Super Rich are Mad As Hell. Thinks the tax is equivalent to Hitler invading Poland in 1939
83 replies, posted
To rich people who aren't douches, good on ya.
To the ones bitching and complaining like this moron.
[b]GET BENT.[/b]
[QUOTE=Marie Antoinette][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Marie-Antoinette,_1775_-_Mus%C3%A9e_Antoine_L%C3%A9cuyer.jpg[/img]
Let them eat cake.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand, do people even read history books anymore?
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;43710259]I think there was a name for this, what was it again?
Oh, it's called Communism.[/QUOTE]
Haha wow, to think, somebody thought it was a good idea to post this.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;43710259]I think there was a name for this, what was it again?
Oh, it's called Communism.[/QUOTE]
This sounds like a line from a bad Cold War-era movie.
"You sound awfully like.... A COMMUNIST!" *scare chord*
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43712058]I think it'd be a damn sight better than attempting to attain some kind of free-of-state socialism. People are simply too greedy to do it. Humans will never be responsible or respectful enough to work that way.
We're wired to divide.[/QUOTE]
Don't start with this "human nature" crap. People have proven countless times that they're capable of a wide variety of behaviors and tendencies, including selflessness. I refuse to believe that people are inherently concerned only with their own well being when I am constantly presented with examples of them acting out of concern for the well being of others.
[QUOTE=RentAhobO;43705477]but asking them nicely is never going to work, when do we forcefully redistribute wealth and actually disband all the monopolies on resources?[/QUOTE]
Never, because it's their wealth. When are people going to realize that wealth doesn't belong to everybody. It belongs to the people who have acquired it, and nobody else.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43702737]Fun facts, you nitwit:
Rich people are still people, and still citizens of the state. You're no more different in the composition of your flesh and bones than anybody else. While you are a citizen of the state, you will follow its rules and pay your taxes. Poor people and middle class people are just as much people as you are. Your status in society means that you have to try and alleviate the lot of those who are less fortunate.
It won't kill you to have one less luxury villa, two less luxury cars, and six less Rolexes.[/QUOTE]
So the rich get to pay for somebody else's misfortunes and incompetense?
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;43713288]So the rich get to pay for somebody else's misfortunes and [B]incompetense?[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm genuinely not trying to be an ass here but this is really ironic.
Wealthy people are just wealthy people. The key word is people. They are not your enemies that constantly steal your money and they are as much people as you are, except they used a combination of luck, smarts, effort and charisma to get wealth. No, they souldn't pay the same tax as you, but they should pay a tax proportional to their income. Yes, wealthy should pay more then poor, but it should be the same percentage.
But god, what's the obession with robbing rich people of their money?
Some of them are greedy, some are bastards, some are outright sociopaths. But are you gonna say these are wealthy-only traits? Yeah, I forgot that being greedy is only bad if you are rich.
They souldn't be blamed for the lack of money in other peoples' pockets and should not be punished for being succesful. It's easy to blame the distant gods, but it's outright stupid.
[QUOTE=Foobagooba;43713087]I don't understand, do people even read history books anymore?[/QUOTE]
I hope you read history books, because she never even said this phrase.
lel
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43713403]I hope you read history books, because she never even said this phrase.
lel[/QUOTE]
No but its widely mis-attributed and everybody knows what you mean when you say it.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;43713384]Wealthy people are just wealthy people. The key word is people. They are not your enemies that constantly steal your money and they are as much people as you are, except they used a combination of luck, smarts, effort and charisma to get wealth. No, they souldn't pay the same tax as you, but they should pay a tax proportional to their income. Yes, wealthy should pay more then poor, but it should be the same percentage.
But god, what's the obsession with robbing rich people of their money?
Some of them are greedy, some are bastards, some are outright sociopaths. But are you gonna say these are wealthy-only traits? Yeah, I forgot that being greedy is only bad if you are rich.
They shouldn't be blamed for the lack of money in other peoples' pockets and should not be punished for being successful. It's easy to blame the distant gods, but it's outright stupid.[/QUOTE]
FTFY.
We're aware that poor people can be just as greedy as rich people are, and it's worse when people's greed drives them to desperation to do something stupid. Granted, many people are more desperate than greedy these days, but eh.
None of us are obsessed with robbing the rich of their money. I come from a background of money myself, but unlike some others I personally know, I try to help people in need whenever I possibly can. I'd be even more free with what I do have if the purse-strings were a bit more open in my case (my family still controls my spending, it's a long story) but failing that, I still put in my mite where possible.
More power to the rich people who want to give something back to society, IMO, but what I'm saying is that more of the rich have to follow the same examples.
Rich bastards, and especially rich sociopaths, however, turn up at around the bottom of what I think is proper on the societal scale.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;43713288]So the rich get to pay for somebody else's misfortunes and incompetense?[/QUOTE]
If not the rich, then who? The government can't magically bring up the poor, not without increased spending.
Really, it's not "There should be no rich people". It's just about rich people giving a livable wage to the employees that keep their companies running and making so much money. I'm sure they'll still have as much quality of life as money can bring. How many rich people are actually nice to their employees, that's another story. I'm just focusing on the people that are the reason people can have a full time job and still need food stamps.
[QUOTE=Aman;43707912]What?
how stupid of a statement is this. I could just replace every reference to rich with poor in your post and people would be in uproar.[/QUOTE]
Except the rich can (and often do) act on their dickish ways, whenever it means they can make and keep another few hundred bucks - lower the quality of the stuff that goes into their product, never raise wages to account for rising prices elsewhere, and so on down the line.
Again, as I have admitted, there are exceptions. It's very much possible that the ones who aren't dicks are a silent majority. But then why are they silent? Why are they allowing the assholes to set the impression of "who the rich are" for all the poor guys?
[editline]29th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;43710259]I think there was a name for this, what was it again?
Oh, it's called Communism.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, McCarthy.
[QUOTE=lavacano;43713714]Again, as I have admitted, there are exceptions. It's very much possible that the ones who aren't dicks are a silent majority. But then why are they silent? Why are they allowing the assholes to set the impression of "who the rich are" for all the poor guys?[/QUOTE]
Makes a less impressive news story when there's no fatcat to pincushion.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43713403]I hope you read history books, because she never even said this phrase.
lel[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. All of this "one-percenter" stuff, all through history, comes just before a really big war. I'm just hoping things change before it comes to (more) violence.
[QUOTE=lavacano;43713714]
Again, as I have admitted, there are exceptions. It's very much possible that the ones who aren't dicks are a silent majority. But then why are they silent? Why are they allowing the assholes to set the impression of "who the rich are" for all the poor guys?
.[/QUOTE]
Please show me what the statement is based on. Where are the not-nice rich?
Want to talk to rich, see how they live? Check here [url]http://www.quora.com/[/url] . There are a lot of rich people there. A lot of CEOs, CTOs, startupers, engineers etc etc. Sergey Brin frequents it, Stephen Fry used to go there too. There is even a porn star there. And you know what? Not a signle dick among them. Just try to see what they write and message them. Just say hi, ask something.
Thing is that being nice is more profitable due to networking. World is harsh, yet wealthy in the majority are not dicks. So how many dicks are there among hollywood celebrities? Barely any. We always hear about celebs being nice people. It's not just a fraud, they ARE nice people because you have to be nice to get clients and employers. They might be dicks at home, but in their business most people are nice.
There are dicks, but we shouldn't punish everyone for argueble crimes of a minority.
[QUOTE=lavacano;43713714]Except the rich can (and often do) act on their dickish ways, whenever it means they can make and keep another few hundred bucks - lower the quality of the stuff that goes into their product, never raise wages to account for rising prices elsewhere, and so on down the line.
[/QUOTE]
Libertarians praise the free market and the general masses too much. How can we have educated consumers if they can't have proper educations? Not everybody can afford a private school and they want to destroy public ones.
Let alone the whole corporations lying and keeping secrets from consumers thing or corporations creating monopolies on incredibly low prices thing.
Understandably, I'd be pissed too. Doesn't make it wrong though.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;43713384]Wealthy people are just wealthy people. The key word is people. They are not your enemies that constantly steal your money and they are as much people as you are, except they used a combination of luck, smarts, effort and charisma to get wealth. No, they souldn't pay the same tax as you, but they should pay a tax proportional to their income. Yes, wealthy should pay more then poor, but it should be the same percentage.
But god, what's the obession with robbing rich people of their money?
Some of them are greedy, some are bastards, some are outright sociopaths. But are you gonna say these are wealthy-only traits? Yeah, I forgot that being greedy is only bad if you are rich.
They souldn't be blamed for the lack of money in other peoples' pockets and should not be punished for being succesful. It's easy to blame the distant gods, but it's outright stupid.[/QUOTE]
You see, this is the problem right here. Some people seem to have this idea that taxation is intended to be a punishment on the rich (it's not) and that when people call for the rich to give more back into the system it's because they're trying to blame the rich for their problems and are trying to cut them down to size (they aren't.)
This is a difference of perspective. Essentially, the viewpoint that I believe you and many others hold is "People have a right to the wealth they hold. They earned it out of their own merit and as such that wealth should be considered theirs to use how they see fit, and to force them to give to others against their will is akin to robbery." Whereas the opposing viewpoint is, as I interpret it, "People have a responsibility to give back to the society that nurtured them. Wealth is acquired in equal parts through the cooperation and sacrifice of others as it is through the talents of an individual, and it is more important that as many people as possible can adequately provide for themselves than it is to to protect the luxuries and advantages of the wealthy."
This is simply a difference of subjective ideologies. I think you'll find it more insightful to try and see the argument from more than one perspective. While in your eyes it might seem like an "obsession with robbing the rich of their money" because you put more importance on protecting the rights of an individual to have control over their own wealth, this isn't how people of the opposing perspective see it. Most of them put more importance on protecting a person's ability to simply provide themselves with comfortable living conditions and instead see it as a social responsibility to give back to the system.
Basically to put it in a simple metaphor, if the average person is a midget and the wealthy are giants, no one is trying to chop the giants' legs down until they're the same height as everyone else, they're trying to have them reach a high shelf that no one else is tall enough to get to.
We shouldn't really punish anyone for being dicks, it's too subjective.
[editline]29th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;43714159]You see, this is the problem right here. Some people seem to have this idea that taxation is intended to be a punishment on the rich (it's not) and that when people call for the rich to give more back into the system it's because they're trying to blame the rich for their problems and are trying to cut them down to size (they aren't.)
This is a difference of perspective. Essentially, the viewpoint that I believe you and many others hold is "People have a right to the wealth they hold. They earned it out of their own merit and as such that wealth should be considered theirs to use how they see fit, and to force them to give to others against their will is akin to robbery." Where as the opposing viewpoint is, as I interpret it, "People have a responsibility to give back to the society that nurtured them. Wealth is acquired in equal parts through the cooperation and sacrifice of others as it is through the talents of an individual, and it is more important that as many people as possible can adequately provide for themselves than it is to to protect the luxuries and advantages of the wealthy."
This is simply a difference of subjective ideologies. I think you'll find it more insightful to try and see the argument from more than one perspective. While in your eyes it might seem like an "obsession with robbing the rich of their money" because you put more importance on protecting the rights of an individual to have control over their own wealth, this isn't how people of the opposing perspective see it. Most of them put more importance on protecting a person's ability to simply provide themselves with comfortable living conditions and instead see it as a social responsibility to give back to the system.
Basically to put it in a simple metaphor, if the average person is a midget and the wealthy are giants, no one is trying to chop the giants' legs down until they're the same height as everyone else, they're trying to have them reach a high shelf that no one else is tall enough to get to.[/QUOTE]
You see, I deny the fact that "people have a responsibility to give back to the society". People have the responsibility to pay tax and follow the laws, other then that they don't have any responsibilities (rougly speaking ofcourse, in reality there are many responsibility like fighting for your country in case of war, but most of them fall under follow the laws category).
You are right about my position and I am protecting the individual rights here. I see your point, but I believe that
[quote]If we took all the money and equally spread it among all the people in two weeks the poor will be poor again, the rich will be rich again[/quote]
I don't remember the exact quote and can't find it on google, but you get the idea.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;43714163]You see, I deny the fact that "people have a responsibility to give back to the society". People have the responsibility to pay tax and follow the laws, other then that they don't have any responsibilities (rougly speaking ofcourse, in reality there are many responsibility like fighting for your country in case of war, but most of them fall under follow the laws category). [/QUOTE]
I understand that that's your view on the matter, the only thing I'm trying to get you to consider here is that the people who disagree don't do so out of some malicious intent to "rob the rich" as you put it.
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/If-us-land-mass-were-distributed-like-us-wealth.png[/IMG]
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth%2C_2007.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2011/news/economy/1110/gallery.wealth_gap_growing.fortune/images/growing_wealth_gap_charts.09.jpg[/IMG]
And the gap grows bigger every year. I think they can afford a small hit to their income to help 40% of our population.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.