Why Hate Rich People?

There are a couple of reasons why I tend to dislike wealthy people. Some of them are personal, while others stem from my political and moral beliefs.

First and foremost is the fact that I believe it is immoral for people to spend so much on consumer goods when there is such an overwhelming need for food, clean water and other necessities of life. This doesn't mean that I think all rich people got their wealth dishonestly. It simply means that if you are smart enough to earn millions or billions of dollars, you ought to be smart enough to understand that owning fourteen cars in a world where nine million children starve to death every year makes you a bit of an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Living comfortably is fine; living lavishly is generally pretty disgusting. It is the difference between a guy like Bill Gates - who has donated $28 billion dollars and expects to eventually donate his entire fortune - and a person like Paris Hilton.

The second thing that bothers me is that all too much wealth seems to be generated by idleness. When you have that much money, you needn't contribute anything real to the economy to grow it. You can just employ some currency speculators or some capital hawks, and they'll destroy companies, livelihoods, even whole cities in order to grow your already ridiculous amount of money. People who make their fortunes off predatory interest rates, bad mortgages and other schemes intended to separate the ignorant from their money are called "genius" in our society. That is pretty damned sad.

Third is the completely disproportionate amount of influence these people exercise over the political system. The whole idea of one man, one vote is only valuable so long as the policy positions of our representatives are not for sale. But they are. No matter what your ideology, it ought to be considered reprehensible for a person to do this. I don't want my opinion to be considered valid for any reason other than it's merit. People like the Koch Brothers don't feel that way. They regularly back candidates from both parties so as to purchase an insurance policy - regardless of the success or failure of any one candidate, they win.

There are other reasons, but I'll stop there for now.

 

I think you should sell your computer and feed an African Village for a year.

Failure to do so admits hypocrisy.

 

I have nothing against rich people who acquired their wealth though personal labor , hard work, dedication and innovation should always be rewarded.
I do hate people who exploit other's labor to amass wealth tho and i will do anything to bring them down.

 

I don't think the rich are demonized by some anymore than the poor are demonized by others.

And the caricature that all rich people are selfish and greedy is just as wrong as all poor people are lazy moochers.

 

I don't really see the hypocrisy. Having a modest lifestyle is not at all the same as owning ten cars, or spending $10,000 on a t-shirt, or spending the night in a $5,000 a night hotel room as a matter of course. To deem me a hypocrite because I have a computer is to pretend there is no tangible difference between making $40,000 a year and making $40,000,000 a year.

I'm not asking people to live like Spartans. I am pointing out the absurdity of compensating people with so much money that they can lose 90% of it and still live far more comfortably than 95% of the rest of humanity, for the rest of their lives, and still have money left over for the kids. More then that, I am very critical of anybody who thinks that they actually deserve that level of compensation. That they are quite literally two hundred or four hundred times more valuable to society than a police officer or a graphics designer a doctor or a plumber. To have access to that wealth and not give most of it away is to make that assumption, and it is an assumption I disagree with.

 

How?



.
​

 

Jealousy, envy, irrational/illogical generalizations, indoctrination. That about sums it up.

 

You are saying if I work hard and smart and make a lot of money I should give part of it away to people who don't work as hard and are not as smart as me?

 

So what do you want the government to do?

 

You have spoken a lot of truth in a short sentence.

 

Absolutely. You have a moral obligation to help those with less. Charity is a good thing.

 

At least you are honest. I hope you are as charitable with your income. I would venture you are young and will one day see that there are many people who can't be helped. Those people will take and take and do less and less for themselves. Do you believe it's possible to spoil a person?

 

It is certainly possible, and although I am young, I never claimed that everyone can be helped. I simply believe that every person has the moral obligation to do what they can to help other people. It doesn't mean giving away your possessions and living like a monk. It just means making reasonable, consistent and heartfelt donations to a cause or charity you identify with, and going out of your way to be a decent human being to those less fortunate you encounter.

 

Who in their right mind could disagree with you. The U.S. citizens are the most generous people on earth. I agree we should give to causes we believe in and charities we believe in. But the problem is our government wants to force you to give via taxation so they can use your money to help the less fortunate, and buy votes for the politician. I want to decide, not have the wasteful government decide.

 

I can respect that point of view. However, do you think that there are limits on what should be acceptable compensation? What I mean is that it seems like a system that produces a person making $400,000,000 in a year is kind of broken. I wonder if it is even possible to make that much without really exploiting the laws, without buying off politicians, without benefiting from massive government subsidies, etc.

I'm just not sure how that can be curtailed without some element of coercion. I think wealth inequality is getting to really dangerous levels. Something needs to be done, and I'm not sure that something can be done given the fact that our politicians seem to be beholden to the Almighty Dollar.

 

Millions of jobs exist to cater to lavish lifestyles. 10's of millions of jobs would evaporate overnight if you get your way. What do you tell those people? Too bad, I thought it was a good idea for rich people to give their money away instead of spending it?

 

That's a fair point. I will, however, say this in return: driving money to the bottom helps everyone. The rich people giving it away would still be providing for tens of millions of jobs. The reality is that every cent a poor person receives is spent almost immediately - that is what makes them poor. So by donating such money, you would actually be driving economic growth while still pocketing much of it with increased consumer spending.

If anything, it will result in a net increase in jobs, because money will be going towards more inclusive markets that employ far more people than luxury boutiques or custom car manufactures.

 

It would temporarily stimulate some of those "inclusive" markets while completely eliminating other markets. Once that temporary stimulus works it way out, because like you said, poor people will spend the money immediately, we will be left with no rich people spending and millions of less jobs.

Also, it is not just the people working at luxury boutiques that it will effect. People build those boutiques, make those clothes, and drive those limosines. Airlines would be crushed, jewlery industry evaportaes, fine dining gone. The list could go on forever. Millions and millions of jobs gone. Gov't tax revenue drops dramatically resulting in social safety nets collapsing. You think we have a poverty problem now? You aint seen nothing once the rich are broke.

 

Where do you think the money spent on consumer goods goes? The rich wouldn't be broke, they would be making more money. You remember a guy named Henry Ford? He paid wages far, far higher than his competitors, and his reasoning was simple: he'd sell more cars if more people could afford to buy them. And it was because of this mindset that we saw the largest period of economic growth and equality in human history.

The health of an economy is measured in activity. Thus, increasing the level of activity increases the health of the economy. Goldman Sachs just released a report that says much the same thing: wages are so low that they are stifling growth. It is the mass of people who drive the economy.

 

I don't hate rich people at all, I'm just sick of their whining and complaining.

"you're taxing us too much, wahhhhhh, I can't afford a 65th car, wahhhhhh"

Sorry, no sympathy to be found here. If you're in a position where you don't have to worry about feeding your family, clothing them, providing them with housing and medical care and education, you have all that you need in my opinion. The rest are wants and I don't give a crap about wants.

 

The activity would cease. There is no more motivation to make lots of money. Why would someone work to earn 10 million just to give it away? Persuit of money is what gets people up in the morning and out to work. Take away that motivation and what are we left with?

 

I think to answer that question, we need to parse it. People don't "pursue" money - they pursue what money buys. Money is just a medium of exchange; it has no tangible value in and of itself. If you can't spend your money on actual goods, there is little to no point in having it. So when you say "pursuit of money is what gets people up in the morning," what you are actually saying is "people want things, and it is the desire for things that drives our economy."

Knowing that, how can increasing the number of people who can afford more things "stop" economic activity? It just doesn't make any sense. The more people with money, the more people spending that money. The more people spending money, the more demand, the more growth and competition. It is a feedback cycle. Furthermore, due to the nature of private property and how wealth is delegated in our society, this helps everyone. A person who owns a company who sells consumer goods directly benefits when the market is grown. The market is grown by having more people able to participate in it. More people are able to participate in it by having more money.

This is quite literally the nature of capitalism. It is exactly what makes it work.

 

This discussion started by you saying that rich people should give away most of their money and live a modest lifestyle, right?

If that is the case, who owns that company you refer to? Why would anyone work tirelessly building and running a company? The joy of giving away the rewards? I just don't understand how we will support a country if no one is motivated to obtain more than just a modest lifestyle.

Thanks for the exchange here. Can you reply with quote so that I'm alerted that someone replied to me. You can delete the text.

 

You are correct, I did say that, although I was speaking more from a personal sense of morality. I do not really desire to live a life of extreme luxury. Some people do, yes - but I believe that they can better do that by giving away alot of their fortune. It drives growth, and the benefits of that growth largely go to them anyways. So it is really a win-win - whether you donate because you feel it is your moral obligation, or whether you donate because you want to make more money in the end, everyone wins.

Also, thank you for expressing yourself so reasonably and civilly. I appreciate it.

 

No prob. My parting statement... Rich people buying all sorts of crazy expensive things, good. No rich people, bad.