-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What difference does it make how rich the rich are?
- Thread starter targus
- Start date
It is not being rich that bothers many. Being rich in itself is not the problem. However many feel that the rich bankers and wall street folk have gotten their riches by manipulating the system in their favor at the expense of the average person. Whether you agree or not isn't the issue. This is the perception of many. When they hear of people receiving bonuses of multiple millions of dollars, especially as severance packages for failure at their work it rubs them wrong. It is rather like defending a bank robber, or an embezzler, or a scam artist, or a fraud artist, saying he/she should not be punished simply because they took other peoples money.
You may argue what the did is legal, and it is. But that does not make it ethical or right. It is possible that an activity that is unethical or wrong can be legal. They are not the same thing.
Also, there is no reason such people cannot pay more in taxes. It will not hurt them nor will it hurt the economy.
And if you a wondering, your title perked my interest. So I took you off ignore long enough to reply. Good bye again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Be sure to send some more in to the government. You can do it voluntarily.
Audiences are always better pleased with a smart retort, some joke or epigram, than with any amount of reasoning.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ok, try this. Taking money out of the hands of consumers via taxation and giving it to the government to spend on, oh, say interest on the debt is not good for the economy. In fact, government spending drives increasing borrowing, which drives increasing interest payments, which drives taxation.
Increased taxation means less money in the hands of private citizens, which means less consumer spending, which means less goods and services being consumed, which means less production of goods and services, which means less employment, which drives government spending on stimulus programs, which drives increasing borrowing, which drives increasing interest payments, which drives taxation.
Increased taxation means less money in the hands of private citizens, which means less consumer spending, which means less goods and services being consumed, which means less production of goods and services, which means less employment, which drives government spending on stimulus programs, which drives increasing borrowing, which drives increasing interest payments, which drives taxation.
Increased taxation means less money in the hands of private citizens, which means less consumer spending, which means less goods and services being consumed, which means less production of goods and services, which means less employment, which drives government spending on stimulus programs, which drives increasing borrowing, which drives increasing interest payments, which drives taxation.
So long as one holds to the idea of ownership of private property as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution it should not make much difference to anyone.
There are certain government laws and resources that can aid people to become wealthy but those resources are equally available to anyone. Patent and trademark enforcement of intellectual property is one example. How rich would Bill Gates be today if the government didn't crack down people making and distributing illegal copies of the Windows operating system?
"Is the intent to tax them until they are no longer rich?"
This is much closer to the occupy movements desire from what I see on the news rather than the "let's tax the rich a little more."
One here is calling for confiscation of anything over 250000 a year. Most are calling for a leveling of income - bring the lower up by taking it from the rich.
Only very early in the movement was it about bonus/high pay of the corporate leaders. That is a message I hear very seldom out here.
This is pure communism on the foot and normal people are buying into it.
As one PBS commentator put it, it is right to free speech not the right to occupy!
This is much closer to the occupy movements desire from what I see on the news rather than the "let's tax the rich a little more."
One here is calling for confiscation of anything over 250000 a year. Most are calling for a leveling of income - bring the lower up by taking it from the rich.
Only very early in the movement was it about bonus/high pay of the corporate leaders. That is a message I hear very seldom out here.
This is pure communism on the foot and normal people are buying into it.
As one PBS commentator put it, it is right to free speech not the right to occupy!
poncho
Well-Known Member
It's not that the rich are rich. It's what they do with their riches.
They use their riches to monopolize everything and to control the political systems of all the western nations. To be better able to monopolize everything and control the political systems of all nations.
This is the new economic world order in theory and practice.
The OWS protesters are being led down the wrong road. Will they wake up and smell the rotten globalist baloney before it's to late? I doubt it.
They use their riches to monopolize everything and to control the political systems of all the western nations. To be better able to monopolize everything and control the political systems of all nations.
This is the new economic world order in theory and practice.
The OWS protesters are being led down the wrong road. Will they wake up and smell the rotten globalist baloney before it's to late? I doubt it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Poncho - Your friends here are so busy looking for the antichrist to start his one world government that they can't see they are working for him.
Inthelight thinks,
"So long as one holds to the idea of ownership of private property as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution it should not make much difference to anyone."
He will be happy when the 1% owns 99% of everything worth owning including his house. The bank will be pleased to rent it back to him.
Inthelight thinks,
"So long as one holds to the idea of ownership of private property as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution it should not make much difference to anyone."
He will be happy when the 1% owns 99% of everything worth owning including his house. The bank will be pleased to rent it back to him.
We are being inundated with this class warfare program.. It is a classic example of concentrating on the left hand which allows the right hand to achieve all kinds of mischief. I strongly believe that we should pay no attention at all to what bonuses, and employment packages other people have.. Most all are done by board of directors, or stockholders, and are none of our business anyway..
We should be focused on our governments complete inability to cut its operating costs.
We should be focused on our governments complete inability to cut its operating costs.
Nothing more to add ... I totally agree.
Here's what I posted a few days ago on another thread:
The way I see it (at least from this side of the Pond:smilewinkgrin:
1. The banks got themselves into difficulty in the last decade by gambling with other people's money and by lending to those who could not afford to repay (granted, those borrowers also have some responsibility, but the bankers should have known better).
2. When the banking system fell off the inevitable cliff in 2007-8, taxpayers' (our) money was used to pay for their mistakes and most of the banks were at least part-nationalised.
3. Despite the massive corporate welfare represented by #2, most of the bailed-out banks continued and in some cases continue to perform badly.
4. Despite the taxpayer-funded bailout of #2, banks now refuse and continue to refuse to lend - both to individual...er...taxpayers and to businesses owned by...er...taxpayers.
5. Despite #1 to #4 above, bankers continue to trouser obscene levels of bonuses.
It's against that kind of background that the Tobin Tax (which won't work unfortunately) has been proposed and that also explains the - rightful IMO - anger of the 'Occupy' protests.
I found I would agree with the first paragraph of your post if you replaced the "Rich" for "Government." It is for that reason, I do not want corrupt officials having more money. I just don't trust them. Lobbying for them to get more money is like lobbying for a bank robber to rob more banks.
BTW, most of the rich got their riches in an honest manner. There are some who have not, but most are honest people.
I don't know if most of the rich got their riches in an honest manner. We can find it honest, but when I see many " son of ", annuitants, and many soccer players, and so on, who will earn in a month more than some (because it exists too, and more than we probably talk about !) will earn working 60 hours a week during their whole life, i often think there's a matter.
Should one be allowed to earn in one month just because he was well born, what another will earn in a life of hard work ?
Money coming from money should be taxed more than money coming from REAL work (no matter how much you earn).
Should one be allowed to earn in one month just because he was well born, what another will earn in a life of hard work ?
Money coming from money should be taxed more than money coming from REAL work (no matter how much you earn).
The real issue is what has been called "the illusion of scarcity". Things have gotten tighter for all of us. Yet there is mass abundance out there all around us; it's just become increasingly concentrated.
The usual answer is "if you just work harder like the rich, then you can become like them". But this ignores the limitations in both opportunities and finance, that is apart of the problem in the first place. In practice, it's set up so that "those who've got shall get, those who've not shall lose". (It may not have been quite like this a long time ago, but it has been coming more ad more like this as time went on).
The people saying "just work harder", while presuming to have followed the principle themselves, forget that they are not happy with things either, but place the blame elsewhere (the government).
So they testify to apparent scarcity, but insist the abundance has just been dispersed by the government. Neither side sees business and government together as concentrating it.
The usual answer is "if you just work harder like the rich, then you can become like them". But this ignores the limitations in both opportunities and finance, that is apart of the problem in the first place. In practice, it's set up so that "those who've got shall get, those who've not shall lose". (It may not have been quite like this a long time ago, but it has been coming more ad more like this as time went on).
The people saying "just work harder", while presuming to have followed the principle themselves, forget that they are not happy with things either, but place the blame elsewhere (the government).
So they testify to apparent scarcity, but insist the abundance has just been dispersed by the government. Neither side sees business and government together as concentrating it.
Getting rich(er) often also depends on 'luck'-related factors such as accident of birth and also 'who you know' is frequently more important than 'what you know' eg: being introduced to the right people, being well-connected etc. Whether one classes this as getting rich 'honestly' is up to you, but it sure as heck isn't a level playing field where one becomes wealthy purely through good old fashioned har work.
It is currently taxed at a higher rate. So, your argument is a lame argument. The fact is, if you are a business leader you are paying a higher percentage of taxes. There are people in the 1% who pay 50% of their income in taxes. Do you think that is fair? What percent would you advocate that they give to government?
Secondly, I would recommend you reading the old classic, "The Millionaire Next Door." The statistics are hard to refute and this study has been replicated with almost no one disputing their findings.
Finally, would you advocate the communist philosophy of not allowing any inheritance? I do not see there to be any injustice to giving wealth to your children. In fact, the Bible allows you to give an inheritance. Abraham, for instance, was a part of the 1% and he gave it to his son Isaac. David gave his to Solomon. Is this evil?
I know people who worked non-stop every week to be able to retire at 40. They became extremely wealthy. If you asked them if they were lucky, they would disagree. They believed they got rich because they worked 80+ hours a week, saved a lot of money, and made wealth.
According to "The Millionaire Next Door", the vast majority of the rich are self made.