The rich get richer, the working people . . . .

[carpro]

This thread is really about those that covet the wealth and success of others. It's a sin.

Just another reason why liberalism and Christianity are often at odds.

 

[billwald]

>Take intelligence for example. It is about 70% genetic in nature.

How much intelligence does it take to recognize this?

Say a bunch of people with 95 IQs realize that are not rocket scientist material. They understand that as individuals they are powerless to to negotiate with the owners of the company they work for. They realize there is strength in numbers so they form a labor union and hire a lawyer (120 IQ) to negotiate a contract for them.

 

[rbell]

I just had a thought:

The title of this thread illustrates a problematic line of thought.

The statements are built upon opposites: Rich, and poor; richer, and poorer.

But we've twisted the statement around...so now...what's the opposite of working people? Rich people. We're supposed to believe that rich folks just "got" their money. They didn't work for it or earn it. They don't do anything to keep it. It's only "good luck" that allows them to be rich. This mindset contends that the only difference between wealthy, financially successful folks and the working poor is guessing right on the coin toss.

Do some get it through no effort of their own? Sure. But most wealthy folks earn it through hard work.

Wealth envy is toxic, and it's going to poison the left.

 

[Salty]

According to the Washington Post, 80% of Millionaires are about 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.

Anotherwards- they worked, and worked very hard.

 

[Eric B]

But the left aren't the only ones complaining about what they have and what others are getting. The whole "taxed enough already" sentiment of the Right is from other largely "working class" people doing the same exact thing, but only pointing the blame in the opposite direction.
It almost becomes envy towards the poor who supposedly are getting everything (other discussions have mentioned color TV's, and of course, now it's the health care) without working like they had to work. It reminds me a bit of the parable of the vineyard workers.

The real issue is not whether all rich people worked hard. It's whether this still justifies the gap between their income and everyone else. Are they working thousands of times harder than everyone else, and than what they were working in the past when the gap was not as large? Face it, there's a lot of strings they can pull, and loopholes they can use, and much of success is also based on who you know, and being ruthless and overdriven, and the cost for their increasing demands is passed down to everyone else, (who are then made to blame those beside or even below them instead! And no matter who is in office, this does not change).

So what the term "working" in contrast to "rich" means, is those who depend on their jobs immediately ("paycheck to paycheck"). The people being called "rich" are basically set for life (unless they become ridiculous and squander it, as many celebrities did after their heyday as over).

 

[targus]

But the left aren't the only ones complaining about what they have and what others are getting. The whole "taxed enough already" sentiment of the Right is from other largely "working class" people doing the same exact thing, but only pointing the blame in the opposite direction.
It almost becomes envy towards the poor who supposedly are getting everything (other discussions have mentioned color TV's, and of course, now it's the health care) without working like they had to work. It reminds me a bit of the parable of the vineyard workers.

The real issue is not whether all rich people worked hard. It's whether this still justifies the gap between their income and everyone else. Are they working thousands of times harder than everyone else, and than what they were working in the past when the gap was not as large? Face it, there's a lot of strings they can pull, and loopholes they can use, and much of success is also based on who you know, and being ruthless and overdriven, and the cost for their increasing demands is passed down to everyone else, (who are then made to blame those beside or even below them instead! And no matter who is in office, this does not change).

So what the term "working" in contrast to "rich" means, is those who depend on their jobs immediately ("paycheck to paycheck"). The people being called "rich" are basically set for life (unless they become ridiculous and squander it, as many celebrities did after their heyday as over).

What difference does it make if someone worked for their money, made it investing in the stock market, inherited it, or just won the lottery?

IT'S THEIR MONEY !!!

What right does anyone else have to claim it?

Jesus said that we would always have the poor among us.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Eric, you're exactly right. Not only does this level of income inequality hurt the poor and middle classes, but it also hurts the rich in the long run.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

What difference does it make if someone worked for their[sic] money, made it investing in the stock market, inherited it, or just won the lottery?

IT'S THEIR[sic] MONEY !!!

What right does anyone else have to claim it?

It's called taxes. Governments have done it all throughout history. Unless you want to have no government and no taxes, which wouldn't surprise me.

Jesus said that we would always have the poor among us.

Your misuse of Scripture is duly noted.

 

[webdog]

It's called taxes. Governments have done it all throughout history. Unless you want to have no government and no taxes, which wouldn't surprise me.

So according to you the only opposite of big government and a lot of taxes is no gov't and no taxes?!? No such thing as smaller government and less tax?

Your misuse of Scripture is duly noted.

Explain how. It's one thing to help the poor willingly...it's another thing to have money taken from you forcefully and given to the poor.

 

[billwald]

>We're supposed to believe that rich folks just "got" their money. They didn't work for it or earn it.

There is new money and there is old money. The new money, the new dot com billionaires, is mostly paper profits paper assets. If they do anything but sell it off in small chunks they would crash the market. Mostly what they do is inflate the money bubble.

The old money is hard assets, land, mineral wealth, infrastructure. It is controlled by the families of people we never heard of mostly living outside the US. The queens of the Netherlands and England, for example.

 

[targus]

Eric, you're exactly right. Not only does this level of income inequality hurt the poor and middle classes, but it also hurts the rich in the long run.

What the dependency class will never understand is that the government will never be able to give them a life style equal to that of people who are willing to work hard for it.

No matter how much the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor a certain segment will always envy those who have more.

And Paul you need to change that mindset of looking to the government to provide for you if you ever hope to accomplish anything in your life.

 

[Steven2006]

What difference does it make if someone worked for their money, made it investing in the stock market, inherited it, or just won the lottery?

IT'S THEIR MONEY !!!

What right does anyone else have to claim it?

Jesus said that we would always have the poor among us.

Exactly! It really takes quite a bit of arrogance for someone to think they have the ability to decide if someone has actually worked hard enough to deserve the money they have. No matter how you slice it this comes down to jealousy and envy. For someone to look at another and actually conclude that he/she deserves some of that persons money is against everything that is just and fair.

I already posted a link on this thread that proves that when taxes are lowered it actually brings in more tax revenue. That fact however is conveniently dismissed ( just as it is by the liberal politicians), and by doing so it proves it is not about economics, but rather jealousy and envy. Some people are just bothered by other peoples wealth, that is the bottom line.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

What the dependency class will never understand is that the government will never be able to give them a life style equal to that of people who are willing to work hard for it.

No matter how much the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor a certain segment will always envy those who have more.

And Paul you need to change that mindset of looking to the government to provide for you if you ever hope to accomplish anything in your life.

Hey bub, I have a job. I don't want the government to provide for me. We can have a social safety net and equality of opportunity and still reward people for hard work.

 

[targus]

Hey bub, I have a job. I don't want the government to provide for me. We can have a social safety net and equality of opportunity and still reward people for hard work.

We don't need the government to provide equality of opportunity or to reward people for hard work.

I know that you think that you have "worked" at a job...

But at your young age and relative inexperience you still don't have a clue of what it means to work - and by that I mean work hard to create a lucrative and rewarding career or business.

Hopefully some day you will have that.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

We don't need the government to provide equality of opportunity or to reward people for hard work.

I didn't say the government should reward people for hard work.

I know that you think that you have "worked" at a job...

But at your young age and relative inexperience you still don't have a clue of what it means to work - and by that I mean work hard to create a lucrative and rewarding career or business.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

[targus]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Seriously, Paul. You don't have a clue at this point in your young life.

I have built three businesses - from the ground up.

That meant sometimes working for 15 hours a day - six days a week - for a couple of years at a time.

That meant sometimes working 10 hours at my business and then working another 8 for someone else in order to pay the bills.

That sometimes meant paying my employees a very good wage and taking nothing for myself.

In the end though it proved to be worth the hard work.

That is what the "tax the rich" crowd want to ignore.

Many people who are well off are that way because they worked for it.

Nothing that you have said convinces me that it is then fair to tax those people more just because they now have more.

Nothing that you have said convinces me that it is fair to take my money to give it someone else that is content working a typical eight hour - five day work week - or even less.

Sorry - but that's just the way that it is.

 

[billwald]

targus - where would you say that middle class and rich class start?

I would say that middle class starts at 10 times minimum wage and rich starts at 50 times minimum wage.

 

[Thousand Hills]

targus - where would you say that middle class and rich class start?

I would say that middle class starts at 10 times minimum wage and rich starts at 50 times minimum wage.

Here's my $0.02. Maybe its late and my math is off, but if the min wage is $7.25 per hour, a person working 40 hours a week would make $290.00 per week, or roughly $15,080 per year. So 10 times that would be $150,800 for the beginning of the middle class. And 50 times that would be $754,000.

Since we've never came close to making $100,000 a year I must be poor by billwald standards. Funny thing though, I still pay a good chunk in for taxes each year and we make "too much" money to get any kind of scholarships for my wife to finish school. But my wife and I have both worked hard, and have paid for cars and a nice house, and have never taken a government hand out.

The reality though is alot of it depends on what part of the country you live in. But it doesn't matter how much you make there will always be somebody with more and somebody with less. Our current tax system is set up to penalize those who achieve, and reward those who don't, plain and simple.

 

[rbell]

>Take intelligence for example. It is about 70% genetic in nature.

How much intelligence does it take to recognize this?

Say a bunch of people with 95 IQs realize that are not rocket scientist material. They understand that as individuals they are powerless to to negotiate with the owners of the company they work for. They realize there is strength in numbers so they form a labor union and hire a lawyer (120 IQ) to negotiate a contract for them.

Flawed from the get-go.

If they have IQ's of 95, they're way too smart to unionize.

 

[rbell]

Here's my $0.02. Maybe its late and my math is off, but if the min wage is $7.25 per hour, a person working 40 hours a week would make $290.00 per week, or roughly $15,080 per year. So 10 times that would be $150,800 for the beginning of the middle class. And 50 times that would be $754,000.

Since we've never came close to making $100,000 a year I must be poor by billwald standards. Funny thing though, I still pay a good chunk in for taxes each year and we make "too much" money to get any kind of scholarships for my wife to finish school. But my wife and I have both worked hard, and have paid for cars and a nice house, and have never taken a government hand out.

The reality though is alot of it depends on what part of the country you live in. But it doesn't matter how much you make there will always be somebody with more and somebody with less. Our current tax system is set up to penalize those who achieve, and reward those who don't, plain and simple.

Bingo.

And your numbers are spot on.

Signed,

another "poor" person who pays taxes