I wonder how many wealthy individuals do this sort of thing too?
I know Obama cracked down on some who were using Swiss banks to avoid US taxes.
You want to blame the high tax rate? I don't think that's it at all. It's something else. Something to do with never being satisfied, always needing more more more...and thinking the Unites States owes YOU something!! Certainly it's not caring about the country that provided you the means to get rich.
It's a sickness, a disease.
One of the seven deadly sins.
in my opinion
Perhaps you are right.... but the ability to buy elections and then "right off" part of their bribe as a "polictal contribution" come tax time is gold brother... pure gold. Don't like the current political environment? No worries - all you have to do is resurrect a whacked-out political movement (The Birchers) from the 1950's/1960's change its name to the "The Tea Party," convince the "disenfranchised WASP" to support it, add funding via Americans for Prosperity (Funded by Koch Industries - Daddy Koch was a founding member of the Birchers,) add tri-corner hat, ankle hose, a third grader's grasp of history and American government , and serve warm...
Wouldn't it make more sense to heavily tax corporations that choose to outsource their labor to foreign countries?
They ARE heavily taxed, which is WHY they left in the first place! Taxes and burdensome and costly regulations....and BTW, who do you think pays those taxes? We do, the consumers, as those "costs" to do business are passed along to a great degeree in the price of their products!
charity exists. Use it instead of theft through taxes.
Taxation =/= charity.
well...I don't necessarily consider someone who is earning $10.00/hr & wants a legit annual cost of living raise of (say) $1.13/hr to be greedy....
I have to agree with awesome77 -
the rich don't give a rat's a$$ about the poor, otherwise they'd willingly pay increased wages to their employees rather than forcing them to quit in order to pay lower wages to someone else who can't do the job half as well as the person who just quit.
However, there are some exceptions...the rich who give all their money away, such as Bill Gates & the Facebook dude.
As for the rich donating to charity - how many do you honestly think would continue to donate anything if they didn't receive a tax deduction for it? If it doesn't cost them anything, they're going to be willing - just like anyone else who willingly takes things for free. Think about it, charity wouldn't have to exist, to the extent it does now, if the rich employers willingly increased their employees pay to a living wage.
Everyone seems to be so concerned with the rich now because of the political promises being made about distributing the wealth. And the politicians need to create the illusion of civic pressure to increase taxes on everyone, by using the rich as the bad guy.
Everybody loves the Robinhood theme, how many friggin movies have been made.
Historically speaking, they don't have a terribly good record. I geuss they're happy as long as we don't die on the job.
It's the reverse Robinhood that bothes me. Which your "new" Congress is trying to make permanent.
- Do You Think The Poor Care About The Rich?
- No, I don't think so
- Then why do you think the rich should care about the poor?
- I don't care, they just should
- Ah, OK, good luck then...
I know some rich people who have helped start nonprofit organizations and sit on the board of directors. Unfortunately, to say the "rich" don't care about the poor is way too general a statement to be meaningful. I sometimes do feel like the rich don't care but I think many do care but do not have time to be hands-on.
I think many are so detached from life that they don't realise what poverty is.
When the minimum wage was being discussed in the UK a noted liberal Judge came out in favour of the minimum wage but said he thought £5 an hour was a ridiculous figure. "Surely there was nobody left earning as little as £5 ph"!
You're right, John Holden. Most wealthy people are detached from what the rest of us consider to be "real life." They can't even connect to the middle class. That's probably why we have politicians who are still voting to give themselves raises in economic times such as these, when the rest of America has been on wage freezes for three years or unemployed.
I grew up as a middle class girl from a very wealthy town. We had the eyesore house that everyone wished would get torn down. We had a comfortable living in a single family home (albeit with carpenter ants and other issues) on a busy street in a town with great schools near a major city. My dates to dances had olympic size pools, marble floors, grand pianos, Lexuses, and the like.
I worked for rich people for a long time. For three years I worked as a hostess and waitress at a restaurant in one of the richest communities in the nation. I also worked directly for an octo-millionaire. Some of my in-laws are also wealthy.
Now I am a teacher in a community with an 80% rate of reported poverty.
What I can say is that you can't put rich people into a category any more than you can poor people. Most rich folks believe they have a social consciousness and funnel it into donations and volunteerism. Since safety is a main value of rich culture, that necessitates separating them from many of the more dangerous, or poor elements of society.
But yes, many wealthy people couldn't care less about the poor, take their own success as a point of pride, and believe that poorer people are merely less hardworking, rather than less lucky. It is this attitude of believing that their success is deserved that keeps them from caring more about those without success.
As our old friend Emily Dickinson once noted,
"Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne'er succeed.
To comprehend a nectar
Requires sorest need."
"What I can say is that you can't put rich people into a category any more than you can poor people."
Well said, Katori. I also have a problem with the OP, on the point you express so well. 'Care' is an individual trait, not one of class.There ARE people like Bill Gates, putting his time and fortune to the best use they can - but I don't think they are the norm. But they must be recognized and the OP fails to do that.
I've known wealthy people on a first-name basis, including family members, and they represent both the best and the worst of humanity. Some will claw and scrape for every penny they can get, with no thought of who is ruined in the process. On the other hand, I've known some who have done amazing things for needy individuals, without ever using them as tax deductions.
There are some rich who donate a lot of money to their personal causes. Some even give to the poor. I wonder how much they would give, if they could not write it off as a tax deduction. In short, no, basically the rich do not care about the poor.
I guess I just don't get the big deal here. Why should the rich care about the poor? If they do, good for them. They are better people for it. I just don't get the whole "obligation" thing. If I became rich by working my arse off, does that obligate me to donate money to those who prefer to watch television all day and collect a welfare check?
Taking it one step further, do the poor care about the sick people? Do those making minimum wage go out of their way to help the homeless?
Seems to me, it is mainly the poor or the bleeding hearts that appear to be doing all the complaining. So the liberal politicians jumped on board so they could demonize the wealthy in an effort to raise taxes. Then the liberal media picked up the banner and started thumping the political drum, THE EVIL RICH.
Now here we are at hub pages debating a trumped up issue that is nothing more than envy and jealousy.
Irohner, The original post asked if the rich care. Nothing was said about any obligation.
Then you ask about people on minimum wage going out of their way to help the homeless. Have you ever tried to live on minimum wage? Most people who get minimum wage have to work more than one job, and don't have the time or financial wherewithall to help the homeless. They are just one step ahead of being homeless themselves.
Yes, people ,earning no more than minimum wage are willing to help the homeless - most likely if it's someone they know personally - and are willing to lend a couch or floor with a sleeping bag/blankets.
The rich feed off of the labors of the people. We live under a debt monetary system, where all M1 money, (The only money that the people, businesses and government are allowed to use to pay their everyday bills), is created through the extension of credit from private commercial banks, or in the case of government, through other debt instruments, such as bonds. M1 money consists of coin, currency, and electronic transfer.
This system is rigged so only so many can achieve vast fortunes.
The rest of the people must remain financial slaves of varying degrees, or the system would go bust. If we quit borrowing, we begin an immediate economical collapse. If there is no debt, there can be no dollars.
Money and wealth are two different things. You can have wealth in the equity of your home, your vehicle or in stocks and bonds. You cannot however, spend that wealth until it is converted into M1 money. To accomplish this, you would have to either sell some of your wealth to someone, or take out a loan against some of your wealth in order to convert to money.
One way money is created.
Let's take for example, a person buying a house. That person goes to a bank and applies for a loan. The banker says "you are a good risk, so we will accomodate you".
The person then signs a loan or mortgage agreement, Mortgaging a portion of his earnings for the next 30 years. For simplicity, let's say that the person wants to borrow $200,000.
The bank, upon the signing of the agreement, puts 200,000 numbers in that person's account, so he/she can pay for the house. How was this money created? The banks operate under fractional banking, and only have to have 10% in reserve in order to make the loan. The only explanation on how this money was created that I can see, is that it was created on the borrowers promise to pay, and the numbers were created out of thin air, by pressing on computer keys.
Let's take it a little further. The banker, over the 30 year life of the mortgage, for having done approximately two weeks of pre-mortgage paperwork, and sending out monthly statements for 30 years, will collect approximately $400,000 in interest, on the original $200,000 loan. NO money was created in this financial deal, to pay the interest on the loan. Where did the money come from to pay that interest? It came from the debt principle of other people's loans, that was spent into circulation, and captured through commerce by the original borrower.
If the borrower fails to pay the mortgage off, the banker can foreclose and resell the same property in the same manner.
We have to keep borrowing to keep this ponzi scheme going. We cannot pay down our national or state's indebtedness.
The cost of interest, goes into the cost of living and/or higher taxes. Nothing will change until we change from a debt monetary system, to a wealth monetary system. So you see, the wealthy do have an advantage over the poor, and make sure they keep that advantage by plying favor from politicians in return for campaign contributions.
Little do they realize that slowly but surely, they are killing their own markets. Their own wellbeing is their only concern, and they don't realize that by not caring for the hand that feeds them, their fortunes may one day disappear.
Just my 2 cents worth
You're more informed than the average Joe! Reading some of the answers on this topic, most people really have no clue how this system operates!
Times are tough, I saw a homeless man buy cup of coffee for a dollar used an bank interact card costing $1.50 and gave a tip of $1.50, If you multiply that coffee price by a ½ million, that’s how middle class person would buy a house for in Vancouver Canada, add mortgage, taxes and running cost.
I have No wonder why the middle class are becoming homeless.
North America’s obsession with big houses has lowered the consumer confidence of 2/3 of the population in the USA that can not afford housing,
awesome77, They don't teach this in highschool and college. They want to keep the majority of the sheeple dumbed down. The PTB are afraid that the people will revolt if they actually knew how this system operates.
You are right. most people have no clue. They think money is just out there.
When I ask people how money is created, most of them say, "I work and my boss or company pays me". I then say to them, your company or boss didn't always have money. Where did they get the money? Their answer is that the boss or company sells their product or services to people.
Then I say that people didn't always have money either! I tell them that money has to have an origin. It has to be created, and there has to be a way to get it into circulation. When we get this far into the conversation, most people don't want to talk about it any longer. It's like their belief system is being destroyed.
It is, in my opinion, that some of our founding fathers were no better than the greedy speculators of today. They allowed a debt monetary system to be put into place. Hamilton was the chief proponent of the debt systems.
I find it ironic that congress gave the power to control our monetary system over to the federal reserve, which is not a part of our government.
The government can create money by borrowing on the citizen's credit card. This is done constantly. It is revealed to the people every time congress raises the debt ceiling, but the people just shrug and say, "what can I do about it"?
Our problems are the greed of the speculators and the apathy of the people. It's no wonder that your question about the rich caring about the poor came to mind. The wealthy always seem to blame poverty on the people's laziness, when the monetary system itself, keeps the majority of the people in a financial quagmire, just making enough to keep their noses above water.
Well, the greed of the speculators in the high tech and housing bubbles, have shown us just how fast this system can bring us to the brink of financial ruin. Most people are living 1 or 2 paychecks away from the poorhouse!
do poor care about rich?...i guess it is human nature to care about oneself and one's loved ones..so it is more about individual than being rich or poor..some rich might care a lot about everyone including poors and some might not...
As my opinion,common prosperity is true prosperity.
So I think the richer should help the poorer.
Actually ,it's very helpful to the country's developing.!
well i dont think rich are obliged to help poor...yes we may think it is but it is not...every person is responsible for his/her life ...rich is not government..helping is personal choice...if i have billion dollar , i would open institutes which would help middle class and poor to work their way up with proper training but that is what i choosed and not that i am obliged to...
Yes, if we have means then I believe we should help those who are in genuine need. However that ios a personal view and I don't expect it to be shared by everyone, and I certainly don't believe that the rich should be forced to contribute at the point of a gun.
Many wealthy people give in great amounts to charity, while others hold onto every cent they have. It is their money and it is their decision.
I'm not sure how anybody arrives at the conclusion that we should be able to dictate how people above a certain income level should use their money.
I am pretty poor, i do care about everyone.... I have been richer, I enjoyed sharing my money with family.....
If i was rich, i would be happy to share, until i become poor again, when nobody would share with me.....
Me Me Me that's all i think about.,
A lot of rich people are not happy, so we poor ones can share our happiness..
What am i talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's see what the rich people do for the poor:
Henry Ford provided a cheap car that let millions (billions?) of people move around the country at their own pace and find jobs wherever they needed.
Rockefeller helped fuel those cars. He helped get people to the jobs they needed.
Bill Gates produced computers that have revolutionized the world.
Whoever owns Wal-mart (it doesn't matter) provides cheap goods to just about anyone in the US.
And countless other examples match this description.
People who think that the "rich" are evil simply don't understand economics. It really is that simple.
Understand that if you have a flushing toilet, a warm home, and lighting in your home, that you lived better than every King in history.
There are new rules in the 112th Congress, pay as you go is now cut as you go. In other words, if new spending is to occur cuts have to be made elsewhere.
All new legislation will have to be posted on the internet for 3 days before it can be voted on.
The debt ceiling can only be raised by a vote instead of being raised automatically.
I would not bet on that happening! The incoming congress is bought and paid for by special interest groups! It is pay back time!
If they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, then i know things might change!
The problem isn't the companies.
The problem is the fact that our government has no incentive to NOT pay the companies.
Despite the 10th amendment outlawing just about everything our federal government pays for, they still do it. They are able to get away with it because they twist the language of words.
When you require laws to be written down, the only way to get around a law is to change the definition of laws.
"The incoming congress is bought and paid for by special interest groups! It is pay back time!"
I'm part of the special interest group.
Wow I am amazed at all the folks claiming to be poor here in the discussion.
It’s a rather odd conundrum though, I didn’t know the poor could afford computers and internet service or were even educated well enough to use them.
I wonder if there is an agenda or they are all sitting in a public library somewhere?
Oh wait, here we are at jealousy and envy again.
But from which side?
Margaret Thatcher said in so many words that the rich needed to be given more money to motivate them, the poor needed to be paid less to motivate them!
I'm sure not many people consciously think that way but from remarks made by many, including some on this forum, there are plenty who sub-consciously share that belief.
Of course the rich care about the poor. If there weren't poor people then they wouldn't be rich, so they care very much about people being poor. Just not in the way that the poor people might hope that they care.
The rich care about the poor only to the extent that it effects them. They don't want people in dire poverty because then it means they have to do something about it. The rich are not completely amoral. They have a conscience inasmuch as it may send twinges of guilt and they would have to give up their conveniences to help the sad plight of others.
However, there are exceptions to this, obviously. There are people who have untold wealth who have left it all and spent their lives helping those less fortunate than themselves.
The problem as I see it is entitlement. The rich believe that they worked hard for their riches, and believe that the poor are deserving of their condition. They are not all wrong in that regard. However, there are plenty of poor who, through shear bad luck, must muddle through their circumstances as best they can. In these cases, it would seem they need a good opportunity to turn things around. This where the rich should do some mentoring.
"They don't want people in dire poverty because then it means they have to do something about it."
They don't HAVE to do anything.
Where is it written that they HAVE to do something?
Couldn't agree more, let the rich spend their money as they will, ban all charities, can you imagine anything more obscene than one of the richest nations in the world having a charity day involving national TV and radio to raise money for children and not third world children but children of that very nation.
Making any section of society dependent on charity is obscene, obscene, obscene!
Pay everybody a living wage.
Maybe people need to learn to live on what they are paid.
If a job is only worth 10 bucks an hour why should anyone pay more?
By the way, you are not entitled to a job.
I don't understand why you continue to employ each other for menial tasks? Why not continue to replace these jobs with automatic means? This would free you up to pursue more laudable goals than pouring a double mocha chai latte.
You are correct, however, in stating that a "job" is never a guarantee in life. Which is plenty fine, because you don't need one to learn how to grow food and build shelter.
Well someone has to help me make my latte, I don't know how to work the machine.
That alludes to the design not being user friendly. That's a flaw that can be fixed.
When a shovel can pick itself up and dig then I guess we'll stop.
When a bulldozer can move itself around and be aware of possible dangers to other things, we'll stop.
When that double mocha chai latte can pour itself into a cup we'll stop.
You can already attain these things; it's not the fact society can't be automated, you're just moving about it too slow.
Like China--after their horrendous earthquake, it was simply more "economical" to employ all citizens and supply them with such rudimentary tools than to fly in items that could accomplish the
task quicker, possibly saving more lives.
But what if the pay is not enough to pay rent or buy food?
If a job is only worth ten bucks an hour what right has an employer to expect somebody to do it?
No, I'm not entitled to a job but neither am I entitled to squat and no longer is the life of a hunter gatherer practical for the vast majority. That leaves me with only one option and that is to take off those with plenty, wouldn't they rather give a controlled amount than lose everything?
Get a second job like I did! I once worked 20 hours a day to support my lifestyle. Why should I expect someone else to pay my way?
For a start there aren't enough jobs to go around at the moment!
Would you have chosen to work 20 hours a day for life?
Did you not feel by working for so little that you were actually paying somebody else's way?
There aren't enough jobs because of government!
No I never felt like I was paying someone else' way.
I would have done what I had to do as long as was necessary without regret. We as a people have a moral obligation to reach our highest potential, to achieve all that we can, and to help others in need, that does not mean that we should support government as though it was a charitable organization. You see the mind set here is very different than in Europe. We left the Empire just for that reason. We want our government to keep us free and to leave us alone. We don't want our government to help us or to hurt us in our pursuit of happiness and prosperity. It's that simple. You people in the Empire want your King to take care of you all. That's fine, but that's not America!
Where is the freedom in working 20 hour days to keep body and soul together?
BTW King! er we don't have one.
I had to work to live the lifestyle of my choice. Certainly, I could have collected welfare and not worked at all, but where is the freedom in that, relying on the government? Having them scrutinize every expenditure, every bit of income, and the indignity of having to wait around all day once a month to prove I'm deserving? No no sir, I'd rather work 20 hours a day, and the freedom of that is it's my choice!
King, queen, whatever the monarch of the day is over there! Who cares? You have your little socialist fiefdom because America keeps you safe guards your oil and protects your soil! Imagine if you had to protect yourselves? You would have all been broke long ago! LOL
But what sort of life did you have in your four free hours a day? Silk sheets to sleep in?
I agree with your comments about the indignity of claiming and so do many others. The fact that people subject themselves to that indignity suggests that even working 20 hour days is another indignity not open to everybody.
King, Queen whatever, they play no part in the running of the country acting purely as bait for Americans who wish they had a monarch.
We aren't a little socialist fiefdom, we are a democracy and one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I hardly think America is protecting our oil, from where I stand it looks more like us protecting Americas oil! Cut free from America we would have a lot less to protect ourselves from.
Well you did it the honest way. There's some people who in order to keep getting welfare benefits work a part-time job with benefits so that on paper it doesn't look like they're earning much. Then they take another job where they get paid under the table so they don't have to pay taxes. If they show half as much creativity trying to figure out how to get rich vs how to keep their benefits, they would be better off than where they are.
"But what if the pay is not enough to pay rent or buy food?"
Then I suggest working two jobs.
"If a job is only worth ten bucks an hour what right has an employer to expect somebody to do it?"
Are you serious? If someone doesn't want the job someone else will.
"No, I'm not entitled to a job but neither am I entitled to squat and no longer is the life of a hunter gatherer practical for the vast majority. That leaves me with only one option and that is to take off those with plenty, wouldn't they rather give a controlled amount than lose everything?"
"take off those with plenty" Who decides who has plenty? The rich pay taxes, maybe if your government weren't so damn greedy you could keep more of your money.
And use the extra money for what? Paying road tolls, paying health insurance, paying my local fire brigade, paying my local police force ect ect.
How about food or anything you can think of, its your money.
But how much extra money would I have after providing essentials that were no longer covered by taxes and what would become of me if I lost my job and could no longer afford to pay for all those things?
Just health insurance would give me serious financial problems at the moment. I doubt if there is one insurance company that would tailor their premiums to my income.
We really come from two different places.
Food is an essential, clothes (for the most part) are an essential, are you telling me your government provides you with those essentials?
If you lose your job get another if you can't then collect unemployment while you ACTIVELY look for a job.
If you can't figure out how to sustain yourself don't look for me to do it for you.
But, But But, we aren't to have unemployment benefit are we? After all, it's paid for by taxes isn't it and taxes are bad aren't they? And you are arguing that we should all exist without paying taxes aren't you.
But,but,but you paid the tax might as well suck some of it up.
I know you are not opposed to that.
It's called insurance!
Do you know anybody who's had a car crash and not claimed?
Yes I have on several occasions, no check that, on most occasions!
Really! You mean you know a lot of people who would rather impoverish themselves rather than claim an entitlement!
Depending on the kind of accident, if it was a minor damage it would have been cheaper to pay for the damage yourself instead of claiming and have a big increase in your insurance premium.
No, the accidents were all minor, not worth the trouble of dealing with the insurance companies then having your rates increased or your policy cancelled. Insurance is really just for catastrophes... like if I had a new car that was totaled, but then unless you pay cash for it, the banks are involved too.
So not really comparable to losing ones job then?
Depends, if you're talking about unemployment insurance and whether people should be FORCED to pay it by the government or have the freedom to get such a policy in the private sector, then yes it's comparable.
Unemployment is different because you do need income to pay for your non discretionary expenditures. In my state unemployment insurance is deducted from your pay and your employer pays a portion. This is forced upon all parties. It's a cost that gets passed along to my employers customers in the form of higher prices and in reduced hiring.
So what's better? To have people out of work and customers paying a higher price which tends to limit demand, so that those that are working have a safety net, or free choice, allowing each individual to decide for themselves how they can protect themselves in the event they lose their job, in return there is less government, less taxes, less waste, less fraud, lower prices and more in your pocket?
Why on earth should having to insure staff against unemployment mean employing fewer people!
Surely the more people that can afford your employers goods, the more customers he has and the more profit he makes.
Although you may argue that people on low wages are no more economically viable than the unemployed which will limit demand as surely as out of work people will.
Indeed there will be less government and less tax but how do you get to less fraud and less waste? Surely crime would be increased rather than decreased, likewise waste.
And do you really believe what you claim about lower prices! Production costs are the last concern of the manufacturer, the first being what the market will stand. Then thre is the consideration of how much of the market the business wants, price too low and increase the demand to the point where the manufacturer has to borrow more money to expand and pay higher wages to attract the workers and though his turnover increase his profit is actually less than it was before he expanded.
Speaking of insurance, what insurance business model allows you to wreck your car and then buy insurance that retroactively pays for the damage?
They don't do that.
But under Obamacare the insurance companies are being forced to do that under the pre-existing clause.
Thats what big government does.
But hey, its gonna be cheaper
mixing it up a bit here aren't we? I don't know that much about health care proposals in the US but it seems to me that if you are going to introduce universal health care it has to absorb existing conditions or it will not be universal. For instance when they introduced the NHS in the UK it too over the health care of the fit and young but it also took over the elderly and dying.
Thats where you are mixing things up. The new health care policy in the US does NOT provide care. It provides "coverage". However it's NOT universal. Under the new policy 10's of millions are still left uncovered.
No, I was talking about state benefits, not half cock public/private initiatives.
I want to address this "livable wage" nonsense.
Problem #1 - Please define your terms
"livable wage" is completely impossible to define. That's the glory of using it as a term.
The elderly man dying of old age -- what's his livable wage? His livable wage would be the amount of money it would take to find out a cure to old age and cure it in enough time to keep him alive.
The boy born with a brain tumor -- what's his livable wage? It would be the amount of money it takes to find the tumor, destroy it, and do NO harm to the boy's ability whatsoever to live a full normal life in a time frame short enough.
What about the drug addict who chose one hit too many -- what's his livable wage? Well, it would be the amount of money it takes to keep him alive and clean for the rest of his life in a way that would prevent him from dying young due to his addiction. Also, this "livable wage" is directly tied to the legality of the drug he is taking: if it's illegal, then it's more expensive.
Problem #2 - Scarcity is real.
A livable wage requires people to make choices. A $4/hour wage is still livable, it just requires people to make tough choices.
"Zomg! Evan! Are you actually telling orphans to die?" -- no. Of course not. My argument simply relies on the fact that this Earth only has so many resources, and they have to be distributed in a fashion that puts them to the best use over time. Don't blame me for Eve's choice to get kicked out of Eden (or whatever belief you wish to use).
I wish we could all have a private moon to live on with all the anything-you-could-ever-want on it. But that's just not the case.
If you compare some of the poorest Americans today with the richest Kings just a few centuries ago, it would be a difficult task to decide which is richer.
We don't live in the Garden of Eden.
Problem #3 - Do we all deserve a living wage?
I was born in a middle class neighborhood. When I went to the store, it was largely operated by a lot of teenagers who were there only to earn experience and have a few extra "leisure" bucks.
Why should they be paid a living wage if they already have a doctor for a father providing them with everything they need?
Experience was more important to most of the people there than the money (in fact, one person who used to work for $5/hour is now a head manager of a chain of the supermarket-in-question).
A "livable wage for all" is not only un-definable, but it is also impractical, and also not even a goal of many workers.
Why is it so difficult to define a minimum liveable wage? The drug addict is not chasing a basic liveable wage is he? Nor is the handicapped child.
Everybody needs a roof over their head, a certain amount of food, clothes, recreation, all of which have minimum costs.
Why is it impracticable?
Of course the minimum wage is not the goal of many workers, those already on high wages for a start, and why should the wage levels of the needy be dictated by the unneedy?
And of course as Rafini points out, the claim is for a minimum wage and not a liveable wage.
"Why is it so difficult to define a minimum liveable wage? The drug addict is not chasing a basic liveable wage is he? Nor is the handicapped child."
So, livable wage does NOT include the old man about to die, the child suffering from a brain tumor, or the man who was addicted to heroine?
But it DOES include...
"...a roof over their head, a certain amount of food, clothes, recreation, all of which have minimum costs."
but what should that roof be made of? where shall it be constructed? how many do we need? how large shall it be? how shall it be constructed?
What should the clothes be made of? how much clothes does each person need? who should make the clothes? where should they be made?
What type of food do they get? Does the anemic person deserve more food than the diabetic? Who gets to make the food?
what if I sell my "roof" my "clothes" and my "food" for other items... do i still deserve the items?
"Of course the minimum wage is not the goal of many workers, those already on high wages for a start, and why should the wage levels of the needy be dictated by the unneedy?"
Why should they be dictated by anyone at all?
Er, the average cost of a roof, clothes made out of typical materials. No really, you are just being too silly now.
Wages shouldn't be dictated by anybody at all but there are too many who will steal a man's labour and although you don't object to theft, many of us do!
"Wages shouldn't be dictated by anybody at all but there are too many who will steal a man's labour and although you don't object to theft, many of us do!"
Its not theft if he agreed to work for that wage.
Why can't you understand that?
So it's not theft if you agree to give the mugger your watch and wallet if he agrees not to stab you?
Why don't you understand that many people who take low paid jobs don't choose to take that job, they don't look at two jobs one paying $20 ph and one paying $10 and think, hm, I think I'll pick the lower paid one.
And before you start banging on about that's all they are worth, remember Love Lady saying how she once worked 20 hrs a day to earn enough, I hardly think she falls into the dummy who's not worth spit category do you?
"So it's not theft if you agree to give the mugger your watch and wallet if he agrees not to stab you?"
Applying for a job and getting it at less than you think your worth is now the equivalent to being robbed at knife point....really?
"Why don't you understand that many people who take low paid jobs don't choose to take that job, they don't look at two jobs one paying $20 ph and one paying $10 and think, hm, I think I'll pick the lower paid one."
Did you read what you wrote? They didn't choose to take the job? I guess they were shanghaied and forced to work for less than they think their worth. Of course they took the job, they needed the job and they took it at an agreed upon wage.
"And before you start banging on about that's all they are worth, remember Love Lady saying how she once worked 20 hrs a day to earn enough, I hardly think she falls into the dummy who's not worth spit category do you?"
No, she falls into the category of taking care of oneself by working.
Are you so really detached from reality that you think every agreement is a mutual agreement?
Somebody takes a low paid job and it's done willingly but somebody in a well paid job pays taxes and that is done unwillingly!
Have you never heard of Hobsons Choice? It's the paradox of appearing to have a choice as long as your choice is the approved one.
"Are you so really detached from reality that you think every agreement is a mutual agreement?"
An agreement by definition is mutual. So, yeah I guess I'm that detached from reality...
"Er, the average cost of a roof, clothes made out of typical materials. No really, you are just being too silly now."
No, I'm not being silly. Average is VERY relative. Average 20 years ago meant something VERY different than it does now.
You are simply refusing to define your terms.
"Wages shouldn't be dictated by anybody at all but there are too many who will steal a man's labour and although you don't object to theft, many of us do!"
Yet, you tried to define a livable wage by saying "enough to have a roof, clothes and food". YOU tried to do the very thing that you now are objecting to.
This man has become a bit of a legend here in Ohio:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/mu … s-camp.xml
If you look at where he used to live, he met ALL of your requirements for a "livable" wage - he had a roof, adequate clothes, and apparently was able to eat for 3-4 years without a job.
Yet, you surely would protest that his standard of living was not "a livable wage", yet it met your definitions... yet it's not "livable"... yet... it is... but it isn't...
but it is...
But I'm not trying to define a liveable wage, I'm calling for a minimum wage. Let that minimum wage be enough for the average person in average circumstances.
It's not so hard, we manage it in the UK and Americans being so superior to us. . .
This term average, you keep using it.
It's a nonsense term in this case. If the lowest group of wealth earners gets moved up to the 'average', then by definition the average rises and suddenly the previously-average is now poor. Then we average again....
... And to pay for all this, we will have hyperinflation or a need for a higher wage
Aw... cat got your tongue?
You never did reply to the argument I made with the video:
That homeless man lived for 3+ years living off the WASTE of the rest of the population in the world. He had a "livable wage" (by your definition of a roof, clothes, and food) for over 3 years with NO wage at all.
It seems like this "livable wage" is actually $0/hour.
So, everybody should follow his example and live off what they can find.
How great would the US be with half the population living thus?
No, just got fed up of asking why then your dire predictions haven't happened in the UK yet.
In nearly 12 years we've yet to see increased unemployment as a result, no hyper-inflation, no run away wages.
You read what you wanted to read. Obviously they don't HAVE to do anything. But most people do have a conscience, and that conscience will prick them a little and they will complain about the inconvenience of having to deal morally with the poor. I pretty much stated that previously. Having to do something is a result of them listening to a nagging conscience. You didn't get that part.
I read what you wrote, debate it if you must but you said they would "have" to do something.
Wrong, most rich people do not care about conscience! Conscience about what?
That we have homeless people all over
They simply do not witness the poor! It is much easier for them, because most do not see the poor!
Look at wall street, they lay off hundreds and then pay huge bonuses to the top people! Do you think the boss is thinking "maybe i should have kept Jimmy because he has a mortgage to pay"
There are also poor people that feel entitled. If I'm on line at a grocery store and the person in front of me is paying with a welfare card and then talks on an iphone where it costs at least $90 a month, and that person complains about not being able to pay off that section whatever rent for the month, I have no sympathy. Poor people more so than rich people can't afford to make stupid choices.
I'm in complete agreement. Entitlement issues are irrespective of economic status, that's for sure.
Generally I'd agree with you, but there could be extenuating circumstances, you know. Perhaps a parent is paying for the iphone (or, in other words, there's no cost to the 'welfare card holder') and maybe they can't pay their rent because they had to get brakes for their car so they could get to their $10.00/hr job the next day.
Even if there was mommy or daddy helping out with the iphone, that person should have told them to pay for a utility or part of the rent instead and get the cheaper phone service. A cell phone is for making calls, that is it's major purpose. Again, if you are poor you can't afford to make bad decisions. And that $10.00 a day is not forever, it's a starting point unless you have very bad work habits.
There are immigrants who come to this country starting with nothing and are able to get a $10 job and increase their salary from there. It's ridiculous that people don't give thought to this.
I think deep down most of your species what's to help "mankind." The issue isn't with rich or poor, it's with money and the concept there of. It's just not useful.
But because you've all decided to give value to an inanimate object, you've artificially hampered productive workflow because if this imaginary object is in scarce supply, the whole system breaks down.
Without money, so goes the theory, there is no society.
But imaginary numbers made up by the Banking System, no matter how large or small--don't grow food, transport goods, or design products.
Until resources are adequately shared and nurtured to the point of ubiquity you'll always have this system, and the ability to dole out inequality.
the only way you can exist without paying taxes? go on unemployment and die when your benefits are all gone! Then, come back as a zombie and eat up all the benefits you would have had if you'd just gone back to work in some menial job, like a good little poor person.
and no, the rich do not care. Unless you have a different definition of "care" than I have!
The rich can't be summed up as one group of people. We are all individuals with different concerns. No matter what we have in the bank.
GREED is not wanting more than what you have. It's wanting more than you need. you've missed the point here. all you're doing is attempting to defend your political views and blast those you oppose. do you ever stop to think?
come on misha, you know what I'm talking about. there's a difference between someone wanting more than $7.35 an hour to make a living wage to live adequately enough to pay the bills and feed their family and a rich man who owns homes on every continent and wants more.
Nah, I don't buy that. I am pretty positive one person has no way of knowing all the circumstances of another person, even those who live together, let alone those that you only read about in newspapers. Surely you are free to think differently
If you're making $7/hour, and you buy a 2nd home...
...then you're livable wage is now defined as your ability to pay for that 2nd home.
Arguing for a livable wage necessarily means ignoring the supply side of the economy.
Looks like Obama may have found his inner Reagan.
Seems he's for lowering the Corporate tax rate.
Guess the little kick in the butt he received in November sparked this shift.
2 years to figure out what Reagan proved 30 years ago, what a sharp man.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … lenews_wsj
you know what guys..in reality,as of now, the rich are getting richer while the poor becomes poorer.
If there's no poor,there will be no rich..For the rich to become rich..,there must be plenty of poor.
I think the rich care about the poor as much as the poor care about the rich (well, that's not totally true.. the poor like watching the rich on TV much more)
The poor more than like the rich, they will actually give them more money even if it means doing without themselves.
The real poor don't have TV's.
or internet connections,cars,etc.
Most people who claim they are poor are really just bad with money.
If you have a dime don't finance a quarter.
In a word "No". Just look at all this "Repeal" nonsense on HEALTHCARE REFORM
Yes. CHILDREN with PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS now have to be covered and EVERYONE with PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS WILL BE covered by 2014. The legal challenges to healthcare don't seem to be going anywhere. Haven't you been keeping up?
You think thats a good idea.
Is buying car insurance after you have a wreck and expecting it to be covered a good deal for insurance companies?
Of course you do.
As long as you get yours you don't care who pays.
This is exactly why the profit element must be removed from health care.
You don't think people in the medical field should be paid?
What has that got to do with anything? Payment is a cost, not a profit.
But it isn't a profit paid to shareholders.
You wouldn't have shareholders without profit.
No health care except what the government deems you should have.
You are better off where you are, you would never last anywhere that requires self sufficiency.
What are you burbling on about? Of course you can have capital without shareholders, we manage it!
No health care except what the government deems you should have vs no health care except what the shareholders deem you should have! Hm!
Well I don't need the sort of self sufficiency that involves taking out my own appendix on the kitchen table with a blunt penknife.
I don't see how else it affects any thing else.
"What are you burbling on about? Of course you can have capital without shareholders, we manage it!"
I have heard many stories of what your health care system manages, I have worked with quite a few British physicians who got the hell out there because of the substandard care they were expected to give.
How much do you pay in taxes?
10% 20% 30% of your income?
hows the economy?
So? Not everybody in the UK shares a liking for the NHS. There are many both within the NHS and the government who would rather see private health care. I wouldn't expect those anti it to praise it.
How much do I pay in taxes?
How much do you pay for health care?
How's the economy?
Sh1t since we thought it was a sound idea to follow the American pattern. How's the US economy?
My health care is paid for by my employer.
The economy is great where I am and expected to be better.
Where does your employer get the money from to pay your health insurance and who pay's it if you part company with your employer?
But how come if your health care is paid by your employer you pay 16%? Or is that what you pay in income tax? If so add the cost of your health insurance to it.
What you want is a total takeover of the US health care system by the government.
The same government that cannot run any program they ever started efficiently.
You expect Americans to just give up what they know to be the best health care system in the world in favor of something like you have in the UK.
Unlike the rest of the world Americans are not passive and are not willing to give up our freedoms as easily.
You would think being British you may know that Americans will fight against a tyrannical government.
What is tyrannical about having health care that isn't capable of bankrupting even the wealthy?
What is tyrannical about health care that isn't a lottery open only to the rich?
What is tyrannical about living your life free from fear of the financial effects of serious illness?
Ah yes, how dreadful to have health care that treats everybody equally. How dreadful to have a health care system that doesn't write off some illnesses as unprofitable?
It doesn't seem to me that Americans fight off tyrannical governments, it seems that they positively embrace them!
Listen, you are right. Americans have been brainwashed, particularly in the last 10-15 years, into believing that "choice" of having health insurance or not is the ultimate "badge of greatness" in our society. And brainwashed is not an exageration. I had an emergency apendectomy six years ago. After a 5-day hospital stay, at the time, my share of the bill was $15,500.00 and some change. And I had insurance at the time. Health care costs are the cancer that is eating the US alive - anyone that denies that is simply living in a bubble. Insurance does little to contain the costs because the annual increases are just passed along to the policy holders in additional premium. Insurance is based on the concept of "marginal utility." Basically, the less you use an insurance, the more profitable it is for the insurer and the more affordable it remains for the insured. How on earth the premiere, or once premiere nation on the planet fell into believing this system could meet the demands of 330,000,000 people is beyond me. So, in short, no one who has never lived outside the US can fathom how government healthcare can work. Of course we know it can as evidenced by the rest of the civilized world. But then again, we are the country that brought you the "talking bass..."
But surely better to be $15,500 in debt and free than not be in debt but beholden to your government for running a better insurance scheme?
I do get rather puzzled by your countrymen at times, I think you hit it on the head when you say brainwashed. How does turkey's voting for Christmas sound:)
You know, you talk about this "government Takeover" of health care and how ours is the best in the world. And I won't argue with you over technological superiority in our system. However when it comes to access, we suck!
We are somewhere around 38 or 39th in the world in availabilty of service. And the availabilty is dictated by price. It's like being known for making the finest yachts in the world. - problem is due to cost, only the wealthiest can afford the best. Our healthcare is self-rationing already!
And it strikes me that "best" is really restricted largely to surgery.
How many people actually use the service for surgical procedures?
A recent visit to my doctor saw me come away with a prescription for drugs,many of which are drugs licensed from American companies.
What advantage does that give you?
If I go and see my doctor and come away with the same drugs as I would in the US, how exactly is your health service better than ours?
The rich are not in the least scared of the poor.
You are right, however, that the rich do not care about the poor. No, for the most part, they don't. However, there are exceptions to every generality, and there are those that are rich and they make a tremendous difference.
The rich, however, do not dispense money to individuals. They dispense money to foundations. Unfortunately, mostly the people who run the foundations, get paid a very good salary indeed, especially the members on the board of the foundations.
The rich are not scared of the poor because the poor tend to be poor in mind. Of course, not all the poor are poor in mind. With the shift of wealth in the last few decades, there are quite a few that are rich in mind who suddenly find themselves poor in pocket.
If it reaches a point where the poor understand just how much bending of rules took place for those rich people to get where they are, the rich might have reason to tread a little more carefully.
However, poor people continue to support rich people. They buy into all the fables - gotta have this and gotta have that. It's amazing how many of those rich people would begin to lose some of their wealth if the majority just said a few simple words, "I can do without that..."
LOL! Yes, you're an independent thinker all right, which explains why you are always soooo wrong!
But, I'm sure you will explain how everything you just stated is indisputable FACT.
The rich are the ones in government. Supposedly they choose to serve because they "care" about the poor, especially the socialist liberal democrats which I'm SURE you support, because you of course also CARE deeply!
I am willing to bet that the great majority of the rich care very much about the poor and most probably more than YOU do!
I think you need to go reread what I wrote. I think you also need to put your feeling of dislike against me aside and actually focus on what I am saying, and how I responded to the OP.
I also think that you don't in the least make sense. In particular, you 3rd paragraph makes absolutely not one ounce of sense in response to what I wrote.
The rich are not divided by party politics. Party politics have little to do with wealth. There are rich conservatives, rich liberal, rich tyrants, and rich every-type-of-people possible.
You're quite welcome to bet that the great majority of the rich care very much about the poor. I made a big mistake when I was 25. I grew up with chauffers and servants and private schooling and all sorts of things that others envied. However, I didn't like the way those around me spoke about 'white trash' and the equivalent. So I dropped out of that secctor and now I'm very poor. You could say I've seen both sides. If I could play it again, I wouldn't have done that. I would simply have realized that there were nice rich people around, and found them. Because, of course, there are some incredibly nice rich people around. Just as there are some incredibly nice poor people around.
However, during that time, I did have the privilege of dating a few lords, going to movies with a princess, flying in the cockpit of a Boeing 706 at the invitation of the captain, and lots of other stuff that very few people do.
I also recall being educated that if one was born into privilege then one had the responsibility of caring for those who did not have that privilege. That is why I said that while most of the rich don't care at all, it is a generalisation, and some do.
I have no doubt that you care very much about the poor. Bless your heart.
Some Rich people care about poor people and some poor people care about rich people , just depends on morals and who they are inside , Both rich and poor groups have loving groups as well as hateful, materalistic mean shit groups
There seems to be a wide brush which wants to paint the rich as something evil when in essence they have achieved the opportunity that our society offers to all. How do they think of poor....how do you think of the poor. I came from a poor background, managed to stay focused and gain a college education, served as an officer in the military, and earned my way up the corporate late to a comfortable middle class existence. From where I sit at the present, I can see some actions or steps that I might take to secure riches but it would require that I gamble most of what I have to achieve it and I am not willing to make that gamble. On that basis, I do not hold any ill will for those who have and won. Many successful people are from poor, meager backgrounds and once they achieve some level of success they realize that you first have to want it...you have to break the cycle, step out of the circle of poverty and struggle to stay there. It requires some choices and some sacrifices early on. In the end, the richest man in America will fail attempting to rescue the poorest man if he has no desire to change his position in life. Unfortunately, as a public, we are too easily suckered into the the class warfare argument which breaks down our societal focus and distracts us from the true issues at hand. In fact, the rich of this country now pay far more of the tax burden that anyone else and there are those who want them to pay more and more and more until there is nothing to show for their efforts and they slowly rejoin the ranks of the poor...wow, what a successful outcome. WB
its time to eat the rich for lunch!!!
progressive taxation that penalizes anyone who wants to accumulate over 5 billion dollars for his immeadiate family. huge incentives for the rich who want to invest billions in society on their own.....
this era reminds me of the end of a game of monopoly, when one player owns everything and the rest of the players are screwed.
Time to eat the rich for lunch.
Wow, the wealth envy on these forums never ceases to amaze me.
I want the rich to get richer, and I am all for tax breaks for the wealthy. You reward achievement, you don't punish it.
Maybe if we actually did that, we'd have more people working hard to get rich as opposed to villifying the rich for having the audacity to be successful and make good financial decisions...
Yeah, in fact I so want the rich to be richer that I've just taken a pay cut. Don't worry, I can easily afford it, I've given up my apartment and moved into a cardboard box.
"You reward achievement, you don't punish it."
That's quite naive. Here's what Adam Smith had to say on the subject:
The interest of manufacturers "in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. to widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers...and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."
Smith was a firm believer in public goods: he thought that the state has an obligation to build roads and bridges, establish an army, and do all the other things necessary for a sane polity in which the market can function naturally...
Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker October 18, 2010.
Do good financial decision include the ones like Wall Street made?
Like Bernie Madoff and the others?
Even Warren Buffet has come out against the very things conservatives are for...
Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction.
A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought.
I just think that - when a country needs more income and we do, we're only taking in 15 percent of GDP, I mean, that - that - when a country needs more income, they should get it from the people that have it.
How about we listen to the really rich people who actually made their money the hard working way???
If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.
I mean gosh what does this man know about rich people right???
Skipping over the multitude of replies and insuing debates, I'll get back to the OP's actual question... Do the rich care about the poor?
Some do, some don't, and some are indifferent. In any case, another question has to be asked... when did it become a law that they had to care?
Like the OP and many others, I myself came from an EXTREMELY poor background. I've tried to make something of myself, I've had my ups and downs (and am currently fighting my way out of a VERY down... "down").
The reality is, I pretty well except the fact I'll never successfully join the ranks of the "wealthy". Doesn't mean I'll ever stop trying, just that I acknowledge my chances are slim to none.
But how is that the fault of the "rich" whom I find myself so jealous of (hey, at least I admit it)? How is it their responsibility to help me out of the mess I currently find myself if? I made the bed, now I gotta sleep in it.
Say, think, or believe whay you want... "rich" people not being willing to do more than they already are to support the "poor" is not a crime (for the time being, anyways... much to the dismay of some).
It may be "immoral" or make them bad humanitarians by some peoples' standards, but last time I checked, this was still a free country and that was perfectly within their rights.
"Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness" (i.e.- "wealth", if that's how you choose to define happiness). That is our Constitutional guarantee... not the actual happiness (wealth) itself, but the freedom to PURSUE it based on your own merit. No one else is obligated to provide it for you.
No you shouldn't get a hand out but they shouldn't be able to form 501 c corps and spread propaganda about policies that negatively effect you.
They shouldn't be able to lobby for more ways to amass their wealth and distance the gap between the rich, wiping out the middle class, and leaving just rich and poor.
I consistently had excellent performance reviews and I was offered a promotion and denied a raise twice because of the economy but when our company printed out it's newsletter all they could talk about was how their quarter profits were in the billions.
Give me a break. The reality is it used to be easier to gain wealth by building a business and working hard, but it isn't so much that way anymore.
Even if you do save, even if you aren't a "victim".
Even if you work 40 hours a week and then spend the rest of trying to further yourself. Even College degrees aren't worth what you pay anymore to the tons of bloated colleges.
Those profits they reported, looked good on paper, but what was the reality. The profit is what gets you shareholders. If the company did not have shareholders they would not be in business, and you would not have a job. Which is better, a job with no raise or no job? That is the choice many are faced with anymore.
As far as the lobbying goes, I'm with you there. Lobbyists and the politicians that feed off of them are a bane on this country.
Only when we have the brains to elect politicians that will get rid of the lobbyists or severely restrain them, will we remove the blight that they are.
The worlds richest didn't get there by giving $ away.
The richest understand that people are intimately involved in why they are rich!
People are a replaceable "commodity."
People can be used, discarded when unusable, and replaced like kleenex. Pullout one, and another pops up.
The rich understand the plight of the poor and take full advantage of their needs in nations where politics can be controlled by $!
The "super rich" are concerned with one thing i.e. making more money and becoming more controlling and powerful.
There will "always?" be a more than an adequate # of human beings to insure the rich of getting richer.
If you think the "super rich" give a rats ass about those who suffer and die, you have been living on a different planet than I.
The POOR are tools!
If they cared about the socioeconomic stratification in this country, then we wouldn't have 3 million homeless and 35 million jobless. wealth has been being concentrated continually for decades by the fiscal policies brought to washington, by the elite. see " atlas mugged, a portrait of america 2025".
The rich ones I know all have their own pet poor. They care! And as soon as I get enough money, I'm gonna care too!
MMMmmm YES. I think the more money and wealth they gain, the more the feel they should give a little to the poor. Some might not give as much as we expect them to give. But they give "something" just to keep their minds and hearts at peace that they are helping that person with less. so they kinda care I guess.
There are lots of different ways to be rich. If we are talking about money then there are people on this thread who pretty clearly prove that some wealthy people could care less about others who are less fortunate, but than their bank account is empty in a different way.
And so as a non-monetary rich person, I would like to offer some advice to my compassionately bankrupt hubbers who believe that the rich are always rich because they are awesome and the poor are always poor because they suck - that idea is hateful and hate is always internally toxic.
Cast off your hurtful aspersions - there is still time for you to become truly rich!
Hard to generalize about the attitudes of the rich toward the poor. The Wall Street banksters seem to me to have an attitude of "f##k the poor." However, there are plenty of rich philanthropists who care a lot about the poor--Gates, Buffett, Soros, McCarthur, et al. As Aquinas said, "Never deny. Seldom affirm, Always distinguish."
by HuntersWhitt4 years ago
This is another theme that has come out in our economic discussions, and I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks: What responsibilities, beyond wages, do employers have to their workers?Consider the following...
by Sooner285 years ago
Republicans in the Senate, along with four Democrats, voted against ending a filibuster on a bill that would end oil subsidies. The Republican party votes for tax breaks for the rich, denies people the RIGHT to...
by lady_love1583 years ago
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/03/1 … consumers/Want to know why your bank fees are rising why your free checking isn't free anymore and why debit card purchases may be limited or even eliminated in the...
by AnnCee6 years ago
He says "we've" allowed a few rich people to take all the money and keep it. And "we" need to get it back from them.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/really- … from-them/Anti-capitalism in...
by mio cid4 years ago
Mike Huckabee ended his show with these words the other day.He said rich people should live with poor people for a few days so they would experience how hard their life is and poor people should live with rich people...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.thenation.com/blog/158543/ob … opting-gopI love how democrats (like Obama) pretend to care about the poor but when it comes to spending cuts who do they screw the very people they claim to care...
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.