Do the rich DESERVE their money?

Originally posted by mademyself1984
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Not even a paragraph into your first post on the subject, which happens to be the OP...and you say something along the lines of "they didn't work as hard, more yet, 10 times as hard...." ummmm....dude....if they worked 10 times as hard then they would have effectively earned 10 times as much? Correct? You are pissed that the "rich" are rich....admit it. I'm broke as #. Have been for quite a few months now. Bills, house payments, child support, etc. is all "unfair". However, if I made a better living, I'd be incredibly offended at your insinuation that it was somehow "my fault" because of my "wealth" that you were "not as wealthy" as me. The one thing that pisses me off more than anything during this economic, housing, free market "crisis", as a self admittedly person who is struggling to get by from month to month, is people literally blaming their problems on the wealthy. Is it right we pay a baseball player 600 dollars an hour? No, it probably isn't. Actually, it certainly isn't. Does the devalue the work I do? Personally, it certainly does. Do I deserve that much money? No. Does said baseball player? No. He gets it, that's unfair, I don't get it, that's unfair. But, I comfortably struggle on 1700 dollars a month. It isn't the wealthy's fault. Stop grasping at straws.

edit on 10/25/2011 by mademyself1984 because: (no reason given)

WE DON'T LIVE IN A VACUUM.

The wealthy get their money off the BACKS of consumers/workers and our tax dollars. Many wealthy are involved in large-scale crime as well.

I'm not blaming the guy with 2 million dollars for all of my woes... no, you should have known this if you actually read my thread. What you should realize is that I'm criticizing the SYSTEM which rewards people in an arbitrary/imbalanced way, where people who DESERVE or NEED more money don't get it and where those who DON'T deserve or need more money get it in HEAPS. Our system is unequal, unjust, unstable, and unacceptable. Period.

Originally posted by mademyself1984

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by empireofpain
The real reason all of you hate the rich and not want them to have money is ENVY.

You ENVY them and there wealth. Dont lie and just freakin admit it.

The op if given a chance would become a millionaire and would say "screw everyone else" because its just the damn truth. just as anyone who was sane and human would.

and dont try to deny it.

its like that test with the two monkeys. one was given a grape and the other was given raisin or prune.

The one getting the raisin and prune started noticing the other monkey getting a grape....and went crazy with envy. from then on the monkey refused the raisins and only wanted the grape.

ITS JUST PURE ENVY YOU IDIOTS! thats why you hate the rich who you think dont 'deserve' there wealth.

Give me a break...your nothing but jealous little CHILDREN!(not to anyone particular but all those that hate the rich in general)

Oh yeah? Tell that to the starving millions all over the world, tell that to the majority of humanity who lives in relative poverty. Tell that even to those in the first world who have to work sh*t jobs for most of their lives to fill the pockets of the rich.

This isn't about one person being jealous of another, this is about the world as a whole and the gross inequities of the haves and the have-nots, and if you can't see such an obvious/simple big picture as that, then the only child here is you.

Just stop mother Theresa. So if you won the lotto tomorrow and came out with 30 million dollars what are you doing with it? Giving 29 million to the starving across the world? Adopting 10 children from 3rd world countries? Knock it off. 99 percent of the "rich" are rich because they earned it and you know it. If you were so fortunate to be "rich" from smashing a game of keno you can't look a soul in the eye and say "I'm devoting my winnings to bettering the lives of the less fortunate, and not spending a dime on myself or my comfort." Rebut all you want, and I'll maintain that you are a liar.

If I won the lotto you better bet your ASS I'd be on an aggressive/revolutionary campaign to help the world's poor. In fact, that's one of my DREAMS, is to become rich and use my wealth to tactically uplift the world's poor/starving in a LONG-TERM and sustainable way, not just throwing money into some random charity of bandaids.

Yes, I'd spend some on my own selfish desires/comforts, but I'd also likely spend a majority on improving the world in the most scientifically substantial way I possibly could. Don't pretend you know me.

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
It depends how they got the money.

If they are some wall street crook that helped create the derivatives then not at all.

If they are some great inventor that made hybrid super capacitors that let and Audi
car get 375 miles on one charge of electricity then yeah let them keep it.

If you change the world for the better for most ppl on the planet you have done
a great good, and good odds with the money you will repeat the process.

If you are laying around and not working you are not owed anything by anyone.

If your a corporation who works ppl for pennies in some 3rd world hell hole, not at all.

If your a corporation who pollutes the environment and pushes GMO toxins on ppl, not at all.

The right vs wrong mind set makes it pretty obvious who should be rewarded for their efforts.

If you do good your good to go.

If you do bad, your not good to go.

I largely agree.

What I also see is that our system doesn't agree with us on this.

So... HOW do we implement a system which rewards people more properly and in a NATURAL way (not necessarily forced)?

Or even beyond that... how do we implement a system which makes acquisition of wealth SUPERFLUOUS and instead drives us to improve our world regardless?

If it is their money...... Oh well.

It is, their money, not yours.

Originally posted by Fromabove
If it is their money...... Oh well.

It is, their money, not yours.

So... that's all there is to it, eh? Huh...

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by Fromabove
If it is their money...... Oh well.

It is, their money, not yours.

So... that's all there is to it, eh? Huh...

Pretty much, yeah. It is. If you don't like that the rich are a product of consumption, then don't consume? I'm really struggling to understand how the rich are to blame for different classes of people having different amounts of money.

Originally posted by mademyself1984

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by Fromabove
If it is their money...... Oh well.

It is, their money, not yours.

So... that's all there is to it, eh? Huh...

Pretty much, yeah. It is. If you don't like that the rich are a product of consumption, then don't consume? I'm really struggling to understand how the rich are to blame for different classes of people having different amounts of money.

Did you read my OPs or are you just assuming I'm blaming the rich as the root of our problems??

www.commondreams.org...

Five Reasons Why The Very Rich Have NOT Earned Their Money

The wealthiest Americans believe they've earned their money through hard work and innovation, and that they're the most productive members of society. For the most part they're wrong. As the facts below will show, they're not nearly as productive as middle-class workers. Yet they've taken almost all the new income over the past 30 years.

Any one of these five reasons should reinforce the belief that the rich should be paying a LOT more in taxes.

...

They deserve jail for crimes against humanity. There is no question about that either. And people need to look in the mirror for their own co-dependency issues. Why are they propping this system up. There are basic rights that supercede political opinions and all the different ISMS of life. If your opinions become policies that literally harm or force another human being, you are accountable to them and to your Creator. And have committed crimes. People are responsible for waking up and withdrawing all support for inequality, and unjust social systems.

The rich do deserve their money and wealth. Everyone has the freedom to suceed or fail. I've worked in poor neighborhoods before here in the US and I can tell you, they are not doing anything for themselves. They are content doing nothing and living off Govt cheese and blaming others for their own actions. No Heirarchy you remind me of the Occupy protestors. The socialist liberal lala land you dream of does not exist, never will.

Look...the answer is simple.

This proletariat Vs bourgeoisie debate has been doing the rounds for centuries, the solution is simple.

Outlaw personal and corporate wealth, bring out the hidden energy technology, design machines to do all the work, limit reproduction to one child per couple (yes, yes, but this is logic - not emotion) and we all live as Kings and Queens - enriching our species with knowledge, Art, Science and exploration.

Exploring our system in peace and reaching out beyond it in unison.

Money is the enemy of human cooperation, and the monetary system is the enemy of the majority of humanity...always has been.

It has served the purpose of division when divisiveness was a necessary evil throughout history...when the necessity for industrial progress was paramount it had spurred competition, personal and national..but that drive to succeed above all other considerations, including human and planetary survival, has become the very thing that threatens to end us all in the 21st century.

Resources are plenty...even for 7 Billion humans and Billions more animals which live here with us...access to those resources are what is becoming more difficult...by design.

People, both the 'prolitariat' and the 'bourgeoisie' are not the real enemy...the fear of going without, of not having enough resources..enough money, is.

And ironically, it's those with the strangle hold on the lions share of the resources, who fear the most.

To me, this is a loaded issue. There are so many facets to it that you can't just contend with a blanket statement that rich people don't deserve their money. For instance, did an individual inherit wealth? Did they have well off parents that helped them get a leg up early on in life? These are just a few factors that could influence the debate philosophically speaking.

My short answer is this: If someone started with nothing, with no help from anyone else, and worked their way to the top step by step, and ended up extremely wealthy, then that person without a doubt deserves their wealth.

Where I have a problem with free market economics is that it favors those who are already wealthy or from wealthy families. Yes, anyone can play the market and get rich, but it sure as hell helps when you have capitol to invest to begin with. The old saying remains true: You need money to make money. It's obvious someone from a rich family has a much greater advantage than someone who comes from a poor family when it comes to generating wealth.

This then raises other ethical issues: Let's assume that you come from a poor family, and you start with nothing. You work your way up from the bottom, invest every penny of profit from all your hard work, and fortune smiles on you and you end up creating a financial empire from your labor. You are now wealthy beyond most peoples wildest dreams. Would you really want your children to struggle like you did, and like your family did before you? Or would you want them to have a better life? Surely you would want to impart to them the value of hard work and earning what you have, but lets not kid ourselves. Anyone with children wants the best for them, and if you had the money you'd do what you could to make sure your children didn't struggle like you did.

In the end, who are we to dictate what another person can and can't have if they have acquired their worldly wealth within the confines of the law?

I would love to see wealth more evenly distributed among the people of our planet. Unfortunately, this leads to several problems (such as people deciding who gets what and how much, while allotting excess wealth to themselves, as we have seen with communism and socialism). Ultimately, freedom must remain the most prized virtue, and freedom means that we have no right to dictate what another persons time, energy, and efforts are worth based solely on our own lack of resources. Currently, this is dictated by supply and demand, and I see no other viable alternative that still leaves freedom intact.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

...Continued...

5) They created the idea and/or pioneered it effectively

In many large Corporations, this is so not the case. I used to work in R&D, and the employee's were required to sign an agreement stating that anything they invented whether they did so on or off company time, belonged to the Corporation.

I knew a woman there that developed one of the companies major products, it was so effective at what it was meant to do it surpassed anything available anywhere at the time. She became so important for her development that they named the product after her. Very cool....then 5 years later they fired her or ie layed her off due to changing departmental groups.

They are still making millions on what She developed.

It doesn't matter who deserves what on this issue, I decided. You can argue both sides.

What matters most is what society will bear without cracking.

The thing that seems to create the most rage is not absolute amounts of wealth but rather inequality. If everyone is suffering equally people can put up with a lot. But if a tiny portion is living like royalty while everyone else is suffering, it creates feelings of rage. This must be psychological, deep inside us from the time when we were hunter-gatherers and shared everything.

So, the question is, how much inequality can people take before they snap? This is a question the rich and poor alike must ask themselves.

However they made thier money, it's thiers now and I don't feel it should be taken away from them.

I second PartyGirl. Early on in the thread someone mentioned a study done with chimps showing that they feel envy. (That or they have a sense of what's fair. That interpretation was not discussed.)

What that poster overlooked is the fact that chimpanzee social organization, despite their close genetic relationship, is significantly different from ours. Most glaringly, one alpha male has sexual access to all the females in the group. (Bear with me). This is extremely common in mammals (think wolves, horses, cattle.) Not us. True, if you look around you can find cases of this (think David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Smith) but we see it as an aberration. At some point, when we were evolving towards who we are, we must have figured out that jackasses like this have to sleep sometime.

This eglatarianism carries over to most aspects of our natural social order. Look what PartyGirl says.

This must be psychological, deep inside us from the time when we were hunter-gatherers and shared everything

Yes, it's a bit of a blanket statement, but she's just being concise. Overall, it's true. Now consider that our species is about 200,000 years old. Civilization (literally, city dwelling) is 10,000 years old (and even then it was a local phenomenon). That's 2% of our existance.

So for 98% of our time on this planet we lived as we were meant to, in the lifestyle that we had evolved into. Tribes waged war, people starved when times were hard, and what was to be had was to be shared.

Don't get me wrong, I think civilization is a good idea. You grow corn, you starve less, you build walls (tanks, drones) you get killed by the other guys less. But we, our species, is supposed to share. Just because we've learned the benefits of livestock and beasts of burden doesn't mean we should be those things.

Life isn't fair. But human beings are. If you disagree with that, you're breaking the oldest social contract we have. And at some point we always remember that the Manson types have to sleep sometime.