It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does the Left hate Rich Successful people?

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Because we all know to some extent every single one of us is responsible for the world we live in.


Exactly... well said. I understand this to the degree that I realize that the mere fact that I bring up the debate of divide in and of itself is a form of divide as well... meaning I am an equal contributor to all measures at play whether I want to admit it or not.

Pulling out of ourselves and inflicting a will on another presence steers all paths of prejudice... people can name it whatever they wish.




posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Hmm... mulling over it, I think I see why things are as they are.

Republicans completely became the opposition party during Obama's tenure. Now, they've entirely won everything... but are still acting as the opposition party - getting nothing done and shouting down Hillary and Democrats.

We see this tricking down into general public interaction, too.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
@LesMisanthrope:


They believe wealth is a zero-sum game, that when one gets rich it means another is getting poor. They believe the rich get rich off the backs of others. These are false beliefs.


Nope. We neither believe nor think that. Ayn Rand was not one of us.
Non-Zero


The title of this book, Nonzero, refers to the concept of the "non-zero-sum," which comes from game theory. Looking at human history--and for that matter the whole history of life on earth--through the lenses of game theory can change your view of life. At least, that is a premise of this book. What exactly is meant by "change your view of life"? That is a question with a book-length answer. But there is enough material on this website to give you the general idea.

Meanwhile, some examples of non-zero-sum things: arms control negotiations, trading gossip, the relationship among genes on a genome, and such transactions as buying a car, buying a book....


The man has also written a thick volume about The Evolution of God. Worth every word of its text. These both, imo, should be required reading for college freshmen. And they should be tested on it.


But I don’t think a “materialist” account of religion’s origin, history, and future—like the one I’m giving here—precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview; not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some meaningful sense religious.

It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the “illusion,” in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusory.

Does that make sense? Probably not. I hope it will by the end of the book. For now I should just concede that the kind of god that remains plausible, after all this streamlining, is not the kind of god that most religious believers currently have in mind.


This guy is a genius. Read his work.
Click the links.



edit on 4/23/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Thank you very much for the links... you just launched me into a lot of free thought channels!!!



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Just listen to them,

Leftists (real ones) are the best, most brightest, most wonderful, most compassionate, most hardworking, best, most awesomest, better than everyone else people around. If someone else has more or better than they do, it therefore must obviously be because that person (who obviously inferior to the leftist in every way; see my first statement) somehow cheated or stole or was otherwise dishonest about something to rip off the leftist.

Of course, they dial up all the various SJW excuses why someone else might have gotten ahead of them in the grand scheme of things, and even if they can't point to something, they still find flaws such as greed and callousness for why that person needs to have whatever they have taken from them ... for the greater good, of course, and this call to have things taken is morally justified because the leftist is always morally superior because, as we've already covered, they are the best ... always ... and there is no arguing that.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   


The left loves the rich they just hate arrogant assholes whole think just because they inherited money from daddy that makes them the privileged class and better than everyone


Well the left did create the death tax which takes half over everything inherited.

If anyone thinks they are better than everyone is LEFTISTS.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

Well the left did create the death tax which takes half over everything inherited.

If anyone thinks they are better than everyone is LEFTISTS.



Which applies to only .2% of the largest and wealthiest people at their time of Death. Which is there to keep from a tiny group or family from owning everyone else. It's done to help level out wealth inequality and doesn't stop them from a million other ways of transferring that money over before they die either.

Obviously it's not the Leftists who feel so superior as to not even give back some of their wealth to society even at death. It's people like you. Who I'm sure would rather be buried with your wealth than even consider for one moment that someone else might use it even though you're dead and can't use ever again. Talk about selfish.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

The answer to your post's headline is easy.

The left tends to think of wealth as finite, they consider it pie. The bigger piece someone has means there is less that someone else has. All things equal then if someone has more than someone else (in any respect) it MUST mean someone somewhere else has less, and it was taken from them. This is why identity politics are so big because obviously the haves have done something to the have-nots.

The right tends to think of wealth is generated and more like a tide. You raise the tide, everyone's boat does better. The bigger contribution someone has means there is more for everyone else. All things are not equal and each boat on this tide needs to be prepared to weather the rise/fall of the tide on it's own. Failure to do such is a variety of choices which results in if the boat sinks.

The truth is, it is somewhere in between. Capitalism relies on scarcity and trade, so wealth is finite in terms of resources. However, one can create wealth out of nothing and a good idea if they work hard enough.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Which applies to only .2% of the largest and wealthiest people at their time of Death.


No it doesnt.

It effects millions of people.

A building gets left to a parents offspring worth 1-5 million.

The FEDS get half because it has to be sold to cover the death tax.

Hundred acre farms have to be sold to pay for the death tax because well LEFTISTS made it the law.

Hit the GD lottery?

LOSE HALF of the amount to the FEDS.

THANKS GREEDY LEFTISTS.

Aren't they just so effing special.
edit on 23-4-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Simple answer is because they have millions of times more wealth than they need to survive or exist in luxury whilst the common every day Man is forced to subside on a pittance.

These bastards profit from other peoples hard toil and misery.

And i don't mean people who are financially secure or have savings in the bank.

I mean the super rich 1%ers, the bankers, corporations and mass media company.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

No, it doesn't. You ignore all the regular people who get hit because of it.

The family farm is far from wealthy, but because of the land itself, the feds can assess a death tax in the millions on the estate at the farmer's death. If the family can't cough that up, then they have to sell it all.

Most family farms can't do that.

And yet, on the other hand, real leftists constantly bemoan the lack of family farms and the dominance of big corporate farm conglomerates. Well, you have only your own greed to thank for that.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You're mixing together different forms of taxation. The lottery taxes have nothing to do with the Death Tax. We don't pay out Lottery Winnings to a dead person.

In those other examples you're talking about Estate Tax, which may or may not have something to do with the Death Tax depending on if someone actually died or not. You can have Estate Taxes without dying.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I would certainly be considered a leftist. And, yes, the rich nearly repulse me, as a group, not an individual. There have to be some who are fairly reasoned. What repulses me is that there is simply no need for huge wealth to be accumulated in the hands of a few. It adds no quality of life to those people, so what purpose does it serve after a point, particularly when they keep pushing for yet more social handouts in the form of government favoritism. That's just wrong, period. And it repulses me. The world has always had its ruling class, yet today that class has expanded rather than contracted; and that is not a good thing. The above addresses only wealth and power, but those consequences are for more reaching when environmental concerns are taken into consideration. I could go on and on, but those who care for mankind will readily get my point.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Good points...

If the wealth gained over legacies and hand me downs were to have such good intentions to give back over the years, then where the rich and poor tend to live would be the opposite of what's seen. If the rich kept their wealth, and didn't run to the suburbs and farms to evade stress and problems pf poverty (which will never go away)... the cities would not see such hardships. Instead, the money would be pumped back into the cities, forcing the poor to the outskirts... which would provide a less concentration of poverty overall. So the negatives of legacy and attached wealth's are two fold... not only does the money influx avoid areas of trauma, but it also forces all poor people to live and thrive within small sectors that need excessive policing and control.

Will Smith was right... Parents just don't understand.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh please. My own greed? I'm not making any f*cking money off of you or anyone else so enough with the accusations.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




You're mixing together different forms of taxation. The lottery taxes have nothing to do with the Death Tax. We don't pay out Lottery Winnings to a dead person.


Nope.

It may not be called a death tax but get real.

Losing HALF before a person ever sees a penny.

CRIB death.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh please. My own greed? I'm not making any f*cking money off of you or anyone else so enough with the accusations.



That's what support for that form of taxation is though and that's exactly what it does.


You may not want to see it, but it's there. As someone who has a family farm in her background, this is an issue. My folks live on the ground, rent it to a cousin who farms it along with his ground, and my folks are NOT wealthy in any form. Neither am I or my sister. If my folks die, the land will be assessed in excess of several hundred thousand, not counting the buildings.

Where do you think we'll get that money to try to keep it in the family from? The "save your inheritance" fairy?

Why should I lose my family's ground because the government thinks it's somehow entitled to retax for upwards of half its value it even though we've owned it for five generations as of me?

And because people like yourself think that's fully justified ... yeah, you will be helping victimize me and my family.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

Tell you one thing, if the Vatican were to ever open up or make available the funds they have at there disposal, it could go quite ways as to actually addressing world poverty, possibly solving or alleviating the issue vastly within 10 years alone.

Completely unimplementable all the same given the state of world affairs and that the monies would undoubtedly go to the wrong people.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Estate Tax:

A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding ... $5,490,000 in 2017.

A few hundred thousand ain't anywhere close.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Here's a list of the top wealthiest counties in the U.S.. It is embarrassing to see that policy makers, not makers of goods, fill out 5 of the top 10 counties in the entire country. Over 3,000 counties in the U.S., and the policy makers round out the bulk of the top 10... just sad.


en.wikipedia.org...


I might not agree with any of the taxes and what direction they stemmed from. The point is that its time to move forward and erase legacy. The seas of legislation are wrong on all angles... its time to trim the fat. Trimming the fat equates to the wealth falling with it... since the policy makers are civil servants and should, in most cases, not be attached to ever growing wealth like is seen in current times.

Keep the damn money... I just want to erase the influence and tyranny that comes with it!


A millionaire does absolutely nothing to impress me. The people that impress me are the ones who figure out how to earn millionaire status, then proceed to give it all away. Many of these millionaires exist. It's just that most people are keeping up with the Kardeuchians, and fail to spend any time and energy on these elusive modern day heroes.

edit on 23-4-2017 by ttobban because: added comments...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join