The rich and affluent: why hate them?

I got the "12%" wrong, it was "14%".

Whats your point? "Mitt Romney is not as bad as the worst ones, so he's not that bad"? Foul acts are foul acts. He himself gave rise to the reality of the upper class getting away without paying expected taxes using loopholes. (More effectively than Obama did.)



When I had a job I did pay taxes, but right now, without a job, I don't pay income taxes, what an unfair and extremely personal assumption though. I've had 3 jobs, even while underage, and I paid taxes. Always lost 10%+ from my checks, I never complained or bothered. If I can find a job I can work around my schedule, I will be paying income tax again. What does it matter how little I may pay to you?

As for Romney...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/opinion/mccaffery-romney-tax

and

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html

All I did was list a reason why the 1% is hated, I never attacked anyone with the "fair share" argument.

More like, he pays taxes while a roughly 50% (46+%) of U.S citizens are net tax consumers. So to complain that he "gets away with paying 12% (14%)" while close to half of the country pays nothing or next to nothing is just asinine.



Even though money was deducted from your paycheck every pay period, you probably received a rebate equal to or close to the amount that you paid in income tax.



It doesn't, it just bugs me when people who probably received a rebate for their income tax complain how much the "rich" are paying. In other words, when you are a tax consumer, don't complain about those who are actually paying taxes.



When you make statements like



You imply that you feel 12% (14%) is not the proper amount he should pay (i.e. "unfair").

This, I really can't say anything about, I don't understand most of it, but I don't think the ones who consume without contribution are any "better". To me though, if Romney could get away with it, I could see him doing the same. With as much wealth as he has compared to the ones you complain "never contribute, but never possess", they're on different scales. Quite a huge sum of people seem to share in this opinion. Those who "consume" are only a problem when you add them up, but Romney, and his wife, are 2.



Being underage for 2, I couldn't. For the third, complications arose and I never did.



Ic... I don't fully understand, but I hear what your saying.



Or I imply "I'm amazed at how little he pays in taxes despite making 14 million in 2011". I never gave rise to my opinion, other than "I would expect it to be more", his tax rate leaving me "speechless", and it being a "reason" why people derive dislike towards him, theirs nothing else I insinuated.

Here is where you go pick up a book or punch some letters into your favorite search engine and attempt to learn something. Get both sides of the issue especially from the perspectives you disagree with.





If I could, I would too. I can't blame a person for attempting to prevent as much theft of the fruits of his labor as possible.



It might be me but, this didn't make any sense. Can you run it by me again so I can give it a proper reply?



To elaborate, everyone "pays" income tax through their check (though few exceptions do exist such as "contractors" and those who file a 1099 tax return). Then at the beginning of the year, people file their tax returns and get their "tax refund" or "tax rebate" which is another way of saying you paid more taxes than you were liable for. Then once you add in various deductions, tax credits among other things you find a large portion of the country has no tax liability at all so they get 100% of their income taxes refunded to them.

That 47% is comprised mostly of the poor,elderly, and parents. Also as recently as 2012, the wealth gap in the U.S exceeded that of Uganda and Kazakhstan.

Doesn't really counter the point. Those people are Americans and they don't pay income taxes.



Data on income mobility

"The rich get richer the poor get poorer" is a catchy bumper sticker slogan but, a statistical myth.

One reason for the rich "getting richer" post great recession is most rich have their investments in stock while most middle class and poor have their investments tied into their house. There are more reasons than just that but, it's a start.

The poor don't have much income to tax(and they don't get out of non-progressive taxes like state and sales), most of the elderly paid taxes during their working years, and parents are presumably spending that money on providing for their children.

I personally don't hate rich people. I hate the socio-economic system that allows people to profit and exploit others (often those with virtually no assets) for their own benefit while spreading widespread inequalities in both their own economies and in the global economy.

As a socialist I believe that the 'success' of banks like Merill Lynch, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac etc., like any capitalist institution, is built on the exploitation of the working classes in order to maximise the net capital gain of those who already have the means to live not just well but have the power to buy a national government.

This might suggest that I believe the free market itself is evil, I don't, I think people who allow the market too much freedom in order to exploit individuals for net profit are evil. An ideal socio-economic format for any country is one where both the domestic economy and international trade are regulated by the government to serve the nations that they represent and not the upper classes, leaving plenty of room for a truly free market to flourish and develop.

I applaud upward social mobility, I do, but I also find it wrong that I live in a works in which individuals must be subjected to live in a particular class and have their social position influence the rest of their lives and ambitions, in the same way it is wrong for someone to be denied the same privileges as other people (or outrageous privileges be given to others) based on as arbitrary a thing as race or gender.

I don't hate rich people, just the ones who knowingly exploit others despite already having enough, and the system that allows the existence of either rich or poor in the first place.

I was gonna drop this but this has been bugging me.

What makes these people anymore entitled to hold onto all their cash than those who have "none" or "cannot" pay? What makes it "theft" for them but expected from anyone else?

Okay, you listed reasons for why half of the country doesn't pay income taxes and haven't refuted the central point that I was making which is "half of the country doesn't pay income taxes"




Let me clarify one thing, I believe everyone is entitled to the fruits of their labor for the same reason you don't have to ask permission from me to take birth control. It's something called "self-ownership" (a.k.a individual sovereignty) that states "If a person owns themselves (body, thoughts, etc) it means they own their actions, including those that create or improve resources. Therefore, they own their labor and the fruits thereof.

To keep me from writing an entire essay on Labor theory of property I'll keep it simple.

If you spend your hours making a widget then you're entitled to that widget and can sell it for whatever price you see fit. Lets say this person is a fashion designer and they spend hours making their outfits to sell. Every outfit that person makes is a "fruit of their labor" and is there property. The designer can then sell that property to another person.




If I was a millionaire and I took your car without permission, I stole your car. If I am destitute and you were the millionaire and I took your car without permission, I stole your car. Anything that is taken without permission is theft whether it's taken from the rich or the poor.

More reading

FPOD, your mantra about those people not "paying" taxes is getting really old and disingenuous.

No, indeed those people don't pay *income* taxes... they still pay a darn lot in *payroll* tax and tariffs. When you tally up the *total* tax-burden, your claim that the poor are free-loaders doesn't bear out scrutiny et all:



BTW, the problem is not the top 10%, it's the top 1%, who own so much more wealth and who pocket such an absurd portion of the profits - while being *less* taxed, then people with lower income! - that their economic pull has practically started to undermine democracy itself.

I've repeatedly said income tax and didn't mention payroll or sales tax. So your first sentence is dishonest. I expect better from you.



If those people have acquired their wealth through force or fraud then they should be punished (look at the bankers). If they have earned their wealth through legitimate actions then leave them alone. It doesn't matter if someone has $1 or a million or ten million or ten billion. If they have earned it without force or fraud then they are entitled to keep it.

Democracy always collapses when the population realizes they can vote themselves gifts from the government. Our government is hemorrhaging money not because those mean ole rich people won't pay "their fair share" or whatever drivel the troglodytes can conjure up but, because everyone and their mother wants a handout or a bailout. It goes beyond mere welfare like social security or medicare. It includes all the subsidies for special interests, or the industries the government wants to promote. A broken education system that spends more money per pupil than any other western nation also the security subsidies to wealthy allies.

So rather than address the problems plaguing this country, people just cry and scream "the rich aren't paying enough!". Instead we should be looking at the hundreds of millions the government wastes and how the money the government spends actually impacts the economy but no, "the rich aren't paying enough" is the battle cry.

I wanted to start a good ol' debate, but it seems that I'm not smart enough to do it in this thread...
Anyways, I don't think the 'rich' people have gotten their position without doing nothin'. It might have been their father or some ancestor from a long time ago, but the work has still been done, if not by you, by someone else. So it kind of balances it out in my opinion. Sure, it might not be 'fair' that one gains from anothers deed, but thats how it works, I think (at least hope) that the fortune goes back to the people at some point, I personally am not really affected by this, since my parents STILL pay for my rent and daily expences... Why are my opinions always so complicated and weird... gah, why did I even comment.

How do you decide what "is the fruit of their labor"? On the factory line, it's not the CEO's imagining, assembling, and distributing products. May be a stretch to say based off your post but, if the worker is not being compensated a adequate amount for the labor they conduct, doesn't that make it theft as well? What makes the CEO (top positions) job worth as much as, they, decide it is in comparison?

By extension, when those at the top compensate workers, with very little, leaving those unable to support themselves adequately in this economy (Minimum wage, in America alone, not being enough to survive on independently in a great deal of areas), the "redistribution of wealth" through welfare (ect) can give them that much more to survive.



I don't have a complaint when it comes to a 1 on 1 exchange of a personally crafted object/possession in which the one who works on it can decide, for themselves, the worth of their labor (and when it is not something the buyer has no choice but to accept, for without, they could not survive/live in that society). But a cooperation is not so simple.



So you envision a society without taxation?

Also to add onto that. I could probably list somethings I view as "taken without permission/consent" by cooperation's, some of which are made into laws to prevent. Clean air and water, safe and sanitary work environments, human labor rights, regulation of food products, ect.

As well I agree with, BJJC, link that cleared things up for me. Here you had me thinking 46% of Americans were weaseling (through loophole's) themselves out of taxes the way Mitt Romney does. They are not equal, but this seems to be a difference in ideology between the 2 of us, and strikes me as a pointless conversation to have with you.

Imagine a FedEx or UPS driver. They are not creating anything so what are they being paid for? The answer is their labor. I'll agree with CEO pay being bloated beyond comprehension but, that's a side effect of the stockholders having short sighted visions of financial gains. Anyways, a CEO is managing an entire company filled with tens of thousands of employees, facilities, properties. It's the sheer scale of everything they need to keep running smoothly. Then they are often rewarded for large financial gains from the stockholders with bonuses and such.



If I have financial or food insecurity, do I get to raid your fridge without your permission? Can people simply walk into your home and take what they need? That's akin to theft.



You have no choice with government. You either "give" them your money or you'll receive a fine, don't pay the fine, you'll receive a court summons, don't show up and you'll be tried in absentia, then police will arrive to arrest you for not paying your taxes & fines, if you keep resisting eventually they will draw their guns and shoot you.

Taxes are collected at gunpoint. That is not compassion, it's extortion.

[quoteI don't have a complaint when it comes to a 1 on 1 exchange of a personally crafted object/possession in which the one who works on it can decide, for themselves, the worth of their labor (and when it is not something the buyer has no choice but to accept, for without, they could not survive/live in that society). But a cooperation is not so simple.[/quote]

What happens if the designer, programmer, or whatever can't generate proper sales to support themselves? If I design computer programs and I refuse to sell licenses for my programs for anything less than $10,000 and nobody buys them should I be able to demand money from you to cover my living expenses? What if I sell my products for an abysmally low amount that I can't cover my living expenses? Can I go to you and demand you give me money to cover those expenses? As for minimum wage, look at which type of jobs pay minimum wage, companies like Domino's Pizza, Little Caesars pizza, Starbucks, Burger King, Wendy's, McDonalds, Dunkin Doughnuts.

Minimum Wage



I oppose a taxation on income and instead support a national sales tax specifically the FairTax. The FairTax replaces all Federal taxes (income, payroll, sales, medicare, gift, inheritance, Social Security, corporate income and capital gains) with a single national sales tax.

FairTax Explained I apologize for the poor audio.



This is a huge ball of concepts that would all take a paragraph each to explain properly but, I'll try to bullet point it.

Clean air & water: If a person or business has polluted the water, they have caused damages to you and reparations should be made for those damages.

Safe & sanitary work environments: It's their property, their business. You do not have a right to that "job". If their practices are not safe or sanitary then why would you want to work there?

Labor Rights:Your rights stop at the consent of the property owner. Same way you don't have the right to "free expression" in my house by spray painting and then shitting on my walls. While you can do the same to your own house and it is protect speech. A less vulgar way of putting it, I can't hold a protest in your yard because the moment you tell me to leave and I refuse, I'm trespassing. Being the lawn owner (read Property) then you have the right to deny me access to your yard.



Only if you choose not to listen. A rational person would have said "Wait, why does only half of the population pay taxes? Why do we deem it morally correct to take things by force because we deem it 'compassionate' when taking things by force from anyone else is considered theft? Oh and a rational person would contemplate if we really needed a Tax code that is composed of 72,536 pages, takes 194,000,000,000 dollars and tens of millions of man hours to comply with and is used as a political tool to cause discord amongst the American populace.

Do you include unemployment checks as a "handout"?The reason im asking, is because for a period of time my dad had to go on unemployment when he lost his job(My mom was already retired at the time, as the rules at the U.N where she worked required she retire by a specific age). He did eventually find anther job, but there was a time when that was all my family had to keep going.

Also, Austerity(reduction of government spending) hasn't really worked out so well for Europe, and particularly in Britain has worked out pretty terribly. Researchers have also found austerity has pretty serious health effects

So while there may be some cases of government spending not having the desired effect, that doesn't mean it is inherently bad.



Not everyone is able to choose from a wide variety of jobs. Sometimes people have to take jobs that aren't great because they don't have another choice. Doesn't mean they shouldn't at least be safe in said jobs

Recently in bangledash more than 230 people were killed because factories based their ignored a order to evacuate and kept more than 20,000 people working. Are you telling me it was in the factories right to ignore the order?

I'm sorry your father lost his job but, because you have a pity story that gives you the right to steal from others? If I am unemployed, can I force your father at gunpoint to give me money to cover my living expenses? Of bloody course not because we all agree that's theft.



Austerity is more than just government spending. If you took 2 seconds to open up an economics book you'd see it's the policy used by a government to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. Austerity is a reduction in spending but, not all reduction in spending is austerity.



If you can justify being able to threaten others to use their property how YOU deem fit. You open the door for others to threaten you to use your property how THEY seem fit. While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and mail me your laptops, desktops, and any tablets you have because I feel you are not utilizing your property properly. If you don't, I'll have the government fine you, send you a court summons and potentially murder you for failure to comply with my demands.



Obviously not and I'm stupefied and somewhat insulted you'd even ask such a ridiculous question. The factory owners were in the wrong and should be thoroughly punished for the damages they have caused.

There's a huge gap between what I'm saying and what you're implying. Do me a favor and do a little research on libertarianism, property rights and self-ownership and how they all connect.

I don't think unemployment checks and stealing at gunpoint are the same thing. And what i was trying to get at(which i should have been clearer about) is that not everyone who goes on welfare is looking for a handout. Sometimes people don't really have another choice, and i was just trying to show a example of that. I've just gotten tired of people who have never had to go on government assistance being so ready to judge those who have had to.



If a employer doesn't feel its worth having a safe place for the workers to do their jobs in, then i do think someone should be able to step in and "threaten" as your putting it

Also, i don't think labtops and desktops are comparable to human beings.



Looking back i see how that might have gone too far. Let me instead ask another question around the subject, that hopefully won't come off as insulting. At what point does the right of the business owner/employer end, and the right of a outside agency to say "No you can't do that" begin?

For example,if a worker gets sick due to a unclean workplace,does a outside agency have the right to punish the employer for it, or do you see that as them being threatened to use their property as others see fit?Like, how bad do working conditions have to be before you feel the person in charge of those conditions can be punished?

The problem isn't the rich people and the problem isn't even the corrupt businessmen because they exploit a legimate system and humans by nature will exploit any system they can. Look at the ice age hunters hunting mammoth. They killed one and were doing good, then they made progress and figured out they can exploit nature by driving them over a cliff and killing 200. That is too much progress, and people are smart enough to figure it out.

The problem is the general public. The problem is that we have far too many math illiterates in this world who can't figure out that interest rates will rise. That is an undisputable fact. Don't believe me, look at anything done by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and he will tell you just how stupid people are.