jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (17 posts)

Why have the rich always been demonized while the poor have always been glorifie

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Why have the rich always been demonized while the poor have always been glorified, even deified

    by some social & religious pundits?  What makes these social & religious pundits consider the rich to be immoral, even debauched while the poor are somehow viewed as more authentic, purer, & more wholesome?  Give analytical answers.

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12411992_f260.jpg

  2. kbdressman profile image95
    kbdressmanposted 2 years ago

    Social power and economic power (wealth) aren't independent.  There are exceptions, but those who have the means to get their voices heard are going to be heard more often than those who don't.  And, we question things we hear frequently less than things we don't hear frequently.  So, since the poor are usually exonerated and the rich are vilified, more people will automatically assume that is the truth, and perpetuate the idea, than if it hadn't been previously stated.

  3. Oztinato profile image71
    Oztinatoposted 2 years ago

    Those with a lot more than is necessary are open to corruption and ego. It is not impossible to be spiritual and wealthy just extremely rare. Usually the wealthy only look after themselves and forget about others. Most great religious teachers were quite "poor". Unecessary wealth can easily blind a person.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      There is NO such thing as unnecessary wealth.  Wealth enables one to live a civilized, cultivated life as opposed to a brutish animalistic life of poverty, lack, & constant struggle!

    2. kbdressman profile image95
      kbdressmanposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      gmwilliams....If there is no such thing as unnecessary wealth, how do you justify someone with hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in a bank account that they never use or do anything with?  'What do you call it?  Isn't that unnecessary wealth?

    3. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Oh dear, there is such a thing as socioeconomic legacy.  Wealthy people leave monies to their descendants so those descendants will always be socioeconomically advantaged.  You see rich people think ahead....WAY AHEAD.

    4. Oztinato profile image71
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Grace
      then why does JC criticize the rich? You know "eye of needle" etc. I knew a wealthy man who believed he was spiritual while lying and cheating. His spolit kids expected everything etc. A result of greed. Greed=too much wealth.

    5. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      This is an illogical premise you have presented.There is NOTHING wrong w/ "too much" wealth. Again,THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "TOO MUCH" WEALTH.The poverty mindset seems to permeate in the aforementioned commentary. Being poor ISN'T good, people!

    6. Oztinato profile image71
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It's not about "being poor". How on earth did you get that out of a criticism  of being greedy? People have needs but it's the greed you don't seem to admit too.

  4. bradmasterOCcal profile image30
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    The real question is where is the middle class, while the rich get richer, and there are more poor people now?

    Great Britain has the Royal Family who live off the country at the expense of the people. The people probably don't mind as much as we would because it is tradition.

    The United States has a de facto Royalty, and they gain their wealth through the loop holes embedded in the Internal Revenue Code provided by congress for the last one hundred years.

    Take a look at the Internal Revenue Code that changes every year, and even the congresses that wrote the code never read all of it, nor do they understand it any better than the wage earners that have been left out of these benefits.

    The Tax Reform Act of 1986 basically wrote the wage earner out of the few deductions that they had in the code. Government workers have offsets to all of the burdens suffered by the average wage earner.

    They have FERS, Federal Employee Retirement System, and use SS as a bonus.
    They have FEHS, Federal Employee Health System.
    They have job security, and other benefits.
    FERS is a real privately, not government managed, Defined Benefit Retirement.
    The FEHS gives the employees the best healthcare benefits.
    All of this is subsidized by the taxpayer.

    My point is that Rich can side step the Income Tax, and the poor get government aid and don't pay income tax. That leaves the burden on the middle class wage earner.

    Yes, the rich ten percent pay 90% of the income tax, but that is still only a fraction of what they should have paid, if they didn't have the Internal Revenue Code to protect the bulk of their fortunes.

    Basically, the US has a modern day version of the Feudal System, with a president and a congress acting as a King, and maybe soon as a Queen.

    If I went off your expectations for an answer, please delete my comment.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You have made some quite excellent points sir!  The middle class is getting hit left & right.  The middle class is THE AMERICAN BACKBONE!

    2. bradmasterOCcal profile image30
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you.
      As the middle class shrinks, so does the country.

  5. Michaela Osiecki profile image78
    Michaela Osieckiposted 2 years ago

    I wouldn't say the rich have always been demonized, but I think in our current economic and cultural standings, they have demonized themselves by hoarding wealth and making it damn near impossible for others to climb up out of poverty.

    No one wants to be poor, let me tell you that. No one wants to struggle to make ends meet day after day and worry about whether their kids will be able to eat each day or what will happen if their car breaks down or they lose their job. That's not a comfortable way of life for anyone.

    But these people are also the ones who care most about their families, their communities, and their ability to keep their heads above water in the most dire of circumstances - qualities that are revered in American culture.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      There ARE people who WANT, EVEN LOVE to be poor.  They want to be victims in life.  Even though there is opportunity, they maintain that they do not want ANY responsibility nor do they want to work hard to be successful!

  6. GERALD-710 profile image61
    GERALD-710posted 2 years ago

    Until recently, most societies were composed of a poor majority, a small middle class and an even smaller elite who often owned as much as half the wealth in a country. Religion often panders to the poor masses who seek in it at least some form of relief, spiritually even if they couldn't get physical relief. On the other hand, the wealthy generally do not pander to the religious establishment(exceptions are those who want something in exchange or are wealthy and involved in politics where that category of wealthy has to pander to the poor masses too) since they use money for all their forms of relief. That has always been the case even in ancient times. The Roman elite were largely secular though the masses worshipped various gods like Jupiter. Thus in order for religion to look more appealing to the poor masses, the rich who have everything are villified while the poor are given hopes of a wealthier afterlife, prayer will bring prosperity or poverty is the True Path as a way of locking them in the religion.

  7. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
    wba108@yahoo.composted 2 years ago

    Well in relation to politics, its politically advantageous to demonize the rich because of envy and that they're relativity few in number. For those who've failed in to succeed in America ( the wealthiest nation in world history), its easier to blame the rich than it is to ask the hard questions as to why they've failed. Most tyrants use this tactic of class warfare, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Lenin ect. because to divide and conquer is a basic military tactic that is also an effective political one.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      GREAT answer by the way, I LIKE your synopsis!

 
working