If you hate the rich, you're misinformed.

a reply to: TurtleSmacker

You're right. A lot of employment has been created by the rich. The mistake we all make is thinking that someone else should be taking care of us.

No one is forced to work for Walmart, or any of the other Greedy corporations that are out there, and it's a safe bet that those that complain about the disparity between rich and poor are contributing to them having greater wealth by spending their money with them.

a reply to: TurtleSmacker

Why did you edit out the part where you said wealth distribution would give everyone $205,000? I could start a business and employ people too, with 200 grand.

a reply to: DeadSeraph


Frankly, I thought my figure might be the only thing focused on by folks who might not see that I meant it as a thought experiment.

To answer your question, you could start a business, but then you might succeed and become one of the hated capitalists of the new age. For your newfound wealth.

There are those who would re-invest the money into the new economy under wealth redistrubution, and those who wouldn't. Then they'd be employees of the next hated %1'ers.

a reply to: TurtleSmacker

You shouldn't profit in the billions if your employees are only living "decent". Define decent by the way.

a reply to: ColeYounger

I don't hate the rich. I pity them.

a reply to: Bone75


If I start a business and set the wages of the company, I don't define what's decent, the people who accept the job knowing the wages do.

Does it matter if the salary is 100k per year, or minimum wage? People refusing responsibility is what has shifted the wealth, if you don't like how much I profit, then the market will be filled by better paying companies if I can't employ anyone. That's the way it should work.

Competition is the solution here.

So wealth and riches means you must be a greedy lying sob pissing on everyone below you? At what worth does one become one of these wealthy assholes?

How many of you give to needier families than your own? Do you have to be rich to help out those less fortunate? If you're just doing ok for yourself are you less obligated to help others? How many times have you opted to take your family to the movies, or buy a video game, instead of giving that $60 dollars to a hungry family? In many of their eyes you have more than you need.

Why should the wealthy be solely responsible for those less off than them?

I agree some things could use some changes but pointing fingers at the rich, simply because they're rich.. come on ATS.

Actions (not wallets) speak louder than words. Rich or poor.

Half of the people that are rich are good people supplying work for many people. Another thirty percent are wasteful but the rich wasting money helps the economy,,,,if the money employs people or works with the economy. The problem is that the new rich are just shuffling their money amongst themselves, not creating work for people.

The last ten percent of the rich are jerks. I notice a higher percentage of jerks in the upper middle class though. They complain about lots of things and aren't creating many jobs. The lower half of the middle class actually creates more jobs that the upper middle class. Lots of tiny small businesses out there where the owners make less than a hundred grand, that is still in the lower middle class.

As I understand the anger, it centers on proportionality... the gap between people's paychecks.

Everybody prospers when the majority have more, more so than when a few hoard... pretty simple, really.

When did it become socially acceptable to give a darn what other people have?

2nd

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
So wealth and riches means you must be a greedy lying sob pissing on everyone below you? At what worth does one become one of these wealthy assholes?

How many of you give to needier families than your own? Do you have to be rich to help out those less fortunate? If you're just doing ok for yourself are you less obligated to help others? How many times have you opted to take your family to the movies, or buy a video game, instead of giving that $60 dollars to a hungry family? In many of their eyes you have more than you need.

Why should the wealthy be solely responsible for those less off than them?

I agree some things could use some changes but pointing fingers at the rich, simply because they're rich.. come on ATS.

Actions (not wallets) speak louder than words. Rich or poor.

So...ASSHOLES is totally cool with t&c now. I hate to be the fun police, but I get dinged for less...

There are more empty homes than homeless in the US alone. The rest of the world is even worse. No billionaire spends a buck on something unless they can make two. I guess I can start saying ASSHOLE now.

When i saw the whole Occupy movement and the "You are the 1%" stupidity was receiving funds from old communists from my country i knew what the whole thing was going to be about. Class war,that thing i've been living in since 1998.

Stop,think,study,analyze people. Don't let yourself be fooled by those who present themselves as the solution to all your problems.

Nah .. am grateful thanks to the rich creating a market i can now make enough selling pitchforks to pay the back alimony to my ex-wives that ran off with rich bastards ..

Todays special : buy 1 pitchfork get a free torch ..

Dbl post glitch, apologies.

originally posted by: beezzer
When did it become socially acceptable to give a darn what other people have?

2nd

Well I'll tell ya, beezer. It began about six months ago, to wit, when the family began using their press to put out feeler stories to monitor public sentiment on the subject of massive wealth redistribution as a panacea. A cure for their problems, not anyone else's. And I assure you that these same powers filed every utterance, writing, or thought pertaining to this proposal to shift monetary wealth, in them there computers that tempted them into this mess. It is no accident that the brickheaded brachycephalic Hillary is suddenly 'poor'.

Clearly, the rollout was a information/data collection honeypot. It was all over ats, and I scanned a few of the sources, knowing instantly why and where this is headed.

Yup. Kill the evil rich. I would have snapped screenshots, had I cared. The trouble is that I know what real wealth is, and there are too many who do not know, to keep track of. No sense in keeping track of turds.

So here's the plan. Get some compromised kajillionaires who diddle kiddies or what not to go public with their statements that it has gone too far. We have to make things right, level the playing field, tax and redistribute, hell, give away money ya da ya da and so on. Because the masters are about to be purged for their technofascist abuses, and no one will give a frack if there is not one remaining to write about it, or fine you into social ruin for disputing their account!!.

And they need to feed us a scapegoat so to save their nazi asses.


I don't expect agreement on this observation, but I believe a poster began a parallel 'pitchfork' thread with minimal words cloaked in irony which everyone missed, and I think his thread was closed or removed. But the powers are in big trouble, and all this mon(k)ey motion is naught but a diversion.

Therefore, more bread, so the proles don't torch their circus tent. Chocolate rations are up, comrades. You won't mind very much if we shoot your dog?

Because they are shooting us like dogs! But now you can buy more lottery tickets, jumbo cokes, eightballs, carbon creds, whatever, till the scam is over run by inflation and taxes. And everything is just the same, only worse.

Does anyone really believe that money equals wealth? We will always have the poor, and the 'evil rich' , and taxes, will simply scoop it all back up, while the rogue government grows larger, larger, larger. Blue helmet home inspections for allergens, guns, plants, ad infinitum.... But at least they have a means to get that MV going (lowest in history), while simultaneously saving their technofascistic asses.

Yeah. That'll work.

And they are backpedaling as fast as they believe they have to. See recent court decisions regarding phones and police stops etc.... This is a cloak for the fact that they are listening to everything regardless simply because they can. We allowed this because we were hypnotized by the media and false flags! Also, obamacare will do mental health roundups for dissenters and other kooks who see the truth, keeping most of us compliant. You've watched the MSM. Everyone knows this is true. Anderson Cooper Vanderbilt said it best, during the SH skit:

"Should these conspiracy freaks, who use the internet to reach out and meet others like themselves, be allowed to do so? Should they even be allowed to be heard?."

At this point, Nixon is a saint. All the films about WW2 will have to be edited so that the Germans look worse than they were portrayed. See...at least the prisoners in camps had privacy..privacy in cell blocks, whereas we have none in our homes! You'll see. Wait for that smart meter guy and ask him why he has police escort....

When their day comes, I hope no one gives a damn. And I am not talking about the 'rich', in case you missed it.

I am talking about the ones who put the world into true spiritual bondage, or are trying to.

That.... is poverty. And how they must smile everytime a mass looting shows persons carrying TV sets home!!!

If you didn't see it at sandy hook, you never will.


# 232

a reply to: the owlbear

My apologies if you don't like the 'a' word.

There may be more empty homes than homeless but does that mean somebody should start giving the homeless those empty houses? How would you decide which homeless are deserving and which aren't? If people see those at rock bottom getting free houses, what incentive do they have to work for their homes?

As I said before there are things that could be changed. Making assumptions like all people who are rich are greedy and thus are the problem, isn't a thought in the direction of a solution..

I ask the same questions again..

What constitutes wealth?
Do you have to be rich to help out those less fortunate?
If you're just doing ok for yourself are you less obligated to help others?
How often do you spend money on investments or material posessions instead of helping those less fortunate than yourself?

I'm not saying you should be giving everything you don't need away to the poor. I'm saying you have a right to do whatever you want with your money the same as the rich and wealthy do.

The problem isn't the wealth itself in other words.

a reply to: TurtleSmacker

Starred!

Neither ... I would invest the $10million in a long term high interest [4%] earning account ... earning a cool $400,000.oo a year in interest [for the next forever] ... then I'd skim that off annually and put that into another normal savings account and I would spend $1100.oo per day in charity donations into my local community every year from then on till the end of never. That is $110.oo donated every hr for 10hrs per day every day of the year ... FOREVER!

Don't people think in financial terms of forever anymore???

First I'd like to say that to be fair, the Ultra-rich thread is about not the 1%, not the 0.1%, but the 0.01%'ers. Getting your facts straight is the first step of a good argument. You already failed with the first step, sorry to say, so forgive me if I don't really take to heart your argument. Then to lead with "I know a millionaire" ... really? A millionaire doesn't even register on the rich scale compared to a 1%er, let alone a 0.01%er.

That all being said.... I see a lot of posts on here saying "So how much money do/should you give to <insert 3rd world poverty association here>". It's incredibly naive to throw money at a problem, because money does NOT solve problems. I think we're all forgetting the old adage: "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime". All money does is push the problem further down the road where our kids will end up having to deal with it, much like America's debt.

If you want to solve poverty, teach... Start providing services that people and communities can get involved with, to re-build their way of life. Money should go into the creation of farms, facilities to provide clean water, and education systems. Not only that, but it should be a WORLD WIDE EFFORT. I can't stress that enough. In order to eradicate poverty, there must be a world wide effort, otherwise it will be a fruitless endeavor. I didn't even touch on the cultural/mental differential, which adds even more complexity to re-educating an impoverished people.

Lastly, the problem here is human. Rich people have no more a proclivity towards greed then middle or lower class citizens. If we want to change the world, we have to change ourselves....it hasn't happened in the 1000's of years we've been on this planet and I don't see it happening any time in the near future (especially with shallow arguments like these). If you want to blame someone, blame yourself for being so incredibly stupid, stubborn, and gullible. We are our own problem. Until we can learn to deal with ourselves, we have no conceivable faculty to support others - we are destined to fail every time if we continue in our stupid ways.

(just to be clear I'm not calling the OP personally stupid, I'm referencing the whole of mankind)

Until we can all admit our failure as a race, we have no hope to make positive change - this saddens me to the core of my being.

the problem will never just be the ritch be it the 1% the .1% the .01 or even the ,001 its the way they run buisness

even if they only run at 1% profit one day be it 10000 years from now will have all the money and once that gets to the tipping point problems will happen incrase wages a temp fix and dragging out the problem one day they will have everything

i know the point is hypethedical but remains true even if its 1000 people at some low profit one day it will all be in there hands without equal distrubution

there is no fix to this problem tho should a buisness owner or inovater make more than the avg worker yes ... but we must reset the balance every so offten or inovation will stop

a reply to: Aedaeum

Well said.