Why do people hate on rich folk?

[squealpiggy]

You don't know what you are talking about. They pay by far the most taxes for individuals.

The very rich make their money off investments which means they only pay capital gains on their income, not federal income tax... which means that they are being taxed at a lower rate than people on the lowest tax brackets.

[T.Horton]

A lot of less fortunate people will portray their disgust for the rich, for that one simple reason, that those people have more money than them. I bet those same people would turn hypocrite and do as the rich do if they ever hit the lottery or achieved that sort of status. People hating on the rich for giving their kids the world, because those parents might not have had that growing up and do not want their kids to share the same experience. We are all striving to be monetarily secured, and a lot of the wealthy contribute back to the community a lot more than less fortunate do.

can you hook me up with a low interest loan?

[Nuurzhaelan]

Not an O'Reilly or Beck fan, try again kiddo. I didn't miss the thrust of Michael Moore's hypocritical argument, I simply pointed out that your "ingenious" plan to soak the rich wouldn't be quite as successful on the uber rich as you had planned. But I'm glad to realize the folly of this bit of nonsense.

Where's the hypocrisy? Hmm? Because he's rich as well? I favor the argument from a wealthy individual arguing for taxes against himself than the poor man who fights for the wealthy in obedient, servile fashion.

When I wrote my initial tongue-in-cheek post it was a way to highlight the unjust and disgusting income disparity in this country. I did read some of that article incorrectly. But I don't think it's worse than what you have done in a previous thread. Need I remind you?

[Jim Jeffries]

What, you think that's an insult? And I'd call it vitriolic, not violent. But, twist it however you like. You do that, as all republicons, very well.

Your posts (usually) attacking me are generally vitriolic, but I found the "fire away with both barrels" bit a little violent for my taste. Republicons, that's cute, you should mix it up with C&ntservatives and Rethuglicans, so it doesn't get old.

How is this for math.

400 people with $1,500,000,000,000 combined = $3,750,000,000 each.
150,000,000 with $1,500,000,000,000 combined = $10,000 each.

Higher taxes for the ultra rich are DEFINITELY in order here, Mr. Beck.

Well everyone does varying amounts of work (some none at all,) completes differing levels of education, takes different amounts of risk in investing or saving their earnings. Some have been earning and accumulating wealth for generations, some blow their paychecks at the track or casino, some work two jobs and save everything they make towards owning their own business. I don't believe all of these very different people should own the same amount of wealth, but hey that's just me. What can I say, I'm not a communist, imagine that.

The very rich make their money off investments which means they only pay capital gains on their income, not federal income tax... which means that they are being taxed at a lower rate than people on the lowest tax brackets.

The lowest tax bracket for income, minus deductions, is currently 10% I believe. But you're right, for the risk that comes with investment, people lucky enough to make money on that risk, pay a 15% on that gain.

Using my buddy Nuurz's source, the 400 wealthiest Americans actually saw their combined wealth go down from 1.5 trillion in 2007, to 1.27 trillion in September 2009, so that risk doesn't always pay off.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...-more-wealth-/

It appears that through increased investment, a lower cap gains rate (to a point) has historically increased revenues:

For example, after the 1981 capital gains tax was cut from 28 to 20 percent, real (all figures in this section are 2004 dollars) federal capital gains tax revenues leapt from $29.4 billion in 1981 to $36.6 billion by 1983—a 24 percent increase.

Conversely, total asset sales of taxable capital gains fell from $575 billion in 1986, the year before the capital gains rate was raised (from 20 back to 28 percent), to $246 billion in 1989.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/C...ainsTaxes.html

[StarshipTrooper]

Why do people hate on rich folk?

Because a bunch of Marxist scumbags play on people's primitive base emotions like envy and incite them to want to **** over people who have more then they do.

Poet

[Nuurzhaelan]

Well your posts attacking me are generally vitriolic, but I found the "fire away with both barrels" bit a little violent for my taste.

Well everyone does varying amounts of work (some none at all,) completes differing levels of education, takes different amounts of risk in investing or saving their earnings. Some have been earning and accumulating wealth for generations, some blow their paychecks at the track or casino, some work two jobs and save everything they make towards owning their own business. I don't believe all of these very different people should own the same amount of wealth, but hey that's just me. What can I say, I'm not a communist, imagine that.

1) I was telling you to fire at me. I was not trying to trap you with a response. It's just a turn of phrase. Since you seem to like Perry so much, I thought it fit. I challenge you because it seems that you are completely blind to the poor man's plight. When I point out how abolishing the minimum wage would lead to disaffected citizens who might turn to crime because of hopelessness or how education should not be considered a luxury since bright minds are not auto-born into wealthy families you seem unwilling to continue any discussion and quit the topic altogether.

2) Yeah, you won't believe it, but I am not a communist either. I am a bit socially minded, though, but they're not the same things. I am not well versed in it, but it I believe Socialism is an economic policy while Communism is a sociopolitical doctrine. A social economy can have capitalism and may even thrive with it. I am not suggesting that with the USA, though. I merely want the politicians to stop pandering to corporate interests.

All I know is this: Working hard and trying to get ahead ain't enough anymore. When I started in the job market no one, and I mean no one that would hire me wanted to hire me full time/permanent. Companies did not want to pay benefits at all. They solved this by hiring temporary workers 'temps'. This was no future. I worked hard for a company called Lockheed Martin (Martin Marietta & Lockheed corporate merger) for almost 2 years before they unceremoniously ceased my services. The reason? They moved to Bethesda, Maryland and were shedding all unnecessary workers. I wasted 2 years of my time trying to get hired--for what? It ain't no pity party. I am gainfully employed now, though still scraping bottom in salary, but I have good benefits. The salient point here is that companies expect loyalty of the worker, but give nothing in return.

Companies do not give a hairy rat's ass about employees, and that's one of many trends that is fomenting so much disgust and resentment.