Why are rich people so villified in this country (U.S.)?

Wrong. Most wealthy people did NOT inherit their wealth. This is a myth spread to make all the losers feel better about their own miserable lives.[/quote]

What is your definition of wealthy? Where can I find the data supporting your assertion that most do not inherit their wealth?

Hate is bad for the spirit. And I don't hold people's money against them, strictly speaking, nor their lack of it. I just have a hard time with greed and lack of compassion. But compassion and generosity are possible in all sectors of society, including among the rich. Heck, I wouldn't mind being able to test out being both rich and generous. ;)

But if I can only have one of those qualities, I'll take generosity, which allows for a happier life than wealth alone.

Already been said wrote:

Bluster34 wrote:

Probably because most rich white people inherited their fortunes from the vices of yesteryear, Alcohol distribution, prostitution while the poor today get busted for selling the vices of today... Dope.

Whites gonna white.

Wrong. Most wealthy people did NOT inherit their wealth. This is a myth spread to make all the losers feel better about their own miserable lives.

It's not so much about inheritiance as family financial support. Young adults who came from poor families have to take out loans for college living expenses (and sometimes have to work while they go which lengtens the time before they earn the degree), can't afford a car until they have a full-time job, must save to put down just the minimum down-payment on a house, etc. Kids from wealthier families can go to school full-time without worrying about paying for it themselves, often get their first car paid by parents who also often chip in a significant down payment on their first home which also helps them get a lower mortgage payment than if they only put down the min, etc.

But myths - usually the young adults from the wealthier families get to believe that as long as they graduated and are working that they themselves somehow "earned" all they have. You rarely hear one of these people concede that they were lucky.

Already been said wrote:

Bluster34 wrote:

Probably because most rich white people inherited their fortunes from the vices of yesteryear, Alcohol distribution, prostitution while the poor today get busted for selling the vices of today... Dope.

Whites gonna white.

Wrong. Most wealthy people did NOT inherit their wealth. This is a myth spread to make all the losers feel better about their own miserable lives.

According to latest IRS statistics, of the 0.01% OVER 91.6% inherited at least 50% of their current net worth.

Let's keep in mind that once you have some capital, it gets easier and easier to make more money.

America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, “It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but might as well be.”...Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters...Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves.

They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.

--Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five

0.01% doesn't really sound like that big a number.

oogly moogly wrote:

0.01% doesn't really sound like that big a number.

That was just a subset that represents the super rich. Similar numbers for the 1%

oogly moogly wrote:

0.01% doesn't really sound like that big a number.

That .01% has @ 50% of the nation's net worth

Todd from Texas wrote:

That .01% has @ 50% of the nation's net worth

And that is the case precisely because of anti-capitalist economic policies.

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Todd from Texas wrote:

That .01% has @ 50% of the nation's net worth

And that is the case precisely because of anti-capitalist economic policies.

Are either of these statements actually true? I know the top 0.1% has a disproportionate share but not anywhere close to 50%.

And if the disproportion is indeed due to "anti-capitalist economic policies", can you provide an example or two of policies that cause this? Or did you just type it cause it sounded cool?

Todd from Texas wrote:

oogly moogly wrote:

0.01% doesn't really sound like that big a number.

That .01% has @ 50% of the nation's net worth

There would seem to be a nontrivial inaccuracy in your statement. According to Mother Jones (a liberal bastion if ever there was one), you would need to include 100 times more people (top 1%) in order to get to just short of 35%.

Care to be a little more sober in your diatribes?

ri@ wrote:

Any ideas? It seems that many people automatically hate someone that is rich. I suspect it's because of jealousy? I bet if the haters were rich, they wouldn't have such a problem with it.

Rich people are not "villified"... That, along with the term "class warfare" is a political tool used by right wing politicians. They use it to brainwash middle class Republicans into championing their cause, instead of realizing that they too are paying higher tax rates than those who need it the least. I suspect you are one of their victims... keep drinking the aid.

2012xxx wrote:

It's not so much about inheritiance as family financial support. Young adults who came from poor families have to take out loans for college living expenses (and sometimes have to work while they go which lengtens the time before they earn the degree), can't afford a car until they have a full-time job, must save to put down just the minimum down-payment on a house, etc. Kids from wealthier families can go to school full-time without worrying about paying for it themselves, often get their first car paid by parents who also often chip in a significant down payment on their first home which also helps them get a lower mortgage payment than if they only put down the min, etc.

That's an excellent assessment. I think a lot of people forgot how hard it is to become successful when environmental factors are working against you.

So why should the wealthier kid in your example be vilified for the way he was raised? You're right that he's very lucky to have those advantages, but it's completely out of his control.

Why is it that the upper tax rate is the same for someone making $250000 vs someone making 10 million or more.

Its easy for Warren Buffett or Bill Clinton to say "I dont need a tax break". They dont.

But the guy or gal that owns 5 gas stations, or restaurants, auto dealership, furniture store, insurance agency, small manufacturing company that is personally liable to the debt, has borrowed money and employes a fair amount of people may very well need that tax break.

As much as it pains me to say, Nancy Pelosi was on to something when she proposed raising rates on those making over $1 million, not on those making less than that.

I certainly wouldn't vilify the wealthier kid, especially if they acknowledge this phenomenon as some do. There are some of them though that genuinely believe they did it all on their own even with all the help they got along the way. I can think of a few people I knew in their mid-20s with uppper-end cars and their own homes already bragging about how good they were with their money that they didn't have any credit card debt like so and so totally ignoring the help their parents gave them. In many cases, I think they actually believed it too.

i have often wondered bout that myself. Making 300k in the big apple doesnt get you as far as people thing- nor do i consider it wealthy.

it seems illogical to say the married couple making 350k a year is someone benefitting at the expense of the middle class. rates should be higher starting at $1 million, than an increase at 10 million, and another at 20 million.

beporunit wrote:

i have often wondered bout that myself. Making 300k in the big apple doesnt get you as far as people thing- nor do i consider it wealthy.

it seems illogical to say the married couple making 350k a year is someone benefitting at the expense of the middle class. rates should be higher starting at $1 million, than an increase at 10 million, and another at 20 million.

It is unfair to tax income, period. Nobody should have to pay more than anyone else just for being a higher achiever. Any tax imposed should be pay-as-you-go.

Cappy Longstocking wrote:

coach d wrote:

For the rich, it seems that to stack the deck and essentially steal money from the middle class (Wall Street Bankers, rich draining the Social Security Trust fund, people like Romney avoiding honest tax liability through the "carried interest deduction" that the rest of us don't get) is OK. But when anyone calls them on it and expects the rich to pay a fairer share, that's "class warfare."

It's supposed to be a two-way street, not the monied class getting all the exemptions and deductions, and the middle class left holding the bag. That's why people hate the rich.

BTW, I paid a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney last year.

Coach D - did you donate 30% of your income to charity? I doubt it

the Mormon church isnt a charity...

Hungry Hungry Hippo wrote:

That's an excellent assessment. I think a lot of people forgot how hard it is to become successful when environmental factors are working against you.

So why should the wealthier kid in your example be vilified for the way he was raised? You're right that he's very lucky to have those advantages, but it's completely out of his control.

He should not be villified. In reality he IS not villified. As someone else pointed out such talk is an odd fabrication of some rich folks - "Oh, look, we are victims!"

Everyone is a victim in America today. Rich, poor, middle class, black, white, muslim, christian... Truly pathetic for this nation - and it does not bode well at all for our future.