It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Do the rich DESERVE their money?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by Justaposter

16 October 1793

I think a lot of people are missing that unless you're making over 250K annually, the op doesn't think you are rich.

Also, from my point of you, unless you have a million in cash assets on top of what you make every year, I do not consider you rich.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Yes, I know that I work to live and not live to work...

That is why I just had a wonderful weekend off... took my wife out to a nice casual upscale restuarant, we worked in the yard all Sat morning....after we went out to eat, we rode around and stopped for some ice cream. Sunday, i planted some more fall garden, went to church, then we went to see my folks and ate Sunday dinner and visited a while...then took the long way to my mother in law's house and ate dinner with her...went cat fishing after that.

My step son caught so many, we will have a cat fish fry later this week. For now, i am relaxing here, gonna cook some ribs in a minute...and hgave company over tonight for dinner.

Yes, i know how to live.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:36 PM
No, its an illegal fascist pyramid system that relies on billions starving and is policed viciously with an enormous world wide web, that prevents anyone from changing the system.

Money itself is slavery and there is no need for any slavery, forcing, employment for homes, money, realtors, bankers or politicians. Ever.

Advance socieites in the cosmos live in a moneyless resourse society, with high education and retraining, where everyone who can and is healthy, takes on turns trying on many roles from childhood, and wish to contribute. They contribute a few hours a day, some days a week, and take as much as they need from the system like linux open source software does, no patents, no copyrights.

Policitally speaking, this is done in the Hopi Elder way, where "we are the ones we've been waiting for" grass roots. Everyone is called, most accept, though no one is force, into their turns in counsels, half women and half men, to deal with issues that may come up.

I renounce/denounce and oppose any other system!

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by Unity_99

In Plato's commonwealth experiment, which is what "The Republic" is based off of, he describes a society where the "Guardians," in our society equivalent to Politicians, are paid wages only suitable to survive on, making them "poor". This ensures their work is done out of compassion and virtue, and not out of greed, selfishness or to benefit the wealthy. Our society is not set up this way, instead Politicians are entering these jobs to receive salaries ranging in the hundreds of thousands, insofar as to please corporations who they in turn go to work for after they leave congress. I feel we should have a rule that only allows them to be paid enough for the necessities in life, and after their stint in Gov. is up they should not be allowed to work for corporations or receive higher wages than they did while in Gov. This would ensure we are being led and protected by only the most upstanding and trustworthy human beings who seek nothing more other then to live virtuous lives.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:59 PM
Rich people are no more deserving of their money than anybody else who puts in the same hard work and hours.

There should probably be a maximum wage cap instituted, too.

Before you scoff at that, consider that you're a poor prole, and you'll never have to worry about coming anywhere near what that cap should be. Have a nice day

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:02 PM
I think the rich deserve their money. I just think its screwed up when they use their money to manipulate other people, especially their own clients.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:22 PM
On another note, there is a study conducted by a Harvard professor who has Master Degree's in Economics, Psychology, and Cognitive Sciences, where he runs some ingenious tests on a group of MIT students about their work ethic and level of virtue in relation to money.

In one of the tests, he asks 3 groups of 25 MIT students to sit at a computer for 3 minutes and continuously drag round balls into a large square with their mouse. The first group, he offered 5 dollars to do this, and they dragged an average of 145 balls into the square. The second group, he offered a Snickers bar, and they dragged an average of 151 balls into the square. The third group, he didn't offer anything and just asked them to do this for him, and they dragged an average of 278 balls into the square.

Although this is just one of the many tests he conducted, it shows how people are more inclined to work harder when their is no money involved, but why? Well he stated that it was because the people who were paid to do the work put a price value on what their time and effort was worth, and did not feel five dollars was very much money so they did not work very hard. And the people who were not paid did not put a price value on their work, and instead did it out of virtue and as a favor for him, leading them to want to work harder.

The summary is: money decreases motivation on a root level, and virtue increases motivation on a root level. Therefore, our system is not set up to encourage productive workers.

I will try and see if I can find this study online for you guys/gals to check out, it is amazingly ingenious.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

So you are going to base your beliefs over one study? Kinda silly if you ask me.

If I start a business and end up a millionaire. It is MY money and MY work that made it happen. Why should I have to give my money to anyone if I don't want to?

Sounds pretty un-free and totalitarian to me.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:46 PM
S&F! "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime"-Balzac. Avarice and sociopathy are the hallmarks of the ruling class and the political class as well. Why don't we just go back to having a monarchy?

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by NoHierarchy

Elected representatives ought not be allowed to be 'rich'. If they want to be in politics let them put their riches aside. Let nothing but bare sustenance be their pay, and no retirement money. Strict accounting for their assets ought be enacted, to ensure that no lobby money or any other corrupt income makes it their way while 'representing' the people. It is an honor and privilege to serve in government, not a gravy train for corruption. This would prevent greed and corruption from seeking to make it into politics, and should wipe out all current government members, with a few exceptions.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by davidmann]

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:06 PM
So go right ahead and try to do it.I wish you the best.

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

So you are going to base your beliefs over one study? Kinda silly if you ask me.

If I start a business and end up a millionaire. It is MY money and MY work that made it happen. Why should I have to give my money to anyone if I don't want to?

Sounds pretty un-free and totalitarian to me.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:28 PM
Ok guys, stop with your little anecdotal stories about how you, or one of your parents or friends, "got rich". We are obviously not talking about you. We are talking about the WEALTHY. We are talking about People who have empires, the movers and shakers, NOT the people who wake up every day and go slave to make their housenote for their piddly 2 or 3 houses, and their single 40 footer. Get over it, YOU are not the RICH that we mean. If YOU have enough money to single handedly, or with a small group of your friends, push congress to pass certain laws against the publics wellbeing, then YOU are who we mean.
If YOU are getting massive money off the war effort, then YOU are who we mean. If YOU have BSing scientists on fox news every couple weeks telling us all why we need your product or we'll all die from some flu....Then YOU are who we mean. Not some joe schmoe who barely clears a million a year, and pays taxes and buckles his seatbelt and stops at red lights. Sorry, I know this is hard to hear....but if your not sniffing coc aine off of prostitutes stomachs at 50000 feet in your own plane....your not likely our target.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:59 PM
I think they have earned most of it. I do also thing the system is unfair and rigged. It is hard to argue that anyone works harder than a road worker in the middle of a hot day. Is brain work worth more than physical labor. Should someone less capable intelligence wise make less than someone who is more intelligent even though the amount of work done may be equal or even slanted in favor of the physical laborer?

There certainly should be more paid to succesful people but not so much that the differennce is owning a yatch and 3 homes while the other guy is wondering were he is going to get food for his children and gas for his car after working 8 or more hours a day.

That is completely wrong in my opinion.

The stock market is just a large gambling operation that steals from the workers who made the money to begin with.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:49 AM

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

So you are going to base your beliefs over one study? Kinda silly if you ask me.

If I start a business and end up a millionaire. It is MY money and MY work that made it happen. Why should I have to give my money to anyone if I don't want to?

Sounds pretty un-free and totalitarian to me.

I do not base my belief off of this one study, however this study did offer credible evidence to a belief I already had, which I gained from my own life experiences.

Here is another example I just thought of. Say your a child, and your mother offers you $10 dollars every week to mow the lawn, well $10 is not enough to buy much more than a pack of baseball cards, and a few sodas. After 3 or 4 weeks you start to realize that this deal is not that great and your motivation drops to a point were you hate mowing the lawn and so you begin taking short cuts and doing a crappy job. Now say your mother asks you kindly to mow the lawn once a week because she doesn't have the time or the strength to do it herself, this will allow you to find a sense of joy in doing the chore because you know your helping your mother out, whom you so dearly love.

Anyways, your ME! ME! ME! attitude and theory of life, leads to an unorganized, chaotic and unbalanced society that is not sustainable. Kind of like the one we have now.

Just saying...

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:10 AM
reply to post by NewlyAwakened

During FY 2009, the federal government collected approximately $2.1 trillion in tax revenue. Primary receipt categories included individual income taxes (43%), Social Security/Social Insurance taxes (42%), and corporate taxes (7%)

-Taken from Wikipedia (US Federal Budget)

How many of these rich people pay individual income tax? So we know corporations match SSI so corporations pay a bit more than is indicated here. But the consumer really pays for it all as all corporate taxes are passed off onto the consumer. The corporation never pays for the tax, it is the people that buy the services. Now when I pay my personal tax, nobody helps me pay it. I can't charge my employer extra to compensate for my increased taxes.

I agree with the OP the system is rigged in favor of the rich. As much as I am for people enjoying the fruits of their labor, the system is rigged. Those without the means to produce are at the mercy of the rich to provide them a job to enjoy the fruits of life. The problem is the rich can not spend the wealth they have. There is really nothing they could buy with Billions. They could buy companies, but they might make more money and then what do you spend it on.

If I were rich I would probably blow all the money to make others happy. But then I wouldn't be rich ever. Being rich means you make more money than you could possibly use. While a rich person may have earned the money, there is a limit in which they should be entitled to it.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by AlreadyGone

Edit to add: My explanation is just to be save. Since I did not have a clue if you felt like I was positive or negative. So...

I didn't intend to judge or belittle you. But I needed to ask. I've made friends some good friends with people I asked that same question. Not everybody sees or notices that they are being lived instead of living. After I experienced this I asked just to be save.

Lots of people enjoy what they, do the majority in my experience.

I regularly work 60 hours a week and I wouldn't trade my job for the world.

I must be doeing something wrong tho... Cause I can't affort two places.

[edit on 8/25/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by hadriana
You said one thing that strikes me as being **TRUE.**

You said that the mega rich psychotically hoard money.

I walked away from the pc and thought about this a while- and it just seems brilliant.

When people have more animals than they need, or can care for, we might say they are pyschotic and that they are animal hoarders. We recognize how sick it is.

When people fill their homes up with junk so that they can't get out the door, we see the mental illness in it.

How many thousands could one billion dollars provide for? How many chickens, goats, and wells could that sort of money provide?

I do know several multi-millionaires. 2 got their money legitimately as far as I know. 1 had help in the form of luck, if you can call it that, as his brother died young and left a huge insurance policy and fledgling business. The other 4 engaged in selling drugs or just providing drugs to other business owners, before turning to legitimate business.

It seems a slippery slope- wealth redistribution. But just because you go down a road doesn't mean that that road might NOT end before any particular final destination.

The attachment one would have to have to money, to ALLOW one to become a multi-billionaire- it would HAVE to border on being psychotic.
Who could sit on that much money and watch so many people die of starvation or be homeless? Someone with that much money would be deprived of NOTHING in this world to give away anything that continued to come.

That's probably what Christ meant when he talked about how hard it was for the rich man to enter heaven- he said something like -basically-a really wide load would have to fit in a narrow space.

The level or hoarding has to be so above and beyond the psychosis that your normal 800 pound man would have- and unless he is in a poor country, he's probably mainly hurting himself. How many people are being hurt by a man with 4 billion dollars who decides to hold onto every last cent of it?

I know a wealthy man, and he would not give his granddaugter 500.00 for her copay to have a surgery she desperately needed. His attitude was that he fended for himself, and his kids, and now it was up to them. Never mind that the child's mother was disabled,and single, or that the little girl had cancer when she was 8, and needed the surgery because the bone in her arm had died.

I have always thought that was so cruel, but I never really considered the psychotic level of attachment to money that one would have to have to do that. WOW.


So, did you give her the money she needed for the operation then?

If you did then that is great, but if you did not then you are hoarding your money?

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:55 PM
My problem is not with the wealthy, as much as it is in how they acquire that wealth. If their are 2 average Joes and one racks up debt and buys a great car, boat, home, etc. and the other simply saves his, drives an older car, skips the boat and buys a more modest home - it is safe to say the 2nd one will be wealthy while the first will not.

My problem stems more from a Corporation side. The big Ceo's that make more money that can be fathomed by the majority of the population. I'll take Dow Chemical as an example... The dow's last quarterly report was quite favorable and the investors cheered. The CEO's and the executives got a pay raise /bonus and on a side note... Dow increased their bottom line by laying off 1/3 of their employees. Hmm. Did Dow do anything illegal... morally... hmm - The stockholders and execs cheered as the average Joe cried.

The Big Oil CEO, who's homes I'm sure are quite nice, who because of the business they are in gets Corporate Governmental breaks and special regulations that serve only to increase the company's bottom line while also getting to control what the average Joe gets to pay for gas.

The Big Bankers, who allowed shady mortgage practices to finance homes people could not afford, and tweaked regulations in an effort to increase their bottom line. And when it was all said and done, passed their failure onto their government and the American people in the form of the bailout they recieved. And now the average Joe has lost his home, yet still will pay his tax $ to help the bank recover from it's unfortunate boo-boo.

The list goes on. But this is my point. Is being made wealthy alright when you have done so by harming the average Joe.. I think you can see why the average Joe has the right to be angry. He does not have the power that goes with money to influence governement, pay a horde of lawyers to defend himself, or buy the rescources to provide himself with his own oil well, energy source, etc. He is at the mercy of the Corporation who will decide what he will have and how much he will pay.

This in my opinion is really the bottom line I come up with when reading this question.

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:08 PM
Wealth and power buys you wealth and power. This means that wealth is exponential.

I myself am able to currently live solely by my investments and do not have to go to work. Someone not as fortunate as i must work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week to reach the same standard of living.

Did i work harder than the someone else to earn my money? No, i just had the chance to start investing and set up a business because a lump of money i inherited. It was not a big sum of money, i could not have lived on it for a year. But having that cash to spend and invest, i made it multiply and sustain myself.

Someone could call my line of work housing management, i do not even call it work. Actually the wealthier you are and the higher your position in a company is, the less you actually work, and the more you let your wealth work for you.

I am amazed how our society admires wealthy people, i actually am somewhat disgusted by them (to some extent me included). But i do what i have to do, its not my fault our society is structured in such a way.

Edit small OT rant to add:
The fact i let my money do the working for me earns me a 26% tax rate. If i would receive the same money in sallary, i would pay 40% Where is the fairness in that? Our society is clearly structured so that the onew with power stay in power, and the ones with nothing are going to stay that way.

[edit on 8/25/2010 by above]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by above

I am amazed how our society admires wealthy people, i actually am somewhat disgusted by them (to some extent me included). But i do what i have to do, its not my fault our society is structured in such a way.

[edit on 8/25/2010 by above]

I would not go so far as to say they admire it. I think they are jealous of it and resentful of it at times. As yes, it is true, we do what we have to do, but sometimes in doing so we are contributing to the very system that disregards moral and ethical issues. So in fact we become part of the problem.

On the other hand, it is as you say... Should you have taken all your money and given 1/2 to the average Joe, that is certainly not the answer. You were honestly trying to improve your life using what you had available to you, and that is not something that should be slighted. ;-)

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in