NationStates Jolt Archive

I was looking through my closet, and picked out a couple books to read this past week. This week I've read "Kings of Cocaine", which was about the Medellín Cartell and was written by Guy Gugliotta and Jeff Leen. Another one was Mixed Blessings and was written by William and Barbara Christopher. Third one was King of the Night and was a biography of Johnny carson written by Laurence Leamer. And the fourth and final one was a book called "The Ultra Rich" by Vance Packard.

I really enjoyed the last book. It was basically about "How much is too much" and it raises some interesting questions. Can the fifty million dollar to eight billion dollar fortunes be justified in today's America? Is this fabulously rich or just excessively rich? As the book asks, should we consider them "ultra" rich, in the sense of going beyond "due limit"?

My opinion is that there needs to be something in effect to help reduce the amount of money those that are rich beyond due limit have. Considering that the bulk of the money will merely be passed on to heirs, depending how their money is held - that's, say, 8 billion dollars that isn't being used. That is a substantial amount of money that could be going back into the economy..

One of the first points made in the Declaration of Independance is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and prusuit of Happiness." Now, we all know that pursuit of happiness has generally come to include the opportunity to rise above the crowd by successful pursuit of personal wealth.. but where does that leave equality? It has generally come to mean the right to an equal start in life, an equal opportunity to make the climb.

As a goal in life for most Americans, equality has never had the deep-down appeal of the pursuit of happiness through wealth. Several times in our history severe.. cleavages.. ahve developed between the rich and nonrich because the rich seemed to be becoming excessively wealthy or powerful; at such times the general public has called for corrective action to ease the sense of conflict.

One of the predominent concerns of the Founding Fathers was in a different direction than that which caused the American revolutionary war, which was an uprising against a hereditary political power. The Founding Fathers realized that precautions needed to be taken to prevent a heredtiary wealthy class from taking charge. There was talk of need of a "citizen leader"..... ook .. I'm going to stop now.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

There is no such thing as being too rich. In America you have the right to be as poor or as rich as you want to be. There should be no limit.

No, there shouldn't be a limit, but there should be higher taxation for the rich, and even higher for the ultra rich. After all, it's not like they can't afford it.

The ultra-rich have all the right to be as rich as they want.
Even if they have been born rich, their fathers or ancestors have worked hard to get that money. People aren't naturally equal, others are more capable than others. It's just natural. If you have somehow managed to make serious amount of money, you should have every right to do what you want with that money. I agree that rich should have higher taxes, if that clearly benefits the goverment, but it's wrong to tax rich just because they are rich.

Higher taxes are the only solution, but you Americans never seem too keen on that. If you were to say, tax thoses earing over certain amount per year at a much higher rate, there is a risk that they will leave the country to go somewhere with lower tax. That was the reasoin for lowering tax in the UK.

We currently have a tax rate of 40% for those earning over GB£40,000, (that's about US$60,000).

It is my belief that this is too low, both in threshold and rate of tax. They should bring in another rate of tax of 50% on earnings over GB£100,000 (US$150,000).

These figure would need to be adjusted to suit the US, but the principle is the same. Higher taxes on the wealthy than on the middle income groups help prevent this huge gap in wealth, which eventually lead to social problems. Care must be taken however, as the very wealthy are more mobile and can generally move easily to another country.

There is no such thing as being too rich. In America you have the right to be as poor or as rich as you want to be. There should be no limit.

Well, I'm not sure people can be as poor as they want, no one really wnats to be poor.

Anyway, I agree with the point of excess. CEOs now make an average of 408x the amount of an average factory worker's salary. Now, making a certain amount more than your employees is acceptable, after all, CEOs do a lot of work in directing the company. But c'mon Four hundred and eight times the amount!? That's just greed speaking.

Being a Socialist here, I fully agree with the graduated income tax, but I think that there needs to be a new level of it, one especially for the uberwealthy. 80% out to do it. An honestly, if you make above 50 million a year, and 80% tax is really not going to affect your lifestyle.

Goverment should spent more on the social care of those who are thrown out of society because the wealth gap. Goverment should provide them with jobs and pay them minimun wages. There's always something to do. Cleaning the streets etc. If it's necessary to raise tax rates to get money for that. Then raise them, but taxing rich just because they are rich is just plainly wrong. If that money goes to good use(such as social and health services) then it's okay.

2 million is enough to have a life without problems. Everything above that shouldjust be removed from the owner and put to good use to benefit the entire community. People that are as rich as this simply let their money "work for them" . The money they make that way needs to be siphoned from somewhere else, further and further increasing the gap between the rich and poor. The inevitable outcome of such an unfair world is the revolt of the poor -which are many many more than the rich. And by default, nobody has an equal chance at being rich. Mostly richness is inherited by being luckily born into a rich family or by being at the right place at the right time. It is just about impossible nowadays to become rich through hard work and your own genious.

The ultra-rich have all the right to be as rich as they want.
Even if they have been born rich, their fathers or ancestors have worked hard to get that money. People aren't naturally equal, others are more capable than others. It's just natural. If you have somehow managed to make serious amount of money, you should have every right to do what you want with that money. I agree that rich should have higher taxes, if that clearly benefits the goverment, but it's wrong to tax rich just because they are rich.

You see, this attude really scares me, and many of my friends.

As part of the rich (but not ultra rich) in the UK, I don't feel like I deserve my money. It has been in the family for generations, and was probably got by screwing over a whole bunch of people 300 years ago, or by brown-nosing some king or lord.

Money is earned half by chance, and just because your ancestors have it, in no way means you "earned" it! You inherited it for goodness sake, all you did was be born! How does that entitle you to anything?

At least the "old money" in the UK appreciate that they are just lucky, and so give generously adn don't begrudge the tax rates. In the states the rich think somehow that they were destined by God to be there! They love lording it over the poor folk, telling them they are lazy and show their money as proof they are so hard working!

Did you see "The Simple Life?" Paris Hilton is one of the most disgusting people I have ever seen. She is in no way entitled to her money, and has never done a full days work in all her life. She is a lazy, spoilt brat. Yet somehow she is entitled to more money than every fast-food worker in the USA combined? Those guys that slave over greasy burgers in a roasting hot kitchen all week, for ridiculous hours and more ridiculous wages.

How much you earn has nothing to do with how hard you work, and no one is ever entitled to their money. They are only the the custodians over it for a while, and should ensure it goes to the deserving and needy, not to the corrupt and lazy.

"When I think of the degree of my wealth, I find it unbelievable, ungraspable."
-Leonard Stern, pet-food maker, after his net worth was reported at $500 million USD.

"I am no more happy and no less happy than when my wife and I first drove into Dallas with everything we owned in the back of our car."
-H. Ross Perot

"There is no way to justify all the wealth I have."
-A Rockefeller Heiress

I know a 1986 law has the "centimillionaires" and dentists etc, aroudn that paygrade in the maximum income tax bracket of around 28%. Regressive taxation has been replacing progressive taxation in America. -.-

I've always believed that the rich should contribute more towards society, such as mandatory charity funds and such.

I have solutions to these problems.

First, ban all off-shore bank deposits. Thus, Americans will have to use American banks. No cheating, tax evasion, etc. from off-shore banks. Rich people money assets will be stuck in the USA.

Second, pass a law that makes it mandatory for people with incomes in excess of US $300,000 a year to donate 10% of their income on charity, public works, social projects, scientific research, education, healthcare, jobs and homes for the homeless, and several areas of the town / county / state / federal budget including road mantainence, police and fire department funding, hospitals, etc.

The rich will still retain most of their funds, while providing the government and the nation in general billions in additional money to provide to economic and domestic aid.

Third, at airports and seaports, large bags are to be screened by machines for cash to prevent sneaking money out of the country. Cash will be imbued with a small chip or metal fragment to make the scanning much easier. This will remove the invasive "open the bag then search the bag" method. Cash exceeding $20,000 per person will be confiscated (This is to allow tourists and such money to travel in Europe or whatever).


Thats my opinion / beliefs what needs to be done.

I don't know if I would put a cap on a persons ability to earn money, or charge him an outrageous amount of taxes - but I definatly would enact a substantial inheritance tax, taxing inheritances of those that are rich beyond due limit. That is how most money is wasted these days. That, and pennies - jesus christ just drop the penny!

How can someone rich be afraid of all the money she has. By all means, give away all your money, if you're so inclined. Andrew Carnegie gave 90% of his fortune away before he died (source: Economist July 31st 2004). Don't bitch about having all that money.

Besides, if someone wants to leave a massive inheritance and not spend it while living, then that's okay too. Free will and all that. I myself don't really see the point of amassing wealth just to leave it to my kids (don't have any so far, so I may change my mind).

You should change the rules, not the outcome. And I don't mean just taxation. Why are those CEO's paid such prodigious amounts? Either they are worth it or the stockholders aren't too bright.

I'm not a rch myself i'm upper middle-class. I don't envy the rich, but i respect them if they have earned their money. Founding and maintaining good business is inceribly hark work. It might not be physically hard, but atleast it's mentally. Some of my friends have their own companies and they worked really hard.
Ofcourse there are those who inherited it and think they are lords, i don't honestly know what should be done with them. I can however understand them greed is an important part of human nature.
I don't hate nor respect them.

One thing you must realize about people with that kind of money, is that it is never all in one lump sum of cash.
Its tied up in investments and stocks, or even real estate.
Its not as if these people are like Scrooge McDuck and have a money bin wherein they keep thier hoarded gold.

Most often they own the companies wherein people like you and I work.
I tend to think that no one should be allowed to have THAT kind of money, but its what our Constitution allows.
If they earn it fair and square, its no one elses business, so long as they pay taxes.

How can someone rich be afraid of all the money she has. By all means, give away all your money, if you're so inclined. Andrew Carnegie gave 90% of his fortune away before he died (source: Economist July 31st 2004). Don't bitch about having all that money.

Besides, if someone wants to leave a massive inheritance and not spend it while living, then that's okay too. Free will and all that. I myself don't really see the point of amassing wealth just to leave it to my kids (don't have any so far, so I may change my mind).

You should change the rules, not the outcome. And I don't mean just taxation. Why are those CEO's paid such prodigious amounts? Either they are worth it or the stockholders aren't too bright.

The stockholders are never too bright, mainly because stockholders mainly are the public.

Making money benefits everyone else too, so someone who's made a lot of money has brought lots of benefits to others as well. If I sell you something for a dollar, then obviously I value the thing less than a dollar and you value the thing more than a dollar. Win-win.

Ahh, equality, too rich, etc. There is only 1 remedy to that - communism, and you sound like a communist.
Not that I am against it, if fact I consider communism perfect sytem for perfect people - but as ppl aren't perfect they'll always exploit any system leading it to crash - unless system defends against own ppl.

The Declaration of Independance "all men are created equal" is obviusly wrong. I mean it is a good thing to believe in, preventing racism, wars and so on - like nazi's ideology was based on theory that they are superior to other nations. Pressuming equality is a good thing in general.
But no 2 men are equal. No matter how hard you wish, that's just false. So trying to make all ppl equal is like cutting trees in forets to make them equal.

And about high taxes for most rich, you're looking at 1 side only. Imagine yourself that you're incredibly rich and there is special 98% tax for you.

1) Almost everything you earn are taken by taxes, you're left with only 2% of what YOU have made.
2)Are you satisifed with that 98% of your work is taken by someone else?
3)You see your work pointless and you see no point in earning more money, as outcome you get is unproportional to your efforts.
4)You shut down all factories, sack all workes, sell all assets.
5)To the end of your life you live by spending money accumulated on your acounts.

result : instead of bringing "money back into the economy" you've just taken everything and put into bank account to be frozen for a lifetime and consumed year after year.

There is no need of bringing "money back into the economy"! Do you think everything Bill Gates has is stored in gold and platinum under his bed? No, it is his company what is worth so much. And this company is working, giving jobs to ppl, paying rents, electricity etc.
These money are in economy and working.

What really should be get rid of is lobbying, which is nothing more than legalised corruption, and this infact creates unequality, as rich ppl can afford bigger bribes to congresmen than poor ppl can.
Anyway, with that system working, HOW do you plan to take money from rich, if that's rich who controll gov? : P

1) Almost everything you earn are taken by taxes, you're left with only 2% of what YOU have made.
2)Are you satisifed with that 98% of your work is taken by someone else?
3)You see your work pointless and you see no point in earning more money, as outcome you get is unproportional to your efforts.
4)You shut down all factories, sack all workes, sell all assets.
5)To the end of your life you live by spending money accumulated on your acounts.

wtf? 98% tax? Please. I can say I could deal with the highest tax bracket being 45-50% or so if I was amongst it.

98% is just an example. There are ppl here talking about 80%. All I wanted to point out is :
There is a level of tax that makes earning more pointless.

wtf? 98% tax? Please. I can say I could deal with the highest tax bracket being 45-50% or so if I was amongst it.

Come back again when you're paying those taxes. It hurts.

Well, moving to anecdote land. Sweden used to have a progressive tax system, where the tax just kept on increasing instead of having brackets. Now, along comes a writer who makes so much money nobody would have thought possible in Sweden when the law was drafted. She ended up with a tax-rate of of over 100%! Hilariously funny unless you're Swedish. (I take no responsibility for the exact figures or facts).

I don't have a problem with rich people ACTUALLY working for their money.

BUT the rich people I do have a problem with... are heirs and heiresses who DO NOT work at all.

Heirs get the money, then they think they can just lay in bed, loaf around their manison, or party 24 / 7. That's never productive at all, except growing fat and gain 200 pounds.

THOSE kind of people who don't work at all, and coast through life with mommy's and daddy's money should have their money taken away. Or at the very least, be taxed 50 percent and a mandatory 30% income / assets given to charity.

Rich people or heirs who are ACTUALLY employed should pay 30 percent tax and mandatory 10% income to charity.


Get rid of all these rich free-loaders!

What if you would have inherited millions ? I don't think that you would be happy to donate them away. Some people are just lucky and i see no problem with it. I don't envy or hate anyone because of their money. I can't say that they deserve their money, but it's just plain wrong to take it away. Those "rich bastards" might even found succesfull company with that inherited money and therefore make a contribution to whole society.

Come back again when you're paying those taxes. It hurts.

Well, moving to anecdote land. Sweden used to have a progressive tax system, where the tax just kept on increasing instead of having brackets. Now, along comes a writer who makes so much money nobody would have thought possible in Sweden when the law was drafted. She ended up with a tax-rate of of over 100%! Hilariously funny unless you're Swedish. (I take no responsibility for the exact figures or facts).

Ok, I will - nothing has ever been given to me and I'll damned well work for it, and if and when it comes to the point where I have a substantial wealth I would gladly pay the taxes, among other things - I'm jobless and 17 and I give a couple grand a year to charities already, so when I actually have money... But then again my life isn't the what the topic is about :)

I don't have a problem with rich people ACTUALLY working for their money.

BUT the rich people I do have a problem with... are heirs and heiresses who DO NOT work at all.

Heirs get the money, then they think they can just lay in bed, loaf around their manison, or party 24 / 7. That's never productive at all, except growing fat and gain 200 pounds.

THOSE kind of people who don't work at all, and coast through life with mommy's and daddy's money should have their money taken away. Or at the very least, be taxed 50 percent and a mandatory 30% income / assets given to charity.

Rich people or heirs who are ACTUALLY employed should pay 30 percent tax and mandatory 10% income to charity.


Get rid of all these rich free-loaders!

All you really want is moral law and moral police.
Taxes are only excuse.

Come back again when you're paying those taxes. It hurts.

Well, moving to anecdote land. Sweden used to have a progressive tax system, where the tax just kept on increasing instead of having brackets. Now, along comes a writer who makes so much money nobody would have thought possible in Sweden when the law was drafted. She ended up with a tax-rate of of over 100%! Hilariously funny unless you're Swedish. (I take no responsibility for the exact figures or facts).

Yeah, she was paying 102% tax, so the more she earned, the less she got. The owner of Ikea woudl have paid that tax if he'd been in Sweden at the time, but he moved to Britain for the tax break. Upper tax limit in Sweden has now been lowered to 55% I believe.

Ok, I will - nothing has ever been given to me and I'll damned well work for it, and if and when it comes to the point where I have a substantial wealth I would gladly pay the taxes, among other things - I'm jobless and 17 and I give a couple grand a year to charities already, so when I actually have money... But then again my life isn't the what the topic is about :)

your 17 and jobless and can still give several grand to charities a year...
Sorry that does not sound like you've come from nothing.

lobbyists and their ilk should be shot. They are parasites.

Some of you worry me with your talk about the rich having to pay over 50% tax. They have the right to enjoy their money and benefit from the fruits of their labour. Even if they were born into their money, it is still theirs.
an if a rich person gives 10% only in taxes that's still going to be a hell of alot more than a poor person who has to pay 10%

The argument seems to be, your rich, i'm jealous, you can't have as much!
I'd also feel sorry for a working class person who has just won 10million in the lottery. Can you imagine "omg i got 10million, oh shit now i have to go a give 60% to the gov.!!!!". So after year 1, the guys got 4million. Poor sod would not have a penny after a couple of years.

"What were they thinking now, the champions of need and the lechers of pity?.....What were they counting on? Those who had once simpered: "I don't want to destroy the rich, I only want to seize a little of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they'll never miss it!" - then, later, had snapped: "The tycoons can stand being squeezed, they've amassed enough to last them for three generations" - then, later, had yelled: "Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?" - now were screaming: "Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?" What were they counting on?"

- Dagny Taggart, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand.

your 17 and jobless and can still give several grand to charities a year...
Sorry that does not sound like you've come from nothing.

My mom owns a salon, my moms boyfriend owns a drain cleaning business, and my biological father works at Caterpillar with an income of about 120,000 a year, mom gets about 4 grand just in child support a month -.- I never said I was dirt poor.

RAWR BAD CAPITALISM

I respect and admire the ultra-rich, so long as they did something to get the money. When paris hilton inherits all the money she is going to eventually get I will be very pissed. She is a slut and has done nothing for the money she will get. Now someone like bill gates who started with nothing and over time worked their way to the top do deserve the money they get, they put hard work into gaining that fortune and no country has the right to try andtake it. And everyone stop alsways using america as the base for arguments, its not the only western capitalist country, what about australia or the UK?

I'd call Australia "Eastern" :p

My mom owns a salon, my moms boyfriend owns a drain cleaning business, and my biological father works at Caterpillar with an income of about 120,000 a year, mom gets about 4 grand just in child support a month -.- I never said I was dirt poor.

You did specify that you don't come from anything, which you have just said is untrue. And coming from nothing, means nothing.

But I do applaud you for being consciencious and giving money to charity.

I respect and admire the ultra-rich, so long as they did something to get the money. When paris hilton inherits all the money she is going to eventually get I will be very pissed. She is a slut and has done nothing for the money she will get. Now someone like bill gates who started with nothing and over time worked their way to the top do deserve the money they get, they put hard work into gaining that fortune and no country has the right to try andtake it. And everyone stop alsways using america as the base for arguments, its not the only western capitalist country, what about australia or the UK?

Although i don't like Paris Hilton. I do respect her a bit. If you look into the figures she is making quite a bit for herself at the moment. She has managed to market herself quite well has'nt she? She's keeping herslef in the news (gossip or whatever) and people want to know!

I'd call Australia "Eastern" :p
In the event that you werent being sarcastic west in terms of politics generally means the capitalist countries of earth

You did specify that you don't come from anything, which you have just said is untrue. And coming from nothing, means nothing.

But I do applaud you for being consciencious and giving money to charity.

No, I said nothing was ever given to me and nothing has been. The computer I use I bought and paid for, and I had to work for it, I had to pay for my license registration class (I had a job for three months for the summer), and such - my mom gives me no money. Working around the house, doing various odds and ends things for various people both on the computer and otherwise gets me some cash - and I don't call that a job, because I am not employed by myself or anyone else.

Edit: To clarify, the working aroudn the house part gets me some money from my mothers boyfriend, because he's too lazy to do it himself. Sometimes I run with him on a job out of boredom and get 60-80$ per hour I work with him because I do all the work.

No, I said nothing was ever given to me and nothing has been. The computer I use I bought and paid for, and I had to work for it, I had to pay for my license registration class (I had a job for three months for the summer), and such - my mom gives me no money. Working around the house, doing various odds and ends things for various people both on the computer and otherwise gets me some cash - and I don't call that a job, because I am not employed by myself or anyone else.

But there are inherent advantages coming from your household, than if you were a welfare family, where you father is on the dole and your mother is a waitress.

But there are inherent advantages coming from your household, than if you were a welfare family, where you father is on the dole and your mother is a waitress.

Like what? I lived in a trailer and apartment most my life. The whole salon thing is relatively new, along with the child support. My mom opened her salon in ... 2000? Her boyfriend she's been dating for a year, and he opened his business last July, and the child support has just been uped from 600 a month to 4000 because my father was hiding his assets through deceitful means and such.

Like what? I lived in a trailer and apartment most my life. The whole salon thing is relatively new, along with the child support. My mom opened her salon in ... 2000? Her boyfriend she's been dating for a year, and he opened his business last July, and the child support has just been uped from 600 a month to 4000 because my father was hiding his assets through deceitful means and such.

because of the money. you were 13 when your mum started the business? this has not affected you in the least in the last 4 years? no benefits whatsoever? You mother started dating the boyfriend more or less when he started the business? You have seen no benefits of this in your household?

Had your father not had ANY money would you still be getting the same amounts (old and new)?.
I'm not saying you were born with a gold spoon in your mouth or any such thing.

60 to 80 dollars na hour is a shit load! Nepotism is a benefit.

But I do think we've gone on to a bit of a tangent here. Please do not think i would mocking you I just wish to understand where your coming from as you cannot understand someones arguments until you understand their background a bit

because of the money. you were 13 when your mum started the business? this has not affected you in the least in the last 4 years? no benefits whatsoever? You mother started dating the boyfriend more or less when he started the business? You have seen no benefits of this in your household?

Had your father not had ANY money would you still be getting the same amounts (old and new)?.
I'm not saying you were born with a gold spoon in your mouth or any such thing.

60 to 80 dollars na hour is a shit load! Nepotism is a benefit.

But I do think we've gone on to a bit of a tangent here. Please do not think i would mocking you I just wish to understand where your coming from as you cannot understand someones arguments until you understand their background a bit

14, so 2001

My mom started dating her boyfriend three months before he started his business, and while the service clal is 120 per hour he still is in debt for start up costs, and my mom still has to pay off her business loans even though she lives relatively nicely.

60-80 dollars is nothing for Drain Cleaning. I do a shitload of work when I do, and it isn't anything special to anyone who drain cleans.

Our house isn't far from the worst part of town, and previously we lived in subsidized housing. I'm not fully aware of my mothers financial status right now, I do know she took over fifty thousand dollars in loans out (I held the check, damn did I feel powerful).

Mom didn't begin gettin child support until I was 13. I lived in a trailer in a slummy trailer park until 7, then we sold that and moved into subsidized housing.

Personally, I wouldn't mind going back to subsidized housing - I had more room in my room :p I have the smallest room in the house.. god forbid my mom be nice to me :p Lessee.. theres 5 bedrooms? And I get the smallest :p heh

Edit: My father happened to have a nice job, but with that came stalking, harassment, threats, lawsuits.. I woudl much rather have a father who was poor and get no child support than have this guy =)

curious about one point.
of the 60 to 80 dollars, how much do you pay in taxes? or is this cash in hand?

I agree we should stop discussing Doujin's background. His/her philanthropy has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I give around 30 euros a year to charities (although I pay taxes, which the government spends on charitable purposes more than in the US). This has nothing to do with taxing the rich.

Someone mentioned Bill Gates, and that it's okay for him to be rich. How about Melinda (or is it Belinda) Gates. She's got a rich husband and she's leeching off him! How about their children (I assume they have a few, haven't they adopted). Those bastards must already be fattening themselves and looking at suitable mansions. Shouldn't we respect Bill's decision to leave them with the money if he so decides? He earned it.

I agree we should stop discussing Doujin's background. His/her philanthropy has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I give around 30 euros a year to charities (although I pay taxes, which the government spends on charitable purposes more than in the US). This has nothing to do with taxing the rich.

Someone mentioned Bill Gates, and that it's okay for him to be rich. How about Melinda (or is it Belinda) Gates. She's got a rich husband and she's leeching off him! How about their children (I assume they have a few, haven't they adopted). Those bastards must already be fattening themselves and looking at suitable mansions. Shouldn't we respect Bill's decision to leave them with the money if he so decides? He earned it.

amen

Do not despair, for I bring joyous news for all. I just read the following from the Economist (31st July 2004). It's from a study in America by Mr Schervish and John Havens, at Boston College:

"They found that the 4.9% of families in America with net worth of 1$m or more accounted for 42% of all donations to charitable organisations in 1997. Even more striking, the 0.22% of families with incomes of 1$m or more contribute about 13% of charitable dollars. ...
Interestingle, as the size of estates rises, the proportion going to heirs shrinks and the share left to charity increases. The estates of 20$m or more left and average of 49% of their value to charity and 21% to heirs; the rest going to taxes. Could it be that today's rich think that inheriting too much money may harm their children?"

The article ends with:

" "You will start to hear, 'We don't like what the wealthy are giving to. It's undemocratic'," growls Mr Schervish. He could well be right".

Considering some of the people who posted on this thread I have to share the Economist's fears.

curious about one point.
of the 60 to 80 dollars, how much do you pay in taxes? or is this cash in hand?
I don't pay taxes on it. It's cash in hand, and I give it to the McLean County AIDS Task Force where I volunteer @ every Friday. (Ripping/handing out condoms,lubes, flyers, running the food pantry for AIDS cases etc -.-)

I can't stand the ultra-rich. Why should they sit in their mansions while other people must beg to survive.

Higher taxes are the only solution, but you Americans never seem too keen on that. If you were to say, tax thoses earing over certain amount per year at a much higher rate, there is a risk that they will leave the country to go somewhere with lower tax.

Why should the rich have to pay for the poor? Most Americans I liek to think understand that. This isn't a socialist nation. If I work hard to provide for my family, why should I be forced to foot the bill for somebody who didn't work as hard. Each person should have an equal obligation the government. Instead, the top 400 earners in America foot the bill the lowest 10,000,000.

I don't have a problem with rich people ACTUALLY working for their money.

BUT the rich people I do have a problem with... are heirs and heiresses who DO NOT work at all.

Heirs get the money, then they think they can just lay in bed, loaf around their manison, or party 24 / 7. That's never productive at all, except growing fat and gain 200 pounds.

THOSE kind of people who don't work at all, and coast through life with mommy's and daddy's money should have their money taken away. Or at the very least, be taxed 50 percent and a mandatory 30% income / assets given to charity.

Rich people or heirs who are ACTUALLY employed should pay 30 percent tax and mandatory 10% income to charity.

Get rid of all these rich free-loaders!

Who are you to judge? If I work my ass off to provide a better future for my children, so they don't have to work as hard as I do, what business is it for you or the state to say what should happen with my money. That's called socialism....go asks the soviets how well that system works.

Who are you to judge? If I work my ass off to provide a better future for my children, so they don't have to work as hard as I do, what business is it for you or the state to say what should happen with my money. That's called socialism....go asks the soviets how well that system works.

You know what's sad is when over a third of our nations wealth is concentrated amongst 1% of our population? More than half of the four hundred richest americans got their money (or a big head start) from inheritance. Fifty-nine or so made their fortunes soelly or primarily from real estates, and about three dozen more include land or real estate among major assets.

Felix G. Rohatyn, a very prominent investment banker and civic leader, has been quoted as saying, "A democracy, to survive, must at the very least appear to be fair. This is no longer the case in America."

It might be interesting to note that Dr. Thomas Stanley who is a marketting professor at Georgia States University (or used to be) and has been studying millionaires for a dozen years or so announced in 1985 that a hundred thousand new millionaires were being created each year, and that by 1987 their total number would reach a million - Currently there is 2.27 million millionaires in America - about every 1 american out of 125 is a millionaire.

Similarly, 7.7 million people in the world are millionaires.

I can't stand the ultra-rich. Why should they sit in their mansions while other people must beg to survive.

why should you be able to make posts confortably when there are people who have to beg to survive.
Don't paint an entire segment with the same brush please

why should you be able to make posts confortably when there are people who have to beg to survive.
Don't paint an entire segment with the same brush please

Who said he's posting comfortably? :p

why should you be able to make posts confortably when there are people who have to beg to survive.
Don't paint an entire segment with the same brush please
I hate people who defend something just for the sake of defending it, instead of looking at the fact that what they're defending is a complete afront to fairness. The fact that we live in a world that has people that can't make a living and people that are paid more than 400 times what their employees are given is sad. The fact that with the right policies we could correct such things, but haven't done so yet, is even more sad.

People have some how reasoned that defending the rich's right to be rich is more noble than trying to help the poor. We need to get our priorities straight.

.........Now that thats all settled, who wants to donate to the 'Make Sileetris Rich' charity? >.> <.<

I hate people who defend something just for the sake of defending it, instead of looking at the fact that what they're defending is a complete afront to fairness. The fact that we live in a world that has people that can't make a living and people that are paid more than 400 times what their employees are given is sad. The fact that with the right policies we could correct such things, but haven't done so yet, is even more sad.

People have some how reasoned that defending the rich's right to be rich is more noble than trying to help the poor. We need to get our priorities straight.

.........Now that thats all settled, who wants to donate to the 'Make Sileetris Rich' charity? >.> <.<

I am not defending the rich. They should have to pay the same percentage tax as everyone else.
If i earn $20,000 a year and pay 10% tax. I lose $2,000
If i earn $20,000,000 a year and pay 10%. I lose $2,000,000
So a rich person is still giving huge amounts in taxes. Not taking into account lobbyists, but i hate their ilk anyway.

personally i see fairness as everyone paying the same percentage

You see, this attude really scares me, and many of my friends.

As part of the rich (but not ultra rich) in the UK, I don't feel like I deserve my money. It has been in the family for generations, and was probably got by screwing over a whole bunch of people 300 years ago, or by brown-nosing some king or lord.

Money is earned half by chance, and just because your ancestors have it, in no way means you "earned" it! You inherited it for goodness sake, all you did was be born! How does that entitle you to anything?

At least the "old money" in the UK appreciate that they are just lucky, and so give generously adn don't begrudge the tax rates. In the states the rich think somehow that they were destined by God to be there! They love lording it over the poor folk, telling them they are lazy and show their money as proof they are so hard working!

Did you see "The Simple Life?" Paris Hilton is one of the most disgusting people I have ever seen. She is in no way entitled to her money, and has never done a full days work in all her life. She is a lazy, spoilt brat. Yet somehow she is entitled to more money than every fast-food worker in the USA combined? Those guys that slave over greasy burgers in a roasting hot kitchen all week, for ridiculous hours and more ridiculous wages.

How much you earn has nothing to do with how hard you work, and no one is ever entitled to their money. They are only the the custodians over it for a while, and should ensure it goes to the deserving and needy, not to the corrupt and lazy.

it depends on what you are doing with your money. rich people tend to "waste" it on servants, luxury items, houses, cars, etc.

this means money in the pocket of lots of local people. its vastly BETTER for the economy to have $25,000 go into the pocket of a maid than into taxes. its better for the economy for a rich person to buy a $75,000 car than to put $75,000 into taxes.

its better for paris hilton (yes shes a spoiled bitch) to start her own high fashion clothing line (if it is done within the US) than it is to put extra millions into taxes.

i havent the foggiest notion how bill gates keeps his money. i suppose its mostly "on paper" in the form of MS stock. but think of all the people he employed building that pretentious big ass hosue of his. think of the number of people he employs keeping it running. however he has his "extra money" invested, assuming its not under his matress at home, it is the engine for other peoples investments.

SO, while rich people need to pay taxes, lots of taxes, it would be worse for the economy to make it punishing to make over a certain amount of money. its better left in the economy where it does more good.

And what are they going to spend the rest of the 18 million on? They don't need that much money, it's just gonna go to waste. At least the Rockefellers are always donating money to charities and doing charitable work themselves. Together the "core" family is worth about 3.5 billion, I still remember a decade ago Mr. Rockefeller gave, what, 56 million to a medical foundation? That at the time was the largest amount of money given to a charitable organization.

it depends on what you are doing with your money. rich people tend to "waste" it on servants, luxury items, houses, cars, etc.

this means money in the pocket of lots of local people. its vastly BETTER for the economy to have $25,000 go into the pocket of a maid than into taxes. its better for the economy for a rich person to buy a $75,000 car than to put $75,000 into taxes.

its better for paris hilton (yes shes a spoiled bitch) to start her own high fashion clothing line (if it is done within the US) than it is to put extra millions into taxes.

i havent the foggiest notion how bill gates keeps his money. i suppose its mostly "on paper" in the form of MS stock. but think of all the people he employed building that pretentious big ass hosue of his. think of the number of people he employs keeping it running. however he has his "extra money" invested, assuming its not under his matress at home, it is the engine for other peoples investments.

SO, while rich people need to pay taxes, lots of taxes, it would be worse for the economy to make it punishing to make over a certain amount of money. its better left in the economy where it does more good.

Well, the Rockefeller Estate is bigger than Bill Gate's house, however his house is at least a million times more adanced than the entirety of the Rockefeller Estate. Visitors are given something to wear (Badges with VeriChips in it) and wherever you walk the music, lights, artwork changes to what the visitor likes.. or so I hear. :p

*Pet's the Kykuit @ Pontantico Hills, NY*

I hate people who defend something just for the sake of defending it, instead of looking at the fact that what they're defending is a complete afront to fairness. The fact that we live in a world that has people that can't make a living and people that are paid more than 400 times what their employees are given is sad. The fact that with the right policies we could correct such things, but haven't done so yet, is even more sad.

People have some how reasoned that defending the rich's right to be rich is more noble than trying to help the poor. We need to get our priorities straight.

.........Now that thats all settled, who wants to donate to the 'Make Sileetris Rich' charity? >.> <.<

and I hate it when people attack something just for the sake of attacking it, instead of looking at the fact that what they're attacking is indeed fair.

Everyone in the states has the same capabilities to earn their money. There are numerous charities and scholarships available for people to go to college. They could, for example, join the USN as an IT and get any number of jobs when they leave as data systems experts. They could join the USN as a nuclear engineer and recieve one of the best vocational educations this nation has to offer. Or they could join as a fry cook and earn near $50,000 for college to use after they left. To say that someone cant earn a living is disengenous and untrue.

And what are they going to spend the rest of the 18 million on? They don't need that much money, it's just gonna go to waste. At least the Rockefellers are always donating money to charities and doing charitable work themselves. Together the "core" family is worth about 3.5 billion, I still remember a decade ago Mr. Rockefeller gave, what, 56 million to a medical foundation? That at the time was the largest amount of money given to a charitable organization.

Need has nothing to do with it. With a different system there is no need for money at all. But we live in a capatilistic system so there is a need for money. They are going to use the 18 million to invest (helping the economy, creating jobs, helping the rest of the country), to buy things (helping the exonomy, creating jobs, helping the rest of the country), to donate to charity (helping at least a portion of the rest of the country).

When you are talking about net worths in the ammounts you despise, you are not talking about liquid assets. You are talking about NET worth... and like it has been said, most of that worth is actually back in the economy helping the rest of the country.

so what is the purpose of taxes?

its it social engineering? to bring the rich down and the poor up? and is it really WISE to leave such huge decisions to politicians? they arent known as the most scrupulous of people (as a group)

the biggest purpose of taxes is to pay for government. it costs X amount of dollars to run the government and it has to come from somewhere.

while its tempting to make someone else pay for it, like the ultra rich, the best way is to make everyone pay a fair portion based on their economic circumstances and usage of pubilc services.

i have no problem with the ultra rich paying a higher percentage of their income in incometaxes. after all theyhave always found ways to avoid it. but the rate should not be so high as to discourage economic development.

after all, who employs more people, bill gates or ME? even if you leave out the employees of microsoft, its bill gates. money in HIS pocket is spent out to support thousands of families in the seattle area. its better put into the economy than into taxes

You know what's sad is when over a third of our nations wealth is concentrated amongst 1% of our population? More than half of the four hundred richest americans got their money (or a big head start) from inheritance. Fifty-nine or so made their fortunes soelly or primarily from real estates, and about three dozen more include land or real estate among major assets.

Felix G. Rohatyn, a very prominent investment banker and civic leader, has been quoted as saying, "A democracy, to survive, must at the very least appear to be fair. This is no longer the case in America."

So their parents worked hard for their wealth, or their grandparents. Why shouldn't a person be able to work hard and provide money and good things to their family? This is America. Anybody who works hard can have success in this country. Anybody who says otherwise is making excuses. This isn't a socialist nation.

I for a nearly totally free market with FEW regulations thats why I think there should be no minimum wage or maximum wage. The ultra rich have just as much right to have as much money as they can make and if you start taking it away they will leave and if they leave the top 1% are gone so now we pay 30% more taxes. I support a flat tax rate for everyone but do not put it on food and utilities.

I have no problem with inheritance. Somebody earlier used Paris Hilton as an example---true, she probably doesn't deserve all the money she has, but who is anyone to say that she can't have it? Her father, grandfather or whatever worked hard for what they have, and they have a right to give that money to whoever they want. Sure it's not fair that some people have it so easily, but the world's not fair, and if it were, I'm sure we'd all find something else to complain about :p

Why should you tax someone because of success? And, in fact, that is all an income tax is, penalizing someone for succeeding. Those people who inherited their money, gained it through illegal means, or just magically found it are not affected by income tax. As income tax is the tax on what you earned in income that year.

Further, if you are rich and believe that you have too much money there are thousands of charities always flapping on about how much of your money they want to have. I believe that the IRS accepts donations as well, and I am pretty sure that most governments wouldn't say no to a bit of extra cash.

This is America. Anybody who works hard can have success in this country. Anybody who says otherwise is making excuses. This isn't a socialist nation.
Not excuses, my friend, FACTS. Hard work can only get you so far. The only way anybody ever makes it from the bottom to the top is lucky breaks or playing dirty. If you work at a fast food joint as a cashier, you don't have much room for growth.
Moral standards slam on the brakes for anyone trying to reach the top. For example, the other day at work I was putting together a presentation for some auto suppliers on why they should move their plants to the southeast. My instructions were to make the main points more or less: you can pay your workers hardly anything and there are no unions to deal with. That didn't seem right to me. But if I wouldn't have done it, I would be out of a job.
The real world is not based on hard work. If it was, all of the impovershed would be in gated communities and all of the wealthy would be in the ghetto or another kind of gated establishment...

Not excuses, my friend, FACTS. Hard work can only get you so far. The only way anybody ever makes it from the bottom to the top is lucky breaks or playing dirty. If you work at a fast food joint as a cashier, you don't have much room for growth.
Moral standards slam on the brakes for anyone trying to reach the top. For example, the other day at work I was putting together a presentation for some auto suppliers on why they should move their plants to the southeast. My instructions were to make the main points more or less: you can pay your workers hardly anything and there are no unions to deal with. That didn't seem right to me. But if I wouldn't have done it, I would be out of a job.
The real world is not based on hard work. If it was, all of the impovershed would be in gated communities and all of the wealthy would be in the ghetto or another kind of gated establishment...

Excuses again. Convincing auto makers based on a bad deal is one example of business, but it is hardly the only one. People sometimes do get far by being dishonest....but people also get far by being very honest and straight shooting. People flock to that, and the reputation is worth more than gold in the business world. Anybody who is poor can get money to go to a public college. Anybody who tries even a little bit can get into one (if you get a degree from a community college, it's guaranteed in most states). People can say whatever they want but I paid for school with a part time job and student loans, anybody can in this country....and I am a white male, the worst demographic for getting any kind of assistance for school.

I was a 22% partner in a business for 21 years, from 1979 to 2000.

We first broke even in 1984. For the first 4 years, I put in most of my life savings, and a bunch of borrowed money besides, and with no income whatsoever I lived in a roach infested apartment, drove a beater, and ate out maybe twice a year.

For the next 15 years, I pulled an average of about 30k. The way this actually worked is most years business wasn't great, and my salary usually worked out to about minimum wage. Got to pay both employer and employees sides of all the various payrolls too. Had pretty poor health insurance. Some years didn't have any. We had one really good year in 1997, and I made about 100k after taxes, and 1998 wasnt bad either I made about 75.

In 2000 we sold the business. All tallied, my taxable income that year was 1.1 million dollars. This made me one of those ultra rich fatcats whom Masschussetts Democrap politicians with mansions and yachts always complain aren't paying their share. Nevermind I worked 60+ hr weeks for shit money for 19 of the past 20 years, and 60+ hr weeks for decent money for 2 of them, I was "ultra rich." I sent the IRS and the State of California about $450,000.

Way to sock it to the fat cats guys.

In 2000 we sold the business. All tallied, my taxable income that year was 1.1 million dollars. This made me one of those ultra rich fatcats whom Masschussetts Democrap politicians with mansions and yachts always complain aren't paying their share. Nevermind I worked 60+ hr weeks for shit money for 19 of the past 20 years, and 60+ hr weeks for decent money for 2 of them, I was "ultra rich." I sent the IRS and the State of California about $450,000.

Damn you fat cat, you don't need all that money. Why shouldn't you pay the bills for everybody else?

I was a 22% partner in a business for 21 years, from 1979 to 2000.

Seriously though, I'm a partner in several different companies. I always have things running on the side outside of my regular job. Sometimes I make money from them, some times I don't, but I spend a good portion of my "free" time trying to make something run.

I really enjoyed the last book. It was basically about "How much is too much" and it raises some interesting questions. Can the fifty million dollar to eight billion dollar fortunes be justified in today's America? Is this fabulously rich or just excessively rich? As the book asks, should we consider them "ultra" rich, in the sense of going beyond "due limit"?
Limit of?

My opinion is that there needs to be something in effect to help reduce the amount of money those that are rich beyond due limit have. Considering that the bulk of the money will merely be passed on to heirs, depending how their money is held - that's, say, 8 billion dollars that isn't being used. That is a substantial amount of money that could be going back into the economy..
So what?

One of the first points made in the Declaration of Independance is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and prusuit of Happiness." Now, we all know that pursuit of happiness has generally come to include the opportunity to rise above the crowd by successful pursuit of personal wealth.. but where does that leave equality? It has generally come to mean the right to an equal start in life, an equal opportunity to make the climb.

As a goal in life for most Americans, equality has never had the deep-down appeal of the pursuit of happiness through wealth. Several times in our history severe.. cleavages.. ahve developed between the rich and nonrich because the rich seemed to be becoming excessively wealthy or powerful; at such times the general public has called for corrective action to ease the sense of conflict.

One of the predominent concerns of the Founding Fathers was in a different direction than that which caused the American revolutionary war, which was an uprising against a hereditary political power. The Founding Fathers realized that precautions needed to be taken to prevent a heredtiary wealthy class from taking charge. There was talk of need of a "citizen leader"..... ook .. I'm going to stop now.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
I think that you should stop being jealous of those who have more than you do.

Why should the rich have to pay for the poor? Most Americans I liek to think understand that. This isn't a socialist nation. If I work hard to provide for my family, why should I be forced to foot the bill for somebody who didn't work as hard. Each person should have an equal obligation the government.

The rich should pay for the poor because thinking about eachother is one of the things that seperates us from animals, so what if noone can afford 200 cars because they has to give 50% of their income to taxes. Ppl should always think of the society as a hole, im not saying that communism owns, but socialism does. If the US for one year stopped treating fatness and sent the money to africa it would solve the hunger problem in entire africa for a hole year! i would rather see 100.000 dead fat western ppl than 1.000.000 dead africans. If everybody only think bout themselves it´ll all go wrong, and US took the first step along time ago

The rich should pay for the poor because thinking about eachother is one of the things that seperates us from animals, so what if noone can afford 200 cars because they has to give 50% of their income to taxes. Ppl should always think of the society as a hole, im not saying that communism owns, but socialism does. If the US for one year stopped treating fatness and sent the money to africa it would solve the hunger problem in entire africa for a hole year! i would rather see 100.000 dead fat western ppl than 1.000.000 dead africans. If everybody only think bout themselves it´ll all go wrong, and US took the first step along time ago
Sending more money to africa will do nothing, everyone knows there is enough food for everyone to eat the problem is all the warlords who would rather have guns then food.

The rich should pay for the poor because thinking about eachother is one of the things that seperates us from animals, so what if noone can afford 200 cars because they has to give 50% of their income to taxes. Ppl should always think of the society as a hole, im not saying that communism owns, but socialism does. If the US for one year stopped treating fatness and sent the money to africa it would solve the hunger problem in entire africa for a hole year! i would rather see 100.000 dead fat western ppl than 1.000.000 dead africans. If everybody only think bout themselves it´ll all go wrong, and US took the first step along time ago

Well we see it different I would rather see all the Africans dead than to see one American dead.

The rich should pay for the poor because thinking about eachother is one of the things that seperates us from animals, so what if noone can afford 200 cars because they has to give 50% of their income to taxes. Ppl should always think of the society as a hole, im not saying that communism owns, but socialism does. If the US for one year stopped treating fatness and sent the money to africa it would solve the hunger problem in entire africa for a hole year! i would rather see 100.000 dead fat western ppl than 1.000.000 dead africans. If everybody only think bout themselves it´ll all go wrong, and US took the first step along time ago

You go right ahead and give away your money. I do provide for other people...my family, my friends. Poorness isn't a disease....the only people who should receive anything from the government are those who are disabled or otherwise unable to work. I don't mind being taxed a little bit to help those people out. Otherwise, no, it's not my problem.

BAAWA: If you think stuff like this is about jealousy, you couldn't be more wrong. As people that have nothing to gain personally from the wealthy being taxed more, we have the right to complain on behalf of the poor(who aren't here themselves :D). This is about greed on the wealthy's part, not jealousy on the uninvolveds part.

Enter nation here: <-Is totally correct, sad as that may be :(. I'm not going to try and propose a solution to that issue, but I'm glad people recognize it.

Enodscopia: Wow, you should get like a Nobel Peace prize for your amazing contribution to civilized humanity. I'm sure the Africans will appreciate your sentiments and see eye-to-eye with you. (Cultural superiority is the belief that causes race wars, and those are just big loads of fun, right??)

Grebonia: So whose problem is it? The poor obviously can't help themselves out too much. Scholarships and loans may be good for people who have the intelligence and patience to learn something in college, but those that are already too far out of it are stuck in dead-end jobs with crap pay.(I should also point out that coming out of a bad, underfunded school will cut down their odds of getting scholarships.) You pay your fair share of taxes for your income bracket and contribute to society as much as you can be expected to. The problem is the superwealthy who don't work half as hard(if at all) are not paying enough of their due. This isn't a problem for those making a moderate living, this is a problem for those who aren't, and those that are making an excessive living. Giving one person too much is wasteful, and when some people have nothing, a tiny amount of forced sharing is in order.

Just today I saw an article in the paper about cosmetic foot surgery. Considering the wealthy are standing on the backs of the poor, I'm sure the poor will appreciate the wealthy having pretty feet.

Theres only one remedy for the ultra-rich. They give all their money to me. I'll be happy to pay their taxes.

Enodscopia: Wow, you should get like a Nobel Peace prize for your amazing contribution to civilized humanity. I'm sure the Africans will appreciate your sentiments and see eye-to-eye with you. (Cultural superiority is the belief that causes race wars, and those are just big loads of fun, right??)
I don't believe he was talking about cultural superiority, but rather about the fact that the government of the United States of America isn't responsible for the welfare of Africa. Why am I using bold you ask? (And even if you didn't I'm going to answer anyway) to point out the fact that the government of the United states of America isn't elected by, responsible to, or in the service of Africa. I would only hope that the government of America would be willing to see every African die to save one American, and I understand that the feeling should be mutual.

Limit of?


So what?


I think that you should stop being jealous of those who have more than you do.

For the record, I hate vBulletin and the fact that it doesn't include quotes made by the person like phpBB2 does.

I'm not jealous of anyone, BAAWA, if I had that amount of money I would give most of it away to AIDS research.

I was a 22% partner in a business for 21 years, from 1979 to 2000.

We first broke even in 1984. For the first 4 years, I put in most of my life savings, and a bunch of borrowed money besides, and with no income whatsoever I lived in a roach infested apartment, drove a beater, and ate out maybe twice a year.

For the next 15 years, I pulled an average of about 30k. The way this actually worked is most years business wasn't great, and my salary usually worked out to about minimum wage. Got to pay both employer and employees sides of all the various payrolls too. Had pretty poor health insurance. Some years didn't have any. We had one really good year in 1997, and I made about 100k after taxes, and 1998 wasnt bad either I made about 75.

In 2000 we sold the business. All tallied, my taxable income that year was 1.1 million dollars. This made me one of those ultra rich fatcats whom Masschussetts Democrap politicians with mansions and yachts always complain aren't paying their share. Nevermind I worked 60+ hr weeks for shit money for 19 of the past 20 years, and 60+ hr weeks for decent money for 2 of them, I was "ultra rich." I sent the IRS and the State of California about $450,000.

Way to sock it to the fat cats guys.

When I say ultra-rich, I am speaking to those who have 50-100 million +

Grebonia: So whose problem is it? The poor obviously can't help themselves out too much. Scholarships and loans may be good for people who have the intelligence and patience to learn something in college, but those that are already too far out of it are stuck in dead-end jobs with crap pay.(I should also point out that coming out of a bad, underfunded school will cut down their odds of getting scholarships.) You pay your fair share of taxes for your income bracket and contribute to society as much as you can be expected to. The problem is the superwealthy who don't work half as hard(if at all) are not paying enough of their due. This isn't a problem for those making a moderate living, this is a problem for those who aren't, and those that are making an excessive living. Giving one person too much is wasteful, and when some people have nothing, a tiny amount of forced sharing is in order.

Haha, you think the super wealthy got that way by blind luck. They worked their asses off to get there in most cases, or their parents did, or their grandparents did. This isn't a socialist nation. As far as the poor not being able to help themselves much, of course most of them can. I know lot's of poor people....I can tell you most of them didn't end up that way because society screwed them. Alot of them are my friends, and I help them out as they can, but most of them are tha tway because instead of working hard and getting an education and/or a skill when they were younger, they partied, and dropped out of school, and settled for crappy jobs. People need to own up and be responsible for themselves. I take full responsibility for the goods and the bads in my life, why should people who do poorly be any different?

I don't believe he was talking about cultural superiority, but rather about the fact that the government of the United States of America isn't responsible for the welfare of Africa. Why am I using bold you ask? (And even if you didn't I'm going to answer anyway) to point out the fact that the government of the United states of America isn't elected by, responsible to, or in the service of Africa. I would only hope that the government of America would be willing to see every African die to save one American, and I understand that the feeling should be mutual.
So if I said I am willing to see every American die to save one African, that would be OK, right?

So if I said I am willing to see every American die to save one African, that would be OK, right?

If your an African. Like Hajekistan the Americans are not responsible for supporting Africans no matter if everyone of the is rotting on the floor its their own fault. And also sending food to Africa just makes hunger worse because more people are alive to starve.

You see, this attude really scares me, and many of my friends.

As part of the rich (but not ultra rich) in the UK, I don't feel like I deserve my money. It has been in the family for generations, and was probably got by screwing over a whole bunch of people 300 years ago, or by brown-nosing some king or lord.

Money is earned half by chance, and just because your ancestors have it, in no way means you "earned" it! You inherited it for goodness sake, all you did was be born! How does that entitle you to anything?

At least the "old money" in the UK appreciate that they are just lucky, and so give generously adn don't begrudge the tax rates. In the states the rich think somehow that they were destined by God to be there! They love lording it over the poor folk, telling them they are lazy and show their money as proof they are so hard working!

Did you see "The Simple Life?" Paris Hilton is one of the most disgusting people I have ever seen. She is in no way entitled to her money, and has never done a full days work in all her life. She is a lazy, spoilt brat. Yet somehow she is entitled to more money than every fast-food worker in the USA combined? Those guys that slave over greasy burgers in a roasting hot kitchen all week, for ridiculous hours and more ridiculous wages.

How much you earn has nothing to do with how hard you work, and no one is ever entitled to their money. They are only the the custodians over it for a while, and should ensure it goes to the deserving and needy, not to the corrupt and lazy.

can I come live with you?

So if I said I am willing to see every American die to save one African, that would be OK, right?
Hey, if your the leader of Africa, then yes. In fact, I believe that I did say that very thing. Governments exist to protect their people, first and foremost. Avoiding massive death tolls among your neighbours, well thats nice and good, but nothing governments should actively work towards (Unless the country can gain some profit later).

Hey, if your the leader of Africa, then yes. In fact, I believe that I did say that very thing. Governments exist to protect their people, first and foremost. Avoiding massive death tolls among your neighbours, well thats nice and good, but nothing governments should actively work towards (Unless the country can gain some profit later).

It's that very mentality that is holding back the human race.

It's that very mentality that is holding back the human race.
Back from what, universal stupidity? A tyrannical one world government? The complete implosion of all civilized nations? The overtaxation of the people of one nation to feed the people of another nation?
I hate to break it to you, but the government of the U.S. was not elected to serve the people of any other nation, and the same goes for all other elected governments.

We the rich, place a huge burden on our world and payment for that debt is now at the corner, plain in sight. It is not that we were hungry is it?

The superrich have, even more then kind of normal us, no excuse for the burden they place on other life on this earth.

Still, we moved a gear up to a speedy doom with WMD now available somewhere near you.

There will be a limit set on what you can own, by nature with disease, famine or self responsible people showing how to use less.

The last one needs a common drive like survival.

Everybody is equal in evil stupidity that makes us all suicidal egomaniacs, maybe it is the devils speaking, but it is surely us who are listening to our self importance with its petty feelings.

Maybe through this whole change, we get chance to see what we are.
Maybe we find our hidden resources
Maybe we'll see our spirit
Maybe we will
Great times ahead.