Why Hate Rich People?

Neither of those two are actively trying to ruin this country and starve the middle class. The Koch Brothers and Pete Peterson EMBRACE it. They LOBBY for austerity and cutting of social programs.

 

Both of the two are pushing politcal solutions counter to the Koch Brothers. Why are the Koch brothers any more evil than Buffet and Gates? Because they agree with you?

 

Name one issue Buffet or Gates have pushed that will hurt the poor or middle class.

Let me guess.. Bill Gates helping the poor is just so bad for America.

Ohh, the Buffett rule is a secret tax against the poor, right?

 

Both have pushed for left wing issues which are bad for America, just like Kochs push for right wing issues which are bad bad for America. You could list everything the Koch Bros did which YOU think is bad for America and there can be 10+ explanations why what they did is not bad for America.

 

It makes no difference what the issues are, and the Koch brothers have the right to support their political positions.

 

100% Envy.

One of the 7 deadly sins.

 

I think you nailed it.

 

who hates rich people, we just want them to pay the same tax for every dollar they earn as the working class does, that is not hate

 

You are already getting your wish. You need to do a little Google homework and find out who pays most of the income tax collected.

 

pay the same tax for every dollar they earn - not who earns more

 

We have a very progressive tax system. The bottom 49% do not pay federal income tax. The top 51% pays it all and the rich have a higher marginal rate than the less wealthy.

 

"He with the Gold makes the rules"

That was the way of the world for centuries. The United States was founded on the belief that ALL people have the same rights under the law, not just the wealthy. But over the past thirty years, the laws have been modified. The changes are subtle, hardly worth noticing by most people. But the results are shaking the foundations of the American dream, and are about to bring it down.

Over the past thirty years, the wealth of a few has dramatically risen and the wealth of the many has dropped. This trend cannot last without a major collapse of our economic system.

The Mafia used to get their claws into a casino in Vegas by lending the owner money (aka "investing"). Then they would slowly ratchet up the interest, cause strikes by unions, and put the owner into a position that forced him to borrow more. Eventually, they would take over the casino.

The rich do the same thing to companies via "investment firms". They demand bigger and bigger returns. If the company cannot meet those demands, they take some more stock as payment. When thy get over 5%, they can file a form D with the SEC, and take steps to legally force some sort of deal, such as a hostile takeover. This costs jobs, puts more money in the pockets of the rich, and leaves the rest of us with less and less.

The Mafia used to get put in jail for extortion. Today, those with the gold have changed the rules, and extortion is now just a way of doing business. They are even refered to by sycophantic admirers as "job creators". Isn't THAT a laugh?

Plato once defined a plan for a Republic where the rich were free to acquire wealth as much as they could. But the wealthier they got, the less they could do to influence the government and it's laws. No PACs. No campaign funding. In fact, after a certain wealth was reached, they could not even vote. The idea, of course, was to prevent the wealthy from using their wealth to influence the laws in their favor.

Maybe someone needs to start a "Plato's Republic" party.

 

Basically, if you disagree with the status quo then the rich are a good target to direct your discontent toward. They benefit from the system.

I find myself somewhere in-between. I have no sympathy whatsoever for those rich who collude with the state to give themselves subsidies, limited liability, intellectual property, etc - but I have no beef with the rich who gained their wealth voluntarily (contract, gift, inheritance, ingenuity).

 

Would you post what some of those laws are? And how they favor the rich?

 

not hardly, the ultra rich have some taxes capped that every one else pays for every dollar they earn AND not all the super rich income is treated as income

 

I don't hate rich people. I hate anyone who has the means to pay back their debt to the society they became rich off of and fights tooth and nail not to.

 

And what debt would that be?

 

Probably good to be careful with pronouns. I know I use them too much. 'They' don't all dislike a wealthy person or wealthy people in general necessarily. Some do. Some don't. You didn't mention which class hates the rich, so I thought I'd point this out as it might get taken the wrong way.

I believe people need to simplify the mechanics of the world in order to function. World is a big, complex, place, and there's no point being in on all the details. Don't have the brainspace for it. When a community or individual is disenfranchised there will be signals to alter the behavior of the group in order to protect their own interests. Those signals are many and cause the better known behaviors (anger, jealousy, rage, insolence) as well as many that are harder to measure - the ones that bear revolts out of the blue and create domestic terrorists. Happens with lots of stuff, not just money.

The fact is, a great many do not have equal rights to resources to complete whatever task they are up to. There is no denying this. Our law, our society, boils down to resource allocation - either space or dietary inputs. What people are reacting to is the apparent inefficiency of the wealthy. I don't think people would be angry with the rich if they thought they were doing a good job of it. You see this in varying opinions across rich idols in America. Wall Street vs Bill and Melinda Gates. Who do you like more?

We know this, human variance isn't so great for optimal allocation of resources to include pooling under sole authority of a small group for long periods of low risk investment. You might call it portfolio balancing. It's a risk game, like gambling on the market. When we pool resources in a few wealthy families, we are actually gambling that they know what to do with it. Unfortunately for us, there is no evidence that the rich are particularly good at what they do, that there is any reason to sustain wealth in an oligarchy for more than a generation. It's not that we don't want rich families, or don't want to be a rich family. What we need to see, in any system really, is portfolio turn-over and competitive investment strategies. That's what taxes are. Having only one tax code within a nation makes it near impossible to properly experiment with different allocation strategies within a region. It's all bad models that can't beat the market yet. We're stuck. The rich are fine, waiting with their capital for the models to evolve and show us the way to new investment and head that wave as well (at least as long as it suits their long term interests). The poor don't want to wait. The disenfranchised are ready to explore new system models, but are unable to do so under a one government, one law to rule us all, type of country we've built.

Who knows where the answers are? How can we assess options if we can only try one thing at a time? These are incredibly important questions. Answering them in a meaningful way, practically, is very disruptive. Once a more efficient investment strategy is defined, it becomes very difficult to stop adaptation of the majority populace. So, it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, you'll hate someone you think is screwing you over. That's a good thing. It's in our blood. It also means that change is on the way. Always is. This one comes angry, though. And that doesn't end well.

Why are they angry? Why do they hate? It's a warning sign. Simple as that. For what? That's up for debate.

 

Taxes.

Taxes are a debt to the society that itself allowed you to be successful. No success is a story of isolation and is built on society's past successes and opportunities.

 

The fact is that wealthy are by result of their wealth already paying back to the country. They start businesses, employ people, manufacture products, offer services, donate to charitable causes, make their money available for those needing loans, purchase many products from other companies that provide jobs, and pay lots of taxes. They are spreading their wealth around. What about the debt the poor person owes? The poor rarely pay back to society.

 

You obviously didn't read my post correctly.

I hate anyone who has the means to pay their debt back to society and doesn't. Hiring people isn't paying debt back. Paying taxes is. Hiring people is necessary for his business, so you're glorifying something they require to become successful. And keep in mind, there's not just business owners. Investors who rig markets fall into my category.

 

So the harder I work the more debt I should owe?

 

You again, are making a false dichotomy out of what I"m saying. I'm saying that people who are making more pay less of their income. The higher up you go, the less of your income percentage wise you pay. Why does that sound even remotely fair to you? Some guy scraping by on 30k a year should pay 30% of their income and some guy making 30 mil should pay 8%? What sense does that make?

 

Are you talking about Obama champaign donors like GE or Monsanto or GM or Facebook or Apple ?

 

Ok I get it. The harder I work the higher my taxes should be. Got it.