The Rich Get Richer? What Do You Think of This?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Tee&A, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. Tee&A

    Tee&A New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Cali
    I got this from another site; it discussed America's Youngest Billionaires. This is what one poster had to comment:

    "More than 1/3 of the world population lives on less than $2 a day. This is over 2 billions peoples. In the same world, there are multi-billionaires. This is morally wrong. Why cannot all these billionaires keep 1 billion of their money for personal use and use the rest of their money to better humanity in real and consequential ways? No one ask for hand out, they can educate billions of children around the world. If for they personal use they spend one million dollars a month for the next 80 years, then they will still have money left over from one billion dollars..."

    That having been posted, I've noticed that it seems the pressure to give is mostly on the rich. "Take the Billionaire Pledge and give all your fortune away except a million dollars"; "Why don't the billionaires give away millions to the poor when they have so much?" etc, etc. Well, this is the way I look at it: If a person worth 10 million and they give 2 million of their income to charity, they've given away 20%; how many non-billionaires are willing to do the same thing? How do you think people that make $50,000 a year would react if people below the poverty line were publically calling them to give away $10,000 a year to charity. It's only 20%, right?

    Of course it stands to reason that in theory the more you have, the more you should be able to give. I just find it really funny how the "non-rich" are so giving when it comes to the wealthy's money.
     
  2. DiscoBoy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    We're only human.
     
  3. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    well u prefer communism? just that all children also deserve a chance to show their colors too.

    money is a token in return for what you're good at giving, you then use these tokens to get more of it, the more you get, the more it is said that you are better at giving(/providing for peoples needs), so the more they have the better for all as they have proven themselves as the best custodians to bring us our needs.

    then there are these darn accountants and their fraud systems are still out right criminal, we need more insight into this. Why is the scientiest and the patent holders left in the back seat while leemans ceos and f&m gets hundreds of millions in payoffs for the shit that they part caused. we also need to rework who we allow to lone money to and need to lower taxes for the upper middle class, and creative startups. the rich can also do with a great deal more children the've got ample to teach and such trust would be a good bet too take. the reason many of these people are so rich is also because of a glitch that still remains in the system. it's very difficult to work these things out, but we do eventually.

    spreading the wealth won't really help anyone, it will only provide somebody else with a number that they haven't earned, and now who's going to have to work for them to have this number? likely the class just directly above them. so esencially here, what they are doing is riping off the middle class.


    instead of Gates giving his money away, he could have rather invested it in fusion tech or aging technologies for his own and the benefit of humanity, not only would he grow his wealth a great deal more, but the greater humanity will be enriched as well. i say this all has to do with something other (inadvertently paying for population control, something that is commonly seen as politically incorrect)
     
    #3 D_Myer_Dogasflees, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  4. JTalbain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,812
    Likes Received:
    5
    There's also the other saying to consider, "It takes money to make money." People that are exceptionally charitable with their cash are not as likely to ever make it to billionaire status in the first place.

    This kind of reminds me of the Politics thread which pointed out the Republican talking point of "Obama wants 90% of the tax burden to be supported by 1% of the population could be easily flipped around to say, "90% of the nation's wealth is held by 1% of the population."

    This just comes down to a question of whether you find the current distribution of wealth disturbing. Many of us are quick to point out the destitute in other countries and how an elite few hide the wealth away and deny them even the basic necessities for living, but when they're shown the same destitution in our own country, they tell those people to "Get a job." Kind of sad really. I myself would give heavily if I were filthy rich, but I think that's a moral choice to make, and it shouldn't be forced on anyone. The greedy will get theirs in the end.
     
  5. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    It might surprise you to learn that in America the people who give the greatest percentage of their financial resources to charity are those in the lowest income levels, and the percentage given away decreases as income rises. Compound that with the notion that those in the lowest income levels have the least amount of 'disposable income' after covering their basic living expenses, and many are struggling as it is. Compare that with the uber wealthy who could give away half, three quarters of their income or more, and it wouldn't affect their lifestyle at all. Think about that.

    Some more than others.
     
    #5 maxcok, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  6. Rikter8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,488
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI
    Not necessarily. Part of the reason we're in the situation we are is because of Inheritance children being placed into positions of power when they don't have a clue.

    Money breeds money. Always has, always will.

    If you want to get anywhere in life, you have to Look like money, smell like money, and talk like money.
     
  7. LambHair McNeil

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tee&A,

    Good thread/question.

    It'd be interesting to fire up the "what if...?" computer and see what would happen to private wealth creation if your anonymous poster's idea became passed policy somewhere in the world. To him or her, it sounds oh-so-easy to focus on the multi-billionaires. But, if we ever got to an in-force law, if the comparison is people making it on less than $2/day, where would the "wealthy" line be drawn?
     
  8. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    well i guess the same logic applies to when you give somebody random on the street a buck, it's theirs now question asked. however this is only when you do give them this buck, if you don't, well then it's not theirs. so nothing we could justfully do about this.

    as to children being placed into positions of power, well 68% of forbes 400 are of the self-made lower-middle class, the rest are doing quite well tooo. politically incorrect or not, i can't imaging that we could do somthign about this unless we had to rule the world like they did in the book 'brave new world' where nobody has children and children are grown by state in hatcheries.

    let them inherit(as long as their (hopefully not evil) parents actually say that they can have it, else it is handed in as taxes) it, fully, just that we also need to ensure that every child has a chance, as similar logic applies to say that these irresponsible parents who can't even afford to raise a pet, have so many chidrne that they can't afford. now who's to blame, the 'spoit rich kid', or the 'irresponsible clown who can't even take care of thier own pets and thinks that they can raise 5 children'? either way, part responsibility is at society too, they should ensure that things like this don't happen in society. a solution? i don't know, perhaps the chinese are right on this one. how somethign like this could be done ethically is another thing
     
  9. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Imported from another thread:

     
  10. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Care to elaborate, please?
     
  11. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    One-child policy, or something simmilar to ensure that people are responsible and able enogh to take care of children responsibly and that they will have a place to contribute too. I'm only saying that the most important tasks of all, should require some criteria too, just(exactly) as flying an airoplane would. (i don't know how it will be done, i'm only saying that it should be done', how is another thing i am not perfectly sure about, however nothing says that it can't be done ethically either)
     
    #11 D_Myer_Dogasflees, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  12. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Personally, I would not be functional in a society with so much control over its citizens as to dictate something as fundamental as reproduction on a governmental level. Nor do I believe that anyone who has survived such a regime would/can be unscathed. Autonomy of the individual is just too ingrained in me as a concept.

    As to the OP, the rich only remain rich because they are supported by the other 98% of the population in some fashion or other. With heroic wealth comes great responsibilities which sound disproportional but are necessary. I am not of the mindset that we should confiscate any wealth beyond some arbitrary line of "what's essential to survive comfortably", however I do believe that in a more just society such questions would never need be asked.

    When I was growing up, we called such enormous disparities between wealth and poverty "third world" and as Americans all congratulated each on our middle class. Even my intensely reactionary parents believed such things and understood that unimaginable wealth comes at the expense of the unimaginably poor. This is not Communism, it's common sense. Money doesn't grow on trees and there's only so much to be had.
     
  13. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    who said that we need so much control? americans find easy ways around things, there must be another way we could do the same, while it not havnig to 'chip' people or something as such. peoples imaginations are way off track, this is no Orwellian thing, neither was the pilots license either. well we need to do something, that's all im saying, and i think that the chinese have the best way. just don't agree with the sterilisations part. most of the chinese agree with the one-child policy, so i don't think that it really is such a streneous task either, and perhaps we'l get an iphone app to do pregnancy tests remotely

    money isn't like oil either, it's not a commodity, it's a token that one needs to win over by offering somebody else something that they are willing to pay for. this is the only just way, the problem is how humanity understands this. the crime done unto those children was not done by the rich or by government, it was done by their parents
     
    #13 D_Myer_Dogasflees, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  14. Mem

    Mem
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    8,087
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    FL
    The difference is that a billionaire or multi-millionaire does not have to worry about having money to put gas in the car or food on the table or have rent money. a person making $50K does.
     
  15. 0cram

    0cram New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Seattle area
    There should be no obligation from the government to give away money. Incentives such as tax deductions are fine because many taxes are unjust. Of course, if money was earned because of exploitation or any means of living off of other people, that money should belong to those exploited or at least given to the less fortunate.
    If someone works hard and invents or makes something everyone else uses, he deserves every cent of that profit and he should be proud to set an example of supporting or creating charities. This is why I admire J. D. Rockefeller and B. Gates, Gates especially.
     
  16. DiscoBoy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe in a perfect world where humans felt no emotions would your idea work. Communism has repeatedly failed for a reason.

    Oh, and I'm not so sure the Chinese have it down pat either judging from recent (and not-so-recent) events.
     
  17. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    wasn't referring to communism, was referring to the one-child policy, which yes, was a huge success
     
  18. HiddenLacey

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,470
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    249
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    somewhere
    What exactly is considered a low income level? Under 100K?
     
  19. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Oh no, not even close. More like 10K at the lowest level.

    Check the links in my second post, hun. Here, I'll help you. :wink: chart

    Really? Why don't you ask all the baby girls who were aborted, killed or abandoned to make room for a boy?

    Why don't you ask the parents who were restricted by the government to having one child?

    If that weren't draconian enough, it goes against everything in the tradition of Chinese family life, where the elderly are revered and children are expected to take care of their parents in old age. Who will take care of these parents if something happens to that one child, or he/she shirks his traditional responsibility?
    The Chinese government? HAHAHAHAHA.
     
    #19 maxcok, Oct 11, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  20. HiddenLacey

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,470
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    249
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    somewhere
    Interesting I donate way more money now than I did when I made a lower income years ago. Honestly, when I was that poor I was lucky to afford food. Not that I'm rich by any means, I've always given whatever I can. The only places I've consistently given to through good times and bad is St Judes and the HSUS.
     
    #20 HiddenLacey, Oct 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2010
Draft saved Draft deleted