Survey on the Rich

[Azure_Knight]

I've been watching some things on the news lately about the rich and wealthy, and I had a few questions.

1. How much would one have to make per year in order to be considered 'rich'? What about a working couple?

2. Would your figure change based on the amount of money that is taken away by taxes?

3. Do the rich have an obligation (moral or other, please specifiy in your response) to pay for services provided to others (such as healthcare, insurance, government assistance programs, etc).

4. What are your own thoughts/perceptions concerning the rich and wealth in general?

 

[Billy]

1. How much would one have to make per year in order to be considered 'rich'? What about a working couple?

250,000 combined income labels you a "millionaire"

2. Would your figure change based on the amount of money that is taken away by taxes?

Yes, Especially with Obama in office, if you make more than 100,000 you get slammed hard.

3. Do the rich have an obligation (moral or other, please specifiy in your response) to pay for services provided to others (such as healthcare, insurance, government assistance programs, etc).

I am a libertarian capitalist, I say no... but I'm sure everyone disagrees with me. We should have a flat tax. I'm not trying to start a political argument though. Socialism only cheapens the strength of our greatest power, which is the freedom to acquire wealth and property and then leave it to our loved ones when we die. Most innovation comes from capitalist society as does the highest standard of living.

4. What are your own thoughts/perceptions concerning the rich and wealth in general?

The rich are great people, they are innovators and hard workers who created a hell of a country in the US, all of the founders were businessmen and wealthy land owners, they threw off the British King basically for economic and moral freedoms. Without the rich there is no economy, without an economy you will need to start farming your own food and defending your family yourself from vandals. The more strain we put on the rich, the less opportunity there is for the rest of us because the rich provide all the jobs.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I would concider someone rich if one person made more then 300k a year. I would sort of factor in taxes, depending on how much was taken out. If over 50% was taken out, I wouldn't really concider that person as rich anymore, simply because they wouldn't have enough to use to appear truly rich, all though I would still concider them upper middle class.

As far as moral obligations to pay for things for those less well off? I don't think they are morally obligated. The market should change (as far as where taxes come from), to keep things balenced. If that means the rich are taxed more then the middle class, then so be it. However, I do think it is unfair if the rich are taxed 50% or more then what the middle class is taxed.

If someone is rich, then they earned it. The question if they earned it fairly or not is up for debate. Nevertheless, if they earned it through and honest salery, then they should keep the majority of it. I don't care if someone is rich. I care how they treat others, and how they view themselves because they are rich. Some rich people can be very snooty and unfair to others who are below them in a class or two. Then I will look down on them and want nothing to do with them. Simply because they are being unfair to others.

 

[Faye]

I've been watching some things on the news lately about the rich and wealthy, and I had a few questions.

1. How much would one have to make per year in order to be considered 'rich'? What about a working couple?

2. Would your figure change based on the amount of money that is taken away by taxes?

3. Do the rich have an obligation (moral or other, please specifiy in your response) to pay for services provided to others (such as healthcare, insurance, government assistance programs, etc).

4. What are your own thoughts/perceptions concerning the rich and wealth in general?

1. I'm not sure. How does the new health care bill define rich?

2. What figure?

3. If they acquired their wealth at the expense of others, then yes they do have an obligation to society.

4. As a group, I hate the rich. I don't care if they get taxed a whole 1.5% to pay for health care. How terrible for them.

Yes, Especially with Obama in office, if you make more than 100,000 you get slammed hard.

Do you have a source for this?

I am a libertarian capitalist, I say no... but I'm sure everyone disagrees with me. We should have a flat tax. I'm not trying to start a political argument though. Socialism only cheapens the strength of our greatest power, which is the freedom to acquire wealth and property and then leave it to our loved ones when we die.

Do you value property over health and life? By saying that the freedom to acquire property is the greatest power, you are implying that the freedom to live and be healthy are less important. Furthermore, we are talking about the property of a very small minority at the expense of the lives and health of the majority.

The rich are great people, they are innovators and hard workers who created a hell of a country in the US, all of the founders were businessmen and wealthy land owners, they threw off the British King basically for economic and moral freedoms. Without the rich there is no economy, without an economy you will need to start farming your own food and defending your family yourself from vandals. The more strain we put on the rich, the less opportunity there is for the rest of us because the rich provide all the jobs.

Excuse me while I go vomit.


If the founders saw the country as it is now, they'd be horrified.

 

[Billy]

Oh great here comes the class warfare. Ill take my leave before they all start pretending that the rich ALL got their wealth by exploiting other people and at other peoples expenses, oooops too late!

 

[Zero Angel]

I am a libertarian capitalist, I say no... but I'm sure everyone disagrees with me. We should have a flat tax. I'm not trying to start a political argument though. Socialism only cheapens the strength of our greatest power, which is the freedom to acquire wealth and property and then leave it to our loved ones when we die. Most innovation comes from capitalist society as does the highest standard of living.

Actually, that sounds medieval in nature. Back in the day, an extremely small minority were born into priviliged castes while a vast majority of people were peaseants. As a peasant, regardless of how hard one worked, they would not be eligible to rise in rank, due to the fact that it would cut into power that the already established wealthy castes had.

The situation nowadays is somewhat equalized. Some of the happiest countries today are pure democracies (parliamentary) or monarchies with democratic, and partially socialistic elements:


1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. The Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada

No where do I see USA or Japan on the list, of those countries they are the most capitalistic. However Denmark is number one, and this is a country which, like canada, has free public healthcare, tuition free post-secondary education, large amounts of unionization, and high taxes for wealthy income brackets. In effect, it eliminates class somewhat, though due to the nature of how money is made, the idea of socio-economic classes still exists in a healthy fashion.

I would like to see an example of a highly capitalistic state which has succeeded. Of course its possible that my source is all bollocks, however I believe it because it fits in with my preconceptions.

 

[Billy]

Actually, that sounds medieval in nature. Back in the day, an extremely small minority were born into priviliged castes while a vast majority of people were peaseants. As a peasant, regardless of how hard one worked, they would not be eligible to rise in rank, due to the fact that it would cut into power that the already established wealthy castes had.

The situation nowadays is somewhat equalized. Some of the happiest countries today are pure democracies (parliamentary) or monarchies with democratic, and partially socialistic elements:


1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Austria
4. Iceland
5. The Bahamas
6. Finland
7. Sweden
8. Bhutan
9. Brunei
10. Canada

No where do I see USA or Japan on the list, of those countries they are the most capitalistic. However Denmark is number one, and this is a country which, like canada, has free public healthcare, tuition free post-secondary education, large amounts of unionization, and high taxes for wealthy income brackets. In effect, it eliminates class somewhat, though due to the nature of how money is made, the idea of socio-economic classes still exists in a healthy fashion.

I would like to see an example of a highly capitalistic state which has succeeded. Of course its possible that my source is all bollocks, however I believe it because it fits in with my preconceptions.

Happy? Uhhh Well that's a pretty relative term I guess... and the socialists stemmed from those ruling classes, the capitalists stemmed from the merchant classes which were the original peasants who started selling excess crop.

Funny too.... of that list I wouldn't want to live in those "happy but broke" countries, my countries of preference to live in ARE the USA and Japan. Whom are also the most technologically advanced nations.

Oh and a highly capitalist society that has succeeded, the United States and Japan. I would say they are pretty successful. And Anyone of any means in the rest of the world who wants real health care comes to the USA for it, because socialized medical care has been proven time and time again to be dismal at best. There is no incentive for a medical student to go to school if he has to spend tons of cash to become a doctor then only gets to make a crap wage for it.

 

[Faye]

Zero Angel- The places you listed, at least some of them (no clue about Brunei), have hybrid economies, and that is what the U.S. needs.

 

[BickByro]

Yes, here comes the class warfare:

Without the [king] there is no economy, without an economy you will need to start farming your own food and defending your family yourself from vandals. The more strain we put on the [king], the less opportunity there is for the rest of us because the [king] provide all the jobs.

Dear God, won't somebody please stop and think of the rich?

 

[HaHa]

The USA should follow Denmark's model. We'd be able to help everyone achieve a high standard of living. But we'd rather have a system that rewards life's winners for being life's winners. Perhaps we need to start a revolution?

EDIT: Towards Billy, yes, you're right on point about the developments of socialism from the ruling class and capitalism from the merchant class. But what's the big deal about letting the rulers rule? They're much better at it than the merchants, who just turn ruling into a game about making the most money overall.

 

[Shai Gar]

Read the Rich Dad series.

 

[HaHa]

Read the Rich Dad series.

Does actually having a rich dad qualify you for exemption?

 

[Shai Gar]

Never read the series then?

 

[BenW]

4. What are your own thoughts/perceptions concerning the rich and wealth in general?

I think the most charitable thing rich people can do is this...

Spend lots of money.

Self interest necessarily and unavoidably benefits others in the market.
And I think most people would agree that employment is preferable to a handout.

 

[the]

I've been watching some things on the news lately about the rich and wealthy, and I had a few questions.

1. How much would one have to make per year in order to be considered 'rich'? What about a working couple?

I think you need to make $200,000 a year as a single person to get to invest in certain types of investments which are generally better types of investments. I think futures is one of those, and there are others. The ability to do this make you rich according to me.

2. Would your figure change based on the amount of money that is taken away by taxes?

No it is a gross pre-tax figure.

3. Do the rich have an obligation (moral or other, please specifiy in your response) to pay for services provided to others (such as healthcare, insurance, government assistance programs, etc).

No not really. But it is in thier best interests.

4. What are your own thoughts/perceptions concerning the rich and wealth in general?

I hope to be rich one day so I am in favor of them.

 

[Billy]

The USA should follow Denmark's model. We'd be able to help everyone achieve a high standard of living. But we'd rather have a system that rewards life's winners for being life's winners. Perhaps we need to start a revolution?

EDIT: Towards Billy, yes, you're right on point about the developments of socialism from the ruling class and capitalism from the merchant class. But what's the big deal about letting the rulers rule? They're much better at it than the merchants, who just turn ruling into a game about making the most money overall.

The merchants pay the bills that make society run, the rulers by the large do not. And the merchants created a better system of government thus far that has yet to be topped. And I dont think water down socialism is better. Until we come up with a way that will continue to enshrine freedom and my right to own property without being punished for it, I will continue to support capitalism.

 

[Shai Gar]

Yes, you try and own guns or plants that the DEA don't want you to own.

 

[Billy]

Yes, you try and own guns or plants that the DEA don't want you to own.

I do, hahaha. Thats the best part of capitalism, is the privacy from the government.

 

[Shai Gar]

Until someone tells on you. Then the government destroys you, regardless of your "Right to private property".

 

[Billy]

Until someone tells on you. Then the government destroys you, regardless of your "Right to private property".

I don't think anyone would tell on me, our land is pretty isolated even for being in New England and we have enough of it that its not like we will have neighborhood kids walking across, especially not with the dogs walking the property. Oh we have a black bear too, Yogi. Although we will probably have to have him removed when he gets bigger. But yeah those are just the risks we take. Pretty sad that its a risk though, too much socialist control already. What business is it of the gov if I have plants or guns?