If so many people hate the rich-why don't we get rid of the

Post Reply New Topic

How about a better idea? When people start earning well over $100,000/year we start taxing them pretty significantly. That goes doubly for people with vast swaths of inherited wealth.

Most entrepreneurs, by the way, are by no means wealthy. Only a very competent or very lucky (or both) few are.

So then why tax the competent for their competence?

Lets say there are two people. They both work for minimum wage and although they aren't entirely happy, they are content because they provide for their families.

They both face problems that come from not having enough money. Everything from their car breaking down-causing them stress and money they can't afford to spend, worries about paying bills ect. To healthcare, christmas and holidays ect.

They both really need a more reliable car. One of them buys a new car, but the other person spends their money by going back to school, spends 3 years sacrificing his time and works hard to get the education they need to get a better job. 10 years down the line, one of them is still on minimum wage and the other (through A LOT of hard work) is earning 100k a year.

The person on minimum wage sees the rich 'lucky' person and resents them because he has to struggle to pay the bills whilst the rich person has savings, drives a nice car, has good healthcare, Christmases and holidays. A better quality of life and standard of living.

Who do you have more respect for?

Last edited by Noob on 07 May 2011, 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So would you say that (in my example) the person who has become more valuable to a company (or the entrepreneur) and has spent 10 years trying to work their way up...(the ladder-if you will). Saved their money instead of spending all of it, has a total of sum of x amount which they leave to their children. We should dislike the people who inherited it?

• As was made clear in my post, not all wealthy people are competent and there are significant swaths of hereditary wealthers whose sole virtue is being able to pick consultants to run their empires.
• Any wealthy individual disproportionately benefits from the administration of the private property rights system and administering that system isn't free. Consequently, they should pay more in taxes.
• Speaking in terms of the law of diminishing returns, one more dollar for a millionaire means a lot less than another dollar to a working poor janitor. Consequently, it makes more sense to tax the millionaire more.
• Inequitable distributions of wealth have disasters consequences for society, bread social mistrust and tension, and result in higher crime rates. All of this is is an inefficient outcome. To enhance the social capital of society, redistributing wealth makes sense.

I don't understand. Are you saying that if everyone that if the wealthy stopped earning money, janitors would get a pay rise? How?



Would this be due to 'too much' money or a lack of money?

Last edited by Noob on 07 May 2011, 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ignoring the fact that one person spent years at an institution partially subsidized by taxpayers, it's hard to say. Because while such thought experiments might work in convincing morons or third graders, I know that the "rags to riches" story isn't very representative and usually involves a lot more "luck" than you make out. If the one continually poor man was dyslexic or couldn't afford to save up because his healthcare bills were more pressing in the immediate term, then things could be totally different. Or if one had more of a "prudential" aversion to credit. Either way, I don't think it's good to base policy on imaginary examples.

Why report only the fairy tales with the happy ending? Spending money on "going back to school" can be a massive financial gamble and you can still end up having to settle for minimum wage even with a college degree in this economic climate. The outcome could be that person B only ends up in further debt. Also, not everyone has the mental or physical stamina to work minimum wage night shift jobs while studying and keeping up a household at the same time. Of course all you irritating unbridled optimists seem to hate on people who have more difficulty in life than you do. I suppose people with clinical depression are just "lazy" to you a**holes as well. Well f**k you.

My statement was the rational for progressive taxation (and one that some early Austrian economists like Friedrich von Wieser advanced).



It's due to the distribution of money. Studies have demonstrated that there can be bad psychological and social effects if there is gross inequality even when absolute wealth increases at all income levels. So the problem of relative inequality remains.

I guess it's better to be pessimistic? And broke?

Yes it is a gamble...what's wrong with gambling to improve your life? Assuming you don't put yourself in the sh*t if you fail. Which wouldn't be a smart thing to do-would it.

You shouldn't have to settle for min wage if you have the skills to do a job better than someone else.

I agree, not everyone has the stamina to do all this. But I don't have the stamina to be on min wage for the rest of my life either.

And I would say there are more optimists than pessimist who have succeeded.

You also suppose I am not depressed and that I have it easier than you...

Don't be mad, I value your contribution.

The one who behaves with more courtesy toward me and is more trustworthy.

I'm actually living more comfortably right now, most likely, than most of you. Odds are, I sacrificed more of my spare money that I could have spent on needless luxuries or a sense of security than most of you, including having a tooth pulled rather than getting a root canal. I spent more of my time than most of you, likely as not, sharpening the skills that I use every day now instead of going out clubbing or travelling or spending time at the beach. Gave up television: a lot of expense, no pay-off.

However, if I behaved discourteously toward one of you, you would probably respect me less than a poor man who is polite and easy to live with. Money is a really dumb thing to base your opinion of people on.

Actually, I prefer mass transit. It doesn't require me to drive and it's more environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, I don't live in an area that has much. But if I was to live in a place like, say, London, I'd use the tube system rather than own a car.

If anyone is interested in reading a book that offers a very interesting social commentary on our society system, I'd strongly recommend Peter F. Hamilton's Pandora's Star and Judas Unchained. They are science fiction though, and the social commentary is more of a side theme. But they are very well written.

You already said you have less respect for people who don't take a path that may simply be crazy and unrealistic for them. That is what I take major issue with. I have an MS degree which I worked my ass off for, yet I know that without the financial and support from my family things would have never worked out for me. I simply would not have the ability to work an 8 hour shift while taking on the class work I did, even if I was able to take only one class at a time. If people have limits they need to be respected. Whether one is working minimum wage their entire life, or even rely on government assistance, is not grounds for the kind of judgement I constantly see tossed around by those of the conservative ilk. After a while it just makes me want to throttle them to death. That's how f*****g disgusted I am with all these f*****g a**holes in this world. I think a lot of people need a good smack in f*****g head to stop being f*****g a**holes.

Exactly who hates the rich? Do you have a statistics to show that they are deserving of the words "so many"?

Yeah I'm aware that you didn't say not all. Even if you didn't say it outright, I would assume you didn't mean all of em since it's pretty much a given in any half-decent discussion. I have no interest in making people use redundant disclaimers when it's the obvious thing to assume.

There's a reason wealth doesn't last past three generations. Anyone who solely inherits wealth and isn't willing to do all the hard work of overseeing production and maintaining quality control in their products isn't going to be able to sustain their company as well as someone who is willing to git r done (such as the self made first generation). Now, corporate welfare does capitalize gains and socialize losses, which is why I'm against all forms of corporate welfare. With that out of the equation, they are free to succeed and fail without the burden of progressive taxation and without the crutch of corporate welfare.

Property rights are supposed to be proportionate? To what, average net worth? Property rights is all about the right to own property and the right to choose what type of property you wanna buy.

If you wanna make more money than a janitor does, it makes sense not to be one. What does a millionaire owe to someone who chose to be a janitor?

Social capital is culturally/subculturally determined, and that's out of the Government's scope since the prevailing culture/subculture always trumps social engineering. The only way social engineering works is through draconian measures. How do you enhance social capital through expanding the Government without violating the right to free association? And how does wealth redistribution even pertain to social capital? Redistributing wealth will do nothing to impose cultural and subcultural change. It's actually the other way around. Implementation of laws are a reflection of the current prevailing paradigms, not a cause of em.