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

>>>?>>> wrote:

Show me a rich guy, other than one who has inherited wealth, who didn't shaft, f*ck or screw someon or a group of someones on the way up.

Are YOU weathly, by the way?

Oprah?

Todd T wrote:

You are aruing that the $2.5 trillion accumulated by the richest 400 families in the USA could not be put to better use for the citzenry at large.

What do I need to prove? You are clearly a buffoon

I am arguing that it is not for me to decide for others what to do with their money. I would suggest it is not for you either.

Todd T wrote:

You are aruing that the $2.5 trillion accumulated by the richest 400 families in the USA could not be put to better use for the citzenry at large.

What do I need to prove? You are clearly a buffoon

This is a blatantly communist statement. The individual is the rightful owner of property and there is no such thing as the "citizenry at large." The individual has the right to put his money to use for whatever he feels is in his own best interest (regardless of whether liberals agree with his judgment) solely for his own sake with secondary benefits to whomever he decides to do business with, employ or spend his money on. Liberals can f'ck off.

Todd T wrote:

You are aruing that the $2.5 trillion accumulated by the richest 400 families in the USA could not be put to better use for the citzenry at large.

What do I need to prove? You are clearly a buffoon

The richest 400 families employ the citizenry at large, you imbecile. I can't imagine a more generous approach, actually. You think the government should steal from the productive and give to the nonproductive? hahahahahahahaha

move to Cuba or North Korea

I couldn't care less who you think earned what. Keep your hands off what isn't yours.

I couldn't care less who you think earned what. Keep your hands off what isn't yours.

Rich people aren't vilified. Selfish greedy as\sholes are vilified.

marijuologist wrote:

I couldn't care less who you think earned what. Keep your hands off what isn't yours.

Great, then let's declare that it's every man for himself. I'm actually fine with that, provided you're also fine with my interpretation of that. For instance, I'm not going to recognize your idea of the nation state. Fu\ck that. I'll raise my own flag, print my own currency, decide which wars I do or do not support, and I'm definitely going to punish in the most painful medieval manner possible anyone who dares evangelize ANY religious belief in my presence.

Oh you're right, I can't do all that by myself but I can easily find a few million people in this country who agree with me and we can form any kind of society we want - we are not members of your "nation" because it doesn't exist.

When you say "A slight advantage" that makes you sound ignorant. Now ignorant is not stupid it just refers to a lack of understanding and appreciation of your advantages. Other posters have pointed this out to you. Imagine your position if your family income was 70 grand or less per year with both parents working and sweating out finances?Point two of ignorance (again not stupid). Its funny that you think democrats are after your family's income. Maybe after deductions a very small percent of the 300,000 dollar income would be over the 250,000 and taxed at the higher rate but probably none. The real funny thing is that your family is screwed by the republican tax system. Your family pays at the top rate which is the same rate that some one who makes 300 MILLION per year. Actually since your dad works for his money he is taxed at a higher rate the the person who makes 300 million because its from investment. The investment millionaire probably pays 1/4 of the rate that your dad pays. I am sure you do work hard, but open your eyes.

Bigfoot Investments wrote:

Todd T wrote:

You are aruing that the $2.5 trillion accumulated by the richest 400 families in the USA could not be put to better use for the citzenry at large.

What do I need to prove? You are clearly a buffoon

I am arguing that it is not for me to decide for others what to do with their money. I would suggest it is not for you either.

Others decide what to do with your money. When they tax it and then hand it over to private companies. You seem to be operating under the assumption that people who have accumulated massive fortunes have done good things to get it. That is far from the truth. People who care for others are in low paying jobs -- teaching, nursing, volunteering, social work. The uber rich are very successful organized criminals

photofinish wrote:

[quote]Todd T wrote:

You are aruing that the $2.5 trillion accumulated by the richest 400 families in the USA could not be put to better use for the citzenry at large.

What do I need to prove? You are clearly a buffoon

The richest 400 families employ the citizenry at large, you imbecile. I can't imagine a more generous approach, actually. You think the government should steal from the productive and give to the nonproductive? hahahahahahahaha

How do you reconcile your philosophy with the fact that as more and more of the wealth has been accumulated into fewer and fewer hands at the top of the heap we have had more and more joblessness? Same thing that happened in the era of the robber barons in the later 1800s and in the 1920s.

marijuologist wrote:

Todd T wrote:

You are aruing that the $2.5 trillion accumulated by the richest 400 families in the USA could not be put to better use for the citzenry at large.

What do I need to prove? You are clearly a buffoon

This is a blatantly communist statement. The individual is the rightful owner of property and there is no such thing as the "citizenry at large." The individual has the right to put his money to use for whatever he feels is in his own best interest (regardless of whether liberals agree with his judgment) solely for his own sake with secondary benefits to whomever he decides to do business with, employ or spend his money on. Liberals can f'ck off.

No such thing as the citizenry at large? You are a real patriot

What exactly are you suggesting? Seizing a portion of their net worth?

Todd T wrote:

marijuologist wrote:

This is a blatantly communist statement. The individual is the rightful owner of property and there is no such thing as the "citizenry at large." The individual has the right to put his money to use for whatever he feels is in his own best interest (regardless of whether liberals agree with his judgment) solely for his own sake with secondary benefits to whomever he decides to do business with, employ or spend his money on. Liberals can f'ck off.

No such thing as the citizenry at large? You are a real patriot

I'd rather have people serve the government than serve themselves.

george oscar bluth wrote:

What exactly are you suggesting? Seizing a portion of their net worth?

I am suggesting arresting them and taking all of it. They are criminals, enemies of the 300 million non economic elite Americans. Let's have a society that is set up for the good of everyone, not the few

Look in simplistic terms the criminality in 'The majority' of the wealthy is first and foremost hihlighted in the minimum wage. The distribution of wealth will only increase. You make the fair point that these wealthy corporations create jobs and put food on the table. Sorry to be crass but duh...This doesn't mean that their contribution to the economy is ethical. How can the net wage of CEOs and key corporate figures increase exponentially whilst a large number of their employees work for wages which keep them below the poverty line? In a first world nation no less?

Todd T wrote:

george oscar bluth wrote:

What exactly are you suggesting? Seizing a portion of their net worth?

I am suggesting arresting them and taking all of it. They are criminals, enemies of the 300 million non economic elite Americans. Let's have a society that is set up for the good of everyone, not the few

__

Huh? You are a troll, Todd? And all this time I thought you were sincere.

agip wrote:

Todd T wrote:

I am suggesting arresting them and taking all of it. They are criminals, enemies of the 300 million non economic elite Americans. Let's have a society that is set up for the good of everyone, not the few

__

Huh? You are a troll, Todd? And all this time I thought you were sincere.

I am dead serious. I dunno why so many people support being abused by the few

I haven't read all five pages of the responses to this question, and what I will set forth below is based on memory; I have not checked my facts.

I heard on the radio moments ago that a man was paid $10 million today for winning a golf tournament, almost certainly on a piece of private property with fences around it to prevent poor people from enjoying the landscape. During the Eisenhower Administration, the top tax rate was around 70%; it's now less than half that, and when anyone dares point this out to Mr. Romney, he accuses them of practicing the "politics of class warfare." He urges the further reduction of taxes for the rich, contending that somehow this will create more jobs, completely disregarding the fact his proposal, as I understand it, addresses personal income tax and not corporate tax. My Federal income taxes could be doubled and it would not effect a single job one way or the other. This evening, NPR reported that in the 1960s, on average, a CEO earned 20X times the average wage earner. Now, it's 400X.

I am retired, and on a volunteer basis, I help the cross country coach at a public high school in Washington, DC. Yesterday, we had our first meet of the year at a park about an hour outside D.C. On our way to the meet the bus went through a very wealthy Virginia suburb called Great Falls. The mansions were enormous. The head coach, a wonderful young science teacher, laughed and said to me privately, "A lot more Romney lawn signs out here."

The kids on the bus, although D.C. public school students, were far from the poorest kids in Washington, but do you think they don't noticed what their coach mentioned to me?

If Romney accuses the President of practicing the politics of class warfare for simply pointing out the obvious, I'll accuse Mr. Romney of practicing the politics of greed. I'm sorry, but I have forgotten how little he and his running mate would pay under their own tax proposals, but I know I paid a higher tax rate than Romney paid last year, and it would not hurt me to pay more in the interest of reducing the Federal deficit.

And you ask why the rich are vilified. Look at the world around you. Thank you.