Why do we appease the rich?

[Stoicish]

I'm curious about this.

In our system it is commonly told to everyone that if we avoid taxing the rich then that means there will be more jobs for those of us who are not rich.

Of course the rich making up roughly only 2-4% of the population it seems like me that this kind of appeasement is just turning us into a plutocratic society.

I know I will hear staunch opposition, but it seem beyond me to assume that we have to take it on faith that the rich is going to provide jobs and actually give a damn about the well being of others.

In short, they don't. Why should they either? They have made their riches clawing to the top or being born into wealth. Do you really think that if you earned or gained millions of dollars and know that you are getting more that you are going to use it to help other people?

HELL NO! You are going to buy a mansion and then put a mansion in that mansion so you could live in a greedy paradox.

It seems that people who have been delusional enough to think that the wealth care about everyone else accept that, yes, people are greedy and only want more money. So now they say that because of the vast greed that we must appease to the rich. If we let them keep more wealth then they won't screw us over in the long run.

Is it me or is there just something fundamentally wrong with that?

[RightWingGamer]

At 11/2/09 01:17 PM, Stoicish wrote: I'm curious about this.

In our system it is commonly told to everyone that if we avoid taxing the rich then that means there will be more jobs for those of us who are not rich.

that's because if the rich have more money, they can afford to employ people to make them more money, and pay them for doing so.

Of course the rich making up roughly only 2-4% of the population it seems like me that this kind of appeasement is just turning us into a plutocratic society.

how is it appeasement? i think that the rich should pay the same taxes everyone else does, maybe a little less.

I know I will hear staunch opposition, but it seem beyond me to assume that we have to take it on faith that the rich is going to provide jobs and actually give a damn about the well being of others.

it's not about giving a damn. it's about the principle that doing the right thing results in a monetary reward.

In short, they don't. Why should they either? They have made their riches clawing to the top or being born into wealth.

or maybe they just got it by providing things that people need.

Do you really think that if you earned or gained millions of dollars and know that you are getting more that you are going to use it to help other people?

i would employ people to HELP me get more, and pay them for doing so.

HELL NO! You are going to buy a mansion and then put a mansion in that mansion so you could live in a greedy paradox.

OH, i see, it's all about greed. it never had anything to do with anything else, just greed.

It seems that people who have been delusional enough to think that the wealth care about everyone else accept that, yes, people are greedy and only want more money.

have you ever heard of philantropy? it's the practice of gaining money through conventional means, then when you have enough you give tidy sums to charity. in fact, some of the richest people in the world, including John D. Rockefeller and Bill Gates, are infamous for philantropy.

So now they say that because of the vast greed that we must appease to the rich. If we let them keep more wealth then they won't screw us over in the long run.

this isn't a god damn war! they are people just like you and me. they have done nothing wrong. in fact, because of their great wealth, they have the potential to do, and many have done, great good in this world.

Is it me or is there just something fundamentally wrong with that?

it's just you.

[gumOnShoe]

I would agree that the rich should pay more towards social projects (i.e. taxes) as they have more of a percentage of the U.S. currency. However, your example of mansion building is the prime example of how them having money creates jobs, if they are actually building new ones.

I think the larger problem is when the money ends up in cyclical cycles or sits in a savings bit somewhere without any application. If indeed they were able to support jobs it would be excellent, but I'm more concerned about the point at which we decided their work was more valuable than a person who works probably 3 to 4 times as hard, even if that person isn't responsible for the work of several others.

I think you could make more of an argument that labor market doesn't justify the prices charged by some to do a job.

[lapis]

At 11/2/09 04:31 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I think the larger problem is when the money ends up in cyclical cycles

It's a real bummer when you realise that this money could have actually gone to the acyclical cycles in which it belongs.

[ohbombuh]

I think it all started with the lobbying of the government. Ideally, all rulers would be anonymous but have some kind of pass code to use so that their decisions could be enforced. This way, assassinations would be way harder and lobbying would be virtually impossible unless of course everyone is given free stuff.

[Stoicish]

The problem is, and Bill Gates is a bit of a fluke, that I see tremendous amounts of wealth attached to evil.

People will do anything to get more money.

[Korriken]

At 11/2/09 01:17 PM, Stoicish wrote:

In our system it is commonly told to everyone that if we avoid taxing the rich then that means there will be more jobs for those of us who are not rich.

that is correct.

Of course the rich making up roughly only 2-4% of the population it seems like me that this kind of appeasement is just turning us into a plutocratic society.

nah, the rich open the factories, store, etc that employ you and everyone you know.

I know I will hear staunch opposition, but it seem beyond me to assume that we have to take it on faith that the rich is going to provide jobs and actually give a damn about the well being of others.

its more of a mutual benefit deal. without workers the rich can't do business, without the rich, the poor will be farming dirt for the little food they can get.

In short, they don't. Why should they either? They have made their riches clawing to the top or being born into wealth. Do you really think that if you earned or gained millions of dollars and know that you are getting more that you are going to use it to help other people?

Many do. as a matter of fact, a LOT of them do, you just don't see it on the news.

HELL NO! You are going to buy a mansion and then put a mansion in that mansion so you could live in a greedy paradox.

which provides work for the masons, carpenters, electricians, etc.

It seems that people who have been delusional enough to think that the wealth care about everyone else accept that, yes, people are greedy and only want more money. So now they say that because of the vast greed that we must appease to the rich. If we let them keep more wealth then they won't screw us over in the long run.

or they are intelligent and want to provide for their family for generations to come and don't want their descendents to have to farm dirt for a meager living.

Is it me or is there just something fundamentally wrong with that?

Nah, just you.

[Pontificate]

I don't think you understand; the aim of such policies is not to appease the rich, but to attract and encourage big business by limiting the amount taken through income tax. Bigger business equals bigger tax revenue along with the advantages of more employment, a more stimulated economy etc. The idea, in theory, is that instead having a bigger slice from a small pie the government takes a smaller slice from a big pie.

The extent to which this is the most efficient system is, naturally, debatable but that's the reasoning behind it anyway.

[animehater]

At 11/2/09 07:09 PM, Stoicish wrote: The problem is, and Bill Gates is a bit of a fluke

Only because it's convenient to your argument. How about instead of being jealous of the rich you should just let them live their lives while you live yours. That way everyone is happy.

[poxpower]

Ok well as far as I understand, there's 2 kinds of rich people:

- Wise investors
- Dumbasses

The first category comprises of self-made people and entrepreneurs. Those people will invest their money because they know about money. Whatever system you put in place, they'll know the loopholes to avoid paying taxes anyway. Whenever you'll give any way out of taxes for poorer people, they will exploit it.
One good example was that if you buy a house / building then the money you spent on it for that year won't be taxed ( or something like that ). So rich people would just constantly instantly re-invest money in buildings to avoid paying taxes while still increasing their net worth.

The second type of rich people are the idiots. That's your athletes, lottery winners, super stars etc. People who just fell ass-backwards into giant piles of money. These people will spend they money ANYWAY because they're idiots. They're people like Michael Jackson or Elton John, who make hundreds of millions of dollars and manage TO LOSE IT.

What's the point of taxing idiots like that? They're already pumping all their money into the economy.

So taxing rich people is pretty pointless. Either they're already spending money and making the economy roll or they'll find ways to avoid your taxes.

[SEXY-FETUS]

There's a big moral issue here as well.
These greedy rich people have earned all there money through agreed upon trade. They're not robbing banks or stealing it from anybody. What makes you think that you have the right to say that you or anyone else deserves that money simply on the premise that you've judged they "have enough"?

[Ericho]

On a cynical note, I like to think that we appease the rich, because they have more power than anyone else. We simply can't mess with the people in power, because they can take things away from us and nobody wants that. Again, this is a purely cynical note.

[Sekhem]

oh hey i didn't realize ng was the street corner

[SadisticMonkey]

LMAO. OP is a moron.

So 'appeasing' the rich means giving them the same rights as everyone else?

ahahahaha

[Korriken]

At 11/3/09 02:21 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: LMAO. OP is a moron.

So 'appeasing' the rich means giving them the same rights as everyone else?

ahahahaha

no no no, you're not thinking like a liberal man. appeasing the rich is not setting their tax rate to 150% of their total income and imprisoning them if they can't pay up.

[fatape]

regardless of how horrible the op expressed his opinion , I do think that there's something to be said about about the distribution wealth and how 5 percent of the population has 95 percent of the wealth.

it'd be nice if everyone made a couple hundred thousand a year , instead of a select few making a couple billion. Im not saying the way to go about it is with taxes, however there definitly needs to be changes in the system.

[tony4moroney]

At 11/2/09 04:49 PM, lapis wrote:

At 11/2/09 04:31 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I think the larger problem is when the money ends up in cyclical cycles

It's a real bummer when you realise that this money could have actually gone to the acyclical cycles in which it belongs.

Like?

The subject is really grey funnily enough I once again agree with gumonshoe. The problem is having the money end up in cyclical cycles.
Poxpower also raises a good point in his entirely eccentric manner - The trickle-effect theory assumes essentially that many of the affluent belong to the latter group, people who are wealthy but financially unstable.

The problem is a lot of wealthy people have gotten that way through investing their money, understanding it's value, and working for it. Yes, they'll have higher expenditures but a lot of that money is tied up in assets rather than being circulated throughout the economy, which is a HUGE variable that the trickle-down theory neglects.

There's also the problem of conflicting opinions on ethics. Group A believes they should be taxed more because it's 'fair', and they'd be helping out more. Group B believes that Group A shouldn't impose it's values on others, or perhaps that the same outcomes can be achieved through trickle-down theory.

Based on income inequality and living standards by comparison to OECD, Canada, Australia as proof, Trickle-Down theory has been disproven. Group A's theory of higher taxes is obviously more successful in redistributing quality of life more equally. However it doesn't disprove B's statement that it is 'wrong to impose values on others'.

Perhaps Trickle-Down could be amended, make it compulsory to expend a certain % of income on general goods and services, rather than increase taxes.

[Stoicish]

I didn't actually used to think like this. I mean on the one side a person has earned their money in a totally free society this means they should do with it as they see fit. It's their money.

On the other hand I see that some of them aren't very charitable and I think that you should be morally bound to use at least 10% of those profits to help others less fortunate. I guess, in the long run you shouldn't force them to do that and I'll probably be opposed to such laws to do so.

Should the government over-tax the rich? Depends and what they are taxing them on. Instead I think we should tax people porportional to their gains which is what we probably already do anyway.

Still, I'm a bit cynical with rich people and corperations. I think I've earned the right to be cynical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#Accou nting_scandal_of_2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Cros sing#Post-2001_and_2002_bankruptcy_filin g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#HIV_i nfected_Blood_Products
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechtel#New _Orleans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bear_St earns_Companies,_Inc.#Fed_bailout_and_sa le_to_JPMorgan_Chase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tak eover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac#Sept ember_2008_reactions_to_the_seizure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goldman _Sachs_Group,_Inc.#Involvement_with_the_
bailout_of_AIG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Ame rica#Ponzi_scheme

And many many many other people and companies who just left us so trusting of the stock market and where our money should go.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 11/3/09 09:03 AM, fatape wrote: regardless of how horrible the op expressed his opinion , I do think that there's something to be said about about the distribution wealth and how 5 percent of the population has 95 percent of the wealth.

Yeah and guess what, they pay more taxes than the bottom 90% combined.

it'd be nice if everyone made a couple hundred thousand a year , instead of a select few making a couple billion. Im not saying the way to go about it is with taxes, however there definitly needs to be changes in the system.

No it wouldn't. Not everyone deserves to make a "couple hundred thousand a year", and even then. it wouldn't make you wealthy, because everyone else is earning the same so it would just drive up inflation.

[drDAK]

At 11/3/09 05:57 AM, Korriken wrote: no no no, you're not thinking like a liberal man. appeasing the rich is not setting their tax rate to 150% of their total income and imprisoning them if they can't pay up.

Yeah, cause the "super-rich" top 1% can't jerk that out in a second.

Poor, poor rich people. Let's let them have power over us.

[drDAK]

At 11/4/09 12:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Yeah and guess what, they pay more taxes than the bottom 90% combined.

And... point being? The gap between rich and poor is widening you idiot. So yeah progressive taxes are necessary no matter how much your ethnocentric views dictate you deserve a shit load of money for doing comparatively frivolous tasks over your fellow man.

No it wouldn't. Not everyone deserves to make a "couple hundred thousand a year",

Opinion. Followed by this opinion: no one deserves more than a couple hundred thousand a year.

and even then. it wouldn't make you wealthy, because everyone else is earning the same so it would just drive up inflation.

Don't be so jealous little fella. We can share. You remember right, like preschool?

Ohhh wait, do you want to make up some ridiculous reason as to why you are so much better than other people and not a product of an environment? Oh yeah, thats right dude... you are a product of your environment. So, I guess it wouldn't make sense to judge the efforts of others when your "efforts" are enabled by a predisposed environment. Oh yeah.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 11/4/09 02:35 AM, drDAK wrote:

At 11/4/09 12:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

And... point being?

He said top percent earn a lot more than everyone else, I'm saying that he should stop complaining because they get a fucking shitload taken off of them through taxes.

The gap between rich and poor is widening you idiot.

NO YOU

So yeah progressive taxes are necessary no matter how much your ethnocentric views dictate you deserve a shit load of money for doing comparatively frivolous tasks over your fellow man.

Companies don't rob banks or force people to give over their money (unlike government).
If they're making money, people are buying their products, people are usuing their services. Because companies arjust OMG SOOO GREEDY LOL, they're not going to hand over their money to people who do only "frivolous tasks". They're going to pay their money to people who help their business and help them make money.
Also, companies and the people who work for them make a lot of other people money ie. The shareholders, and so deserve payment for this service.

And what the fuck are you talking about "ethnocentric "??

No it wouldn't. Not everyone deserves to make a "couple hundred thousand a year",

Opinion.

OMG, opinion? And arbitrarily deciding that people who earn money don't deserve to keep it ISN'T opinion?

Followed by this opinion: no one deserves more than a couple hundred thousand a year.

Sure they do. Further, people need to have the ability to make as much as they can, because as much as you might hate it, there is no motivator like greed. The greatest inventions, most succesful companies and so on were made by men who were self serving and did it to obtain wealth. Sure, it might sound great in your liberal fantasy land to think "Oh but people should do things to help each other", but that's not how it works. Taht's the thing about capitalism, it gets things done.

and even then. it wouldn't make you wealthy, because everyone else is earning the same so it would just drive up inflation.

Don't be so jealous little fella. We can share. You remember right, like preschool?

1. He said what he said because he wants everyone to be comfortably wealthy, which is what a couple hundred thousand is. So, you dolt, I'm saying this wouldn't achieve his goal because wealth is relative. If you gave everyone in the world a billion dollars, would everyone be rich? No, of course not.

2. Not everyone deserves the same amount of money.

Take two guys. They both work for a business. The first guy does does his job, just does what he needs to and nothing more. The second guy works hard, and eventuially starts up his own business, which is succesful because it provides a service that people require and provides it better than competitors, and it makes people who invested in his company rich.
Who should get paid more? The second guy, obviously. But let me guess, he should be heavily taxed and the money given to the first guy to compenstae for his foolishness and laziness, right?

Ohhh wait, do you want to make up some ridiculous reason as to why you are so much better than other people and not a product of an environment? Oh yeah, thats right dude... you are a product of your environment. So, I guess it wouldn't make sense to judge the efforts of others when your "efforts" are enabled by a predisposed environment. Oh yeah.

No.

Neither of my parents are wealthy or educated. My dad didn't even finish high school.

My parents, although supportive, never pushed me into being smart and studying hard. I looked at what successful people had, and said to myself that I wanted it too, and so I decided to work hard so that one day i might be able to achieve these people's level of success.

I've gone to crappy public schools my entire life which were all understaffed and under resourced. I have constantly been surrounded by people who don't give a crap about school, and would much rather spend their time drinking or playing sport. Their teaches have gone on endlessly about the importance of studying and the importance of academic achievement, but they don't care and instead prefer to be lazy and foolish.

I am going to be a chemical engineer, a profession in which there is a desire shortage and for which there is an ever increasing demand, in Australia at least.
It is among the hardest undergraduate courses there is university, and I'm going to have to work extremely hard to get into the course I want, let alone pass it, and my parents will, given their low incomes, struggle to pay for it.

So yeah, I would hardly describe myself a product of my environment.

And yeah, I think I deserve considerably more money, if I end up being good at engineering, than the lazy fools who had just the same amount of opportunities than me, if not more, but were too stupid to take advantage of them.

but let me guess, my hard earned money should be taxed and given to them to make up for their lack of intelligence, right?

Moron.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 11/4/09 02:26 AM, drDAK wrote:
Yeah, cause the "super-rich" top 1% can't jerk that out in a second.

Who are you to decide that they should have to?

The government, and you, should mind their own goddamn business and start cutting their spending instead of wildly increasing it and then making other people pay for it.

Poor, poor rich people. Let's let them have power over us.

The government is the one with too much power.

LOL, it's also funny because I don't see you complaining about how much politicians get paid, when they are the ones who TRULY don't deserve it.

[genius21]

the rich who inherited their shit should have to do work. if it was my choice heres how it would be:
rich person dies, leaves money to children, grandkids, etc. ; inheritance is not given immediately, receivers of said inheritance must work for a certain peroid of time, do charity work with the poor and the homeless,etc. ; they then receive their inheritance when they learn that there are people less fortunate than them and they must use their inheritance to try to increase their wealth and at least 40% of the inheritance and future earnings must be given to charity

[Korriken]

At 11/4/09 02:26 AM, drDAK wrote:

Yeah, cause the "super-rich" top 1% can't jerk that out in a second.

if you can show me, How it would be possible for anyone to pay 150% of the total income, I'll set myself on fire. considering that 100% would be everything you make, the extra 50% would be impossible to pay.

I swear, liberals can't even do simple math these days.

Poor, poor rich people. Let's let them have power over us.

silly liberals, "waa waa the rich people have power over us! they employ workers and pay them! waaaaa! Government! come take their money from them and give it to the poor people! WAAAAA!!!!"

without even realizing that the government uses that call to enslave the people under the guise of helping them. Welfare, "universal health care". All forms of slavery to the government. you can't rise above anything while expecting handouts.

Eventually the liberals succeed in oppressing those above them. Then, the people realize that everyone if forcibly held in poverty by the government. If you try to rise up and do well for yourself, the government knocks you back down in line with everyone else, back down into perpetual poverty. Then, you realize that the only people who are not in poverty are the ones keeping you there, the politicians, who wield all the power.

good job dumbasses!

and on a last note, forced charitable giving is impossible, thats simply wealth redistribution, and an unwise path to walk. forget not what has happened in many other countries where the people whined, bitched, and cried to the "evil rich pigs" to be brought to their knees. what you got was a super powerful government holding everyone down and keeping everyone poor and miserable.

[gumOnShoe]

At 11/4/09 04:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: LOL, it's also funny because I don't see you complaining about how much politicians get paid, when they are the ones who TRULY don't deserve it.

and actors, and CEOs that fall into the money of others... and and and. The point is that even chemical engineers who can expect to make close to 6 figures if not over in the U.S. are still middle class, so you couldn't be counted among the super rich, but rather the upper middle class.

I think we're talking mostly about the people who require 6 million to cover their private jet & another 1 million for entertainment costs, and who demand huge sums of money just for being in charge when the amount of work they do is substantially less than those beneath them (ie wall street).

You'll never have that as a chemical engineer. But there will be someone like you who couldn't get the loans, who tried everyday to learn something, but failed, who was beaten into submission by abusive parents, who developed a medical condition that "knocked them out of the race" or a psychological condition that prevented them from being able to hold a steady job, or was in an accident caused by someone else, or who ran into money troubles due to the perfect storm of debt, which in America you are almost required to go into if you want a good education, or was plagued by a natural disaster and lost everything even though they were relatively well off. And none of those people you could rightly say deserved to make less than a chemical engineer because they were morons.

You have a distinct lack of respect for your fellow man and a arrogance that does not become you. You falsely appeal to our vanities, claiming higher standing, and I can only hope the reality of life will knock some sense into you.

It is my opinion, that you do not possess the traits that make a human admirable, that I'm sure many of your "moron" peers possess and that your framework for life is exactly what our societies don't need.

[tony4moroney]

The irony of your situation completely escapes you sadisticmonkey.
Woe is me, I've lived a hard life bla bla bla.

Your parents don't have to do shit to put you through university. So don't try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes with your whine.

And how are those HECS places supported, other than through Australia's egalitarian system the one that you so vehemently oppose and yet is cushioning you through your tertiary years. If irony and embarrassment had a son, they'd call it sadisticmonkey.

[MickTheChampion]

Our countries are run top down, not from the ground up - so it's natural that the wealthy are going to see to it that they're looked after.

I know, it'd be ace if we started killing them and changed society and everything but I can't really be bothered.

[animehater]

Instead of trying to get the rich to give up all of their money why not just put your jealousy aside and mind your own business? People are still people regardless of income.

[gumOnShoe]

At 11/4/09 10:07 AM, animehater wrote: Instead of trying to get the rich to give up all of their money why not just put your jealousy aside and mind your own business? People are still people regardless of income.

Hi, doctor, I have this horrible laceration on my leg because in an effort to cut costs, my employer who is building a huge building for an international company decided not to replace a tool that should have been replaced months ago. I know I'm bleeding out and I don't have enough money to pay for this when its done, and its likely my insurance will drop me or raise costs on everyone in my company to make up the difference, but please take care of me because I'm a person regardless of income.