The Rich are not like Us

To define a couple of terms --

"The Rich" -- These are not the people with more money than any decent person would consider justifiable; those are well off, privileged, parasites, whatever. "The Rich" are are in a class far above that group. See the L-Curve site http://www.lcurve.org/ for more about the difference between the top 1/2% and the rest of "Us."

"Us" -- We are "the people." We don't exert power as individuals, only collectively. Whether we know it or not, there is more in common between the Lawyer who represents a vagrant and his client than between either of them and "The Rich." An excerpt from the L-Curve site: "Some doctors and lawyers and professional people, with incomes over a hundred thousand dollars may feel "rich". They may have nicer homes and cars, and they may have attitudes that separate them from the masses. But they still must work for a living and are primarily consumers of their earnings. Whether they recognize it or not, they actually have more in common with the people at the bottom than they do with the people in the top 1/2%.

With that said, I am 99.99% certain that none of The Rich are registered here at DU, although their may be some who buy their story.

Unlike Us, The Rich take for granted their right to exercise power in any way that suits their interests. Common morality is not a factor. Theirs is the morality of "noblesse oblige," and only to the extent it furthers the accumulation of wealth and power. Ordering mass lay-offs or using Pinkertons and the National Guard to murder strikers a few decades back is no different morally than now using the US military and CACI to dominate the Middle East oil regions.

Unlike Us, The Rich are cowards of the worst sort. They have never had to face any danger in their lives, other than the off chance of a meteor hit. They live behind walls none of us will ever penetrate, travel to places we will never see, and they can toss millions into the toilet with no impact on their everyday lives.

And unlike Us, The Rich decide our future.

And unlike Us, The Rich believe they will never face the consequences of the decisions they make.

And unlike Us, The Rich don't care if we live or die.

summary of my point. Revolution how, of course, is the question.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Some will be executed after a trial for their deeds. Most will be go to re-education camps with their dependents and extended family. Their property will be forfeit and confiscated. Said property to be auctioned off to pay for their re-education expenses or converted for common use of the majority. At most you are talking ten to twenty thousand persons in the persona non grata status. Mobility will have to be curtailed and borders sealed. Stock exchanges and banks put on temporary holiday. Its doable. Maybe more so today then the past. This is only conjecture on my part.

being rich IS a crime

Create a New Man...
Or maybe just a new Man.

French so much. The French showed their aristocracy who was really in charge. Their aristocracy also found out their blood wasn't really blue!

showed something of what the way forward for "The Masses" might look like, as well as the ruthlessness of the aristocracy. See http://www.marxists.org/history/france/paris-commune/index.htm for more.

People on the right always say "class warfare" like it's something leftist demagogues roll out when they're losing elections. Class warfare, today as in ancient Rome, is constant and inescapable. The Rich are perpetually taking measures to keep us down. They're not malicious about it; the reason for their actions is that the status quo involves them extorting obscene amounts of wealth from us. All they're doing is neglecting to cease the class warfare that is part of their livelihood and lifestyle.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready to start boycotting their products, staging sit-ins at their offices and factories, and revoking the corporate charters behind which they hide.

and found them pleasant but utterly clueless.

They can't comprehend people who face disaster through an illness, accident or loss of a job. Why don't they just tap that trust fund or cash a few stocks? It's like asking us to translate whale calls into Shakespearean English.

Their interests don't stray far beyond their class and their immediate surroundings, meaning their homes, their private jets, their private airports, and the private wings of big hospitals. The people they hire know better than to try to educate them. They're as penned in as we are excluded. They want those surroundings to be as pleasant as possible and hire some of us to do all the work of keeping the fortune intact and arranging nuisance things like travel.

They can be very generous to anyone who is inside the wall, but don't DARE ask any of them for a single thing. It just isn't DONE and you'll be shown the door as quickly as possible. I saw that happen to other folks more than once.

The rich don't really decide our fate, they leave that to the people they hire. They have no clue about what those men decide about our fate because we are utterly invisible to them.

Scaife, Koch, the Waltons, and a few others are anomalies. They know we exist and are terrified of our numbers, which is why they do what they do to make sure most of us never catch a clue.

a great documentary exposing the utter banality of those people. You're right, their hirelings and a few talented and trusted members of "The Family" (like the Rockefellers, Scaifes, Cabots, Lodges, and such) do the heavy lifting.

us as we are about the ants we crush under our feet as we make our way to our car in the morning. An acquaintance of mine was raised in an uber-rich family and was expected to take his place in his father's banking empire after college. Instead, he was fascinated by airplanes and became an airline pilot.

His father, enraged, cut him off from any inheritance, etc., unless he left what he loved and came back into the fold. My friend refused. He told me appalling stories about his parents visiting him in his (very nice) apartment and how they could not even bring themselves to sit on his furniture because it had obviously come from a regular department store!

It was a glimpse into an attitude so totally disgusting that I have never forgotten it. I understood viscerally at that moment why heads rolled in the French Revolution.

of the great masses. When Lenin was writing and researching at the Brit Museum, one of the biggest new employers was a company hiring thugs to train as a private army for the rich. They may have not understood clearly just how different their lives were, but they clearly feared that the masses might get a glimpse of how they lived and would try to take it away.

I suspect that as the divide gets deeper, our own super rich will suffer the same fear.

...the outfit run by Erik Prince, bro-in-law of, snicker, Dick DeVos, recently defeated loser for the governorship of Michigan (and heir to the Scamway fortune).

the situation is slightly more complex, and
well, yeah - there is a prime example.

They see us as a stupid, potentially dangerous mob that has to be constantly kept busy and distracted.

Has anybody else noticed that in seeking an item at garage sales, the same thing is usually priced higher at fancy homes then more modest homes?

What gives with that?

Like you said, they are as penned in as we are excluded...way out of touch!

They're the last vestige of the middle class and they remember how much they paid for an article and figure since they're superior to the people who might want to buy it, they took good enough care of it that it didn't depreciate. That's pure snobbery at work, not wealth.

The wealthy don't have gar(b)age sales. They put the art and antiques up for auction at Sotheby's and give the rest to charity or to the servants.

"pleasant but utterly clueless.

They can't comprehend people who face disaster through an illness, accident or loss of a job. Why don't they just tap that trust fund or cash a few stocks? It's like asking us to translate whale calls into Shakespearean English."

I talked to a rich guy once who couldn't understand how anyone could be homeless on minimum wage. I could not get him to understand that first and last month's rent, plus the a hefty security deposit, is more than one can make in a month on minimum wage. It went right over his head.

Which president was it who had no idea how much a quart of milk costs?

I've always loved that quote from Victorian economist/journo Walter Bagehot:

"Poverty is an anomaly to rich people. It is very difficult to make out why people who want dinner do not ring the bell"

You cannot have a functioning democracy if your economy operates like an oligarchy, where a few determine the fates of tens of millions of "underlings" both here and abroad.

I've always believed in the idea of economic democracy, and I've felt that perhaps one way to achieve that is to set up a federal program to aid in the development of worker co-ops where workers own the firm and practice self-management and decide for themselves what should be done, not a few ultra-rich people who are only interested in squeezing workers for as much juice as possible.

which is fine unless the union itself becomes corrupt. :\ Although I must say... I heart my free health insurance... vacation days... all that good stuff... :) No complaints about the union at my job.

Unions have done it in the past and can do it yet. Everytime you hear the crap about the worker is so well paid that they do not need unions....think a minute where that is coming from and reasearch the past when unions were strong. unions came about due to the abuse of monetary power by the elite. There were great prices paid to establish unions which included even death. And the youngsters now day have no inkling of how ugly it can get because they've been fed what those in power want them to know. A little research in the beginings of unions will blow your mind.

they have to go the way of the French labor movement. Here, Unions are relatively weak because only skilled workers are in them. So when the Union strikes, there are plenty of people more than willing to cross the picket line and get trained in a new job. However, in France, all workers are part of the Unions, so when a Union strikes, there is nobody else to take over for them. That's realy power, the likes of which American Unions have really never seen.

Other Duers agree

"the status quo equals a dictatorship of the rich, and this dictatorship is sucked up to by the DLC every bit as much as the RNC" wcepler

Rec !

sometimes the obvious gets ignored because it is everywhere, like air (so far) and only the exceptional event usually gets commented on. Thought a mention of these facts of life deserved to be made explicit.

IMO

One of my several talents is remodeling. I often get hired by the rich conservatives. There are a few here and there who I "click" with. You can tell they worked very hard, and honestly, to get where they are. But they still have something in common with the other richies, not just money, it's a loss of reality. For me It truly sucks at times to live a life of constantly working your butt off and never feeling anything but ocassional slack. If I'm lucky enough to win $1000 on the lottery it's a new feeling. But it's back to the old me after a day or two. Rich people don't know this kind of life. Even if they did in the past they can no longer give themselves the credibility because it only applies to those who still carry the burdens. That is the working class. Those who don't really give more than they have are lost souls. They're unsober and tend to lead themselves blindly into a web of who knows what. Ultimately they end up no better than dirty lawyers and pen-happy doctors, but there's always secrets and politics not too far to be seen by them. Money is the dirtiest thing you can touch in this world. When it touches your hand it's easy to wash away as long as it doesn't stay there long. But for those who long to keep it in their hands, the dirt runs so deep that it never goes away.

their money should be taken away. it is not theirs.

I have no problem whatsoever with the underprivileged living off of the backs of those of us more fortunate than them.

all of it

:sarcasm:

anything short of that and nothing is going to change
well maybe rhetoric, but that's about it...

someone posted that website last week & I looked at it. It made me wonder what the curve would look like if we represented the numbers of people associated with each pile of 100 dollar bills instead of the income...it would be an inverse L curve, I'm sure. That's the question--- power in numbers, or power in dollars. Bring on the revolution.

I among many others are workin' on it.

bring justice and awareness of evil is a worthy act. Not just in itself, but because it means a commitment for justice. Thank you for everything you do.

Just curious to you consider this sort of effort to be religious?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2589421

And you're very welcome.

OOGA BOOGA SMOOGA WOOGA! :rofl:

That thread was awesome! :yourock:

So many people believing in something that studies have shown doesn't work.

Nice thought, but a useless exercise if depended on for more than a meditative affect.

taste just like chicken!

to the post. If you use a bittorrent client or have access to a big source for videos see Jean Luc Godard's "Weekend" for a surreal exploration on that theme. http://www.torrentscan.com/?go=Godard+%22week-end%22

The lottery being good ideas, investments or a ticket.


You went to school w/ them.... talk to them. That's what I do. But then this is Silicon Valley.

Both went to Stanford. One was the child of poor parents, one was raised w/in wealth. The child of the poor parents (hubbys colege roomate) is super uber mega wealthy (over 1B). He has bought his parents 3-4 homes, collects cars, and had a plane feuled and loaded to land in New Orleans after the Katrina disaster hit. He always had been able to get what he wants.... His pilot could not get clearance to land anywhere w/in 100 miles. the Katrina disaster turned him against b*sh, against his best interests.


The child of the wealthy is still teetering - socially he is as liberal as they get.... but he loves his $$$$$$$$. He espouses his hatred of b*sh, yet still teeters on the brink of fascism (good for his $$$).


Both are relatively New $$$$.


New $$$ is our only hope - old incestous $$$$ STINKS.

And there are some rebels even among the established lords. None of that goes against the main point that those who are born elite, in general, maybe one exception or two, never learn what it means to be human.

Old $$$ or New $$$ -- that is OUR money. We overpaid them for services rendered if they have Billion(s) of dollars.

Think of it in terms of celebrity athletes and movie stars -- we pay $$$ for a ticket and if the celebs are getting Millions per season/film then we are overpaying them and their $$$ should come back to us in community assets (taxes).

Gandhi said: Morality and materialism are inversely proportional.

Anyone with a bank account with many millions or billion(s) of dollars is suffering from a deficit of morality.

the richest suburb in my county. He described to me these trustfund assholes driving their Jags and Mercedes who stop by to have him pump the gas for them on their way to a couple of the most elite private clubs. They spend the afternoon playing golf or shooting skeet, then proceed to the dining rooms/bars to get falling down drunk, go home to sleep it off and repeat the next day.

Which is why I've never aspired to be like that. I got into a discussion with some friends at work about 'what we would do if we won the lottery'. Everyone else talked about what they'd buy. The only thing I wanted (other than perhaps a car that I could trust to start every day) was simple: start my own business. I wouldn't just invest it in something and let the money filter back to me... I HAVE to be working for a living, otherwise I'd be driven nuts by the lack of... well, anything. :)

At least the ones I've met. Especially if it's family money. And they are very boring people.
One of the reasons I, too, have never aspired to be rich.

I don't have to worry about things. :) I'm just saying I'd still work, I'd still run a business and employ other people, ect. Hell, not only does it keep me from boredom, but it'll A) help other people and the economy in general by providing jobs and B) A business is an investment in itself... odds are you'll get a decent return on investment if you run it right. So for those only interested in keeping their money... that's not a bad way to ensure that.

Relatively speaking. We're at a point where we don't have to worry too much about money. But no one would consider us rich. I guess it's just what your expectations are in life.
But I hear ya in terms of staying active and having a purpose in life. And, frankly, I think a successful business is the only real way to build wealth, unless you inherit it. You certainly don't do it by working for someone else.

worst ways to earn money here in the US. Sad, but true. Which is why I'm going to try and do what I can to help small businesses owned by little guys like me. :)

these folks are raking in excess of half a million off a trust and they overextend themselves and they want to break the trusts to get the big money out. However their hardworking ancestors seemed to know that the money would breed such stupidity so the trusts are typically iron clad and can rarely be broken....to protect the morons from themselves.

I now make about $10,000 a year. Definitely not rich. But the way you define it, a person making $100,000 a year is not rich either. They may not have alot in common with Bill Gates or Tiger Woods, but they don't have alot in common with me either.

It's ridiculous and insulting for them to claim, or for somebody else to claim, that they are not rich. They definitely are rich. Not extremely rich, but still rich.

Rich people don't have an annual income. They don't work for a living. They make money off of other people's labor.

Unless they save like crazy. That makes them the same as you. They can go without a paycheck for a while but not indefinately.

The rich cannot ever be fired, do not EVER have to get a job, can buy anything they want, whenever they want.

You've GOT to be kidding.:eyes:

$10,000.00 to $12,000.00 a year, a tiny rented apartment with second hand furniture from the
Salvation Army and a $450 car that needs work is absolutely NOT the same
as someome making $100,000.00 a year with vacations, toys,
bank account and/or stock portfolios.
Oh and don't forget they most likely own a house.

Now you're telling me that the person living alone on $100,000.00 a year lives in a tiny rented apartment with second hand furniture, shitty car, not enough to eat and no healthcare???
So they are the same as a person making a paltry $10,000.00???

Oh good God give me a fucking break!:eyes:

I find your comparison offensive as well.

And they have to kiss the bosses ass like everyone else.

And a long bought with a disease will wipe them out.

Yes they own a home, with a mortgage that can be repossed by the bank. They can take vacations, but have to worry about paying for it. They might even get a few weeks off but they have to go back to work.

The OP is NOT TALKING ABOUT 100k/yr people, this is about the UBBER RICH.

These people who make 10,000 times more than you make.

The people who the OP is talking about can spend 10,000 on LUNCH. They have boats that cost $100,000,000. They collect $100,000 exotic sports cars. That is NOT THE SAME as people who make 100k per year. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I am not trying to equate your situation with someone who makes 100k, but you have more in common with 100k/yr people than 100k/yr people have with the UBBER RICH.

The UBBER RICH probably pay people 100k/yr and think of those people as peasant sheep.

It is a whole different ballgame with the UBBER rich. I am sorry you are offended because you dont understand who the OP is talking about.

The person driving a two year old car has more in common with the person in a lexus than he/she does with the person walking or riding a bike. They both are out of the elements. The person who owns a $300,000 house has more in common with a person who owns several houses than he/she does with a renter.

And even if they do not it is a travesty of language to say that the rich are not rich. Somebody who is richer than 80% of their neighbors simply is rich, or the meaning of the word has changed. They are not as rich as the extremely rich, but still rich. That's why we have adjectives. You shouldn't change the meaning of a word when an adjective will do.

This is an old Republican trick too - to do something for those with incomes from $80,000 - $150,000 and claim that it is for the 'middle class'. After all, it's not like those people are rich :eyes:

I understand who he is talking about, but to call them "the rich" instead of "the ubber rich" is what is wrong and insulting. Even I, at $10,000 a year, think I am rich in many way, compared to the uninsured, the homeless, and the 2 billion people who make less than $2 a day, but that's probably a mis-use of the word 'rich'.

you like and not have to deal with facts.

A person making that much money lives in comfort with lots of amenities.
A poor person does not.

I understand what you're saying about the Uber Rich, but still, a person making $100,000.00 a year has it a hell of a lot easier than a person making $10,000.00, believe me, you have no idea.

It's just frustrating to me, and the other poster, and others who make $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 a year, when well off people complain. Sure you may have all those payments, mortgage, vacations etc. but if it's a pain then live with less. Sell all your toys and things and you'de have no problems!

That's my point, a person making $10,000.00 a year lives with less, a lot less, so it's not comparable at all to that person making $100,000.00.

Damn, I'd sure like to be able to afford a vacation and a house payment.

If I lived the way I do now on $100,000.00 a year I would be rich!

A person making 100l is not comparable to someone making 10 times that.

A person making 100K in NY or SF is poor by your standards.

See my above post #152 for an explanation.

Are there no gradations?

a hundred thousand dollars per year. It doesn't go all that far.

so many families are living in NYC on so much less. 1 in 5 workers in NYC are making less than $10 an hour and thus family income is less than $40,000 a year. I bet they think $100,000 a year is rich.

and yet, my father in law, a police office, and my mother in law, a school secretary, make over $100,000 combined. (She makes $50,000 per year, and he makes $75,000 per year.) They are by no means wealthy. They are firmly middle class. They have decent pensions, but not much savings. They are buying a one bedroom apartment in Queens which is selling for almost $300,000 in a nice building, but it's by no means extravagant. It's a living wage.

I'm not claiming they are poor. They are not. But they aren't wealthy, either. They are firmly middle/working class. It is a normal wage here in the city, and because they both work for the city (public school and police officer), they do well with the extras. (Health coverage, etc.) But, they are no hob-knobbing with the wealthy or anything.

I have no statistics for NYC, but see that median household income was $17,028 in Queens in 1979. compared to $16,647 for New York and $16,841 for the US. If Queens is still comparable to the US, then their current median income is something like $40,000. $125,000 puts them well over that and thus over 50% of their neighbors. Still possible that they are not in the top 20% for NYC or Queens, maybe not even in the top 40% but I would think they have to be.

I don't know anybody who would describe them as Upper Middle Class. They are firmly in the working class designation. I think it's surprising to many how much a cop or a school secretary will make after dedicating 30 years of their life in that field. They didn't start off making that salary, that's for sure. And yet, with the increase in the cost of living in New York City, they are comfortable enough to live in a ONE bedroom apartment in Woodside, Queens. They can not afford to live in Manhattan, as they do not qualify for lower income housing. My husband, a teacher, makes $45,000 per year, which seems like a good salary for a teacher, but it does not go very far in our household. I also work, and we moved to Brooklyn so that we could afford to buy an apartment.

Many people who live on ten dollars an hour in NYC qualify for low income housing, which is a much more affordable option here. But, those in the middle classes, can not, and they must pay unreasonable prices for unreasonably small places. That is one thing that I live with because I absolutely love living here.

We are firmly in the middle class as well, and at times it is difficult to make ends meet. I held up my inlaws as an example because of the years they spent in their field. It seems as though their salary is high, but in actuality, living in NYC has expenses that you wouldn't expect. Salaries are higher here, also, than they would be in other areas of the country. It's all relative.

at least in 1979 the median family income did not differ that much between Queens, NY, and the USA. In fact, according to wiki median household income was $38,293 for NYC, $43,393 for NY and $41,994 for the US. That was in 1999. It has probably gone down under Bush. So half of all NY households make less than $38,000. How can $125,000 not be considered upper middle class? I'd be surprised if families within $10,000 of the median income qualified for any subsidies. For the last two years I have made about half of the median income, now I am back down to 1/4th of it, and I do not qualify for a single subsidy that I know of. It is likely there are households in NYC, maybe 30% of them making between $35,000 and $75,000, that do not get subsidized anything either. That is the middle-middle class, and to them $125,000 seems pretty darn rich, $50-90,000 more than they are making.

they haven't made that much their whole life. They get raises every year, and their cost of living goes up with their medical woes as they age. Their insurance covers a lot, but when you are having surgery (corneal transplants) twice in one year because the first one didn't take, that's a lot of out of pocket expenses.

They both retire this year, as well, so they won't have any salary next year. Will they still be Upper Middle Class then?

The fiction that it describes income comes from the über-wealthy, who want us to believe that if we make $80K (like that recent article in the NYT talked about) it makes us "upper class" and therefore we should get behind the programs that benefit them.

Working class is anyone who can't live if they don't work, regardless of how much they make.

Middle class is someone who gets a significant part of their income by skimming off of other people. They could maybe live on that skim, but it wouldn't be pleasant, so they have to work too. They're in the middle.

And of course upper class is someone who has so much wealth that they get an income big enough for all their needs from the skim alone, and therefore need never personally lift a finger.

I am middle class because I have an IRA and a savings account. But Webb Hubbell is working class at $150,000 a year (plus whatever his wife makes). Since Deion Sanders is still 'working' (if that's a fair description of sitting in front of a camera yakking and telling bad jokes for six figures) is he part of the working class too? I'm sure he will benefit from a higher minimum wage and laws helping unions, and does not get any benefit from cuts in the top tax rates.

Your IRA and savings came/comes from your labor, not someone else's. All you did/are doing was/is to defer spending it. Therefore you're working class (I presume).

As far as Sanders and Hubbell go, yes, if they have to work to eat then they're working class too, no matter how strange that might seem. They're just high-income members of the class. They might have connections such that they never have to worry (unlike the rest of us) about being out of work, but if they have to work to live, they're working class.

If they've managed to buy enough "skimming rights" (dividend-paying stock) so that they no longer need to work to have a satisfying life, then they've moved into the upper class. Maybe not the high-income upper class, but upper class all the same.

Someone can have a low income from their labor or a high one, but they're still part of the laboring class.

Someone can have a low income from their skim or a high one, but they're still part of the owning class.

since I have savings, I make a certain amount of interest income, maybe $1000 this year. Not to mention that I put much of my savings into my house, paying it off in 4 years instead of 30 so I am making money from that savings by not having to pay interest on debt or to refinance my 5/1 ARM.

There's work, and then there's work. There's the work of moving stuff around and then there's the work of ordering other people to move stuff around or compiling statistics about how other people move stuff around. As I tried to say elsewhere in this thread, people who make $20/hr and up are 'skimming' in my eyes too. They do not work for that extra pay - they get it because of their power and position. They have a privileged position over the temp or the near minimum wage worker.

The thing about Sanders is that he has been paid $40 million plus in about 3 years. If he still 'has' to work, it is because he feels like living a lifestyle where he spends $600,000 a year. That does not put him in the same boat with me, since my lifetime earnings since graduating college in 1985 are about $150,000. Webb makes that in one year. I make that in 21 years, but hey, we are both in the same class because we both have to work.

Heck I am not even in the same class I used to be, compared to 1997 when I was working two jobs, 70+ hours, no days off, no benefits and income of $10,295. Whereas now I work one job half time with paid holidays, paid sick leave, paid vacation, half-price health insurance and income of $10,000. I moved out of the lower class into the lower middle class.

Your interest income is from you renting your excess labor-derived money (at a rate below inflation, as I hope you know). You are losing the value of your savings more slowly than if you kept cash under your mattress, but that's all. If you don't believe me, compare the interest you get to the inflation rate.

As for Sanders, let's put aside your feelings about his income that the elites have drilled into you and just look at the numbers.

If he has spent and spends his income on "stuff", he remains (temporarily) a high-income member of the working class. Eventually that income will stop, because he will stop being employable as a football player. Unless he has some other source of income by then, he will end up parking cars or something similar, or coaching if he's very very lucky. If he spent enough of that high income on skimming rights, then he'll be able to avoid having to be a niteclub greeter or whatever. But if he owns enough stock to produce that level of income, then you're right and he's already no longer a member of the working class, he's working for extra, not to live. But what class he's in depends not on how much he's making now, but whether he can stop working and still live comfortably.

You can feel that people making $20 or whose work is bossing others are skimming, but you can't possibly defend the idea. It's just something you tell yourself. There were bosses back in slavery days, too, who ate better and wore better rags than other slaves, but they were still slaves themselves. All you're doing is buying into the elite lies and doing what they want you to do. They want you to feel that anyone with a bigger income than you is in a higher class than you. That way those people become the target of your anger and envy, not the ones who own everything.

were 3.43, 3.39, 2.68, and 2.27 for the last 4 years. I am doing a little bit better than that, especially since I put the bulk of my savings in my house by paying off the mortgage 26 years early.

Much better too than I would with Wal-mart stock with their 1.3% dividend rate. Of course, with the market, I make up for the crappy dividend rate by making capital gains, except that the price in December of 2003 was 52.95 and it went to 52.71 in 2004 and went to 48.68 in 2005 and to 45.65 in 2006.

What a person is making now is a large factor in how much they can save or invest, and can there be any doubt that a person with $100,000 annual income is living, or can live, more comfortably than a person making $20,000.

I cannot defend the idea that high wage people are skimming? I worked for 3 years as a temp, making from $7.25 an hour to $8.5 an hour. Working at the same factory as people making $17 an hour and getting over-time pay, paid holidays, health insurance, paid vacations, and a retirement system. Are they earning that extra money and extra benefits, or is it a privilege that is bestowed upon them? If they are the target of my anger and envy, it is because of their "I got mine" attitude combined with the "but I still don't have enough" that I think helps, in a big way, to keep people like me down. You should be lecturing and scolding THEM, not me.

As for the 'people who own everything". The top 1% owns 39% of the wealth. The top 20% owns 84%. So the top 1% does not have it all. The next 19% has 45% of it too. The top 20% is household income from $83,500 and up.

Come to think of it, I am not sure how they figure that since it seems to me that governments and churches own a fair amount of wealth too.

I saw into that as well.

but not "rich"

something like 60% of American households are making less than half that much. If you are making twice as much as 60% of the rest of your country, I think that must qualify as 'rich'. At least 60% of America would think so.

at least that many. That is a very sad fact and evidence that we need major changes in this country.

But that doesn't mean that people making $100k/yr are rich.

"I billed more than $750,000 for the firm, which netted me $150,000.
But my expenses continued to outrun my earnings. And my stress level
was, if anything, higher than ever." "Friends in high places" Webb
Hubbell 1997 p 149

"Although my $124,000 salary at Justice wasn't as much as I'd made
at Rose, with Suzy's salary and money in the bank, we thought we'd
be okay for a while. op cit p 207

Since he was writing about 1990 or earlier $126,487 puts him in the top 5% of household income even without his wife's income.

Depending on the cost of housing, or catastrophic illness, I do not see why a family making $50,000 should be struggling either. I was not struggling at $25,000 and I do not expect to be struggling at $12,000 either.

so you just proved my point that people at 100k/yr aren't rich. Thanks.

He 'chose' to buy a house and to live a lifestyle that were too much for his income. The fact that he struggled on $150,000 a year does not make him non-rich, it just makes him non-sensible. Other families in his town were living quite well on $40,000 a year. He could have too, but chose not to. He was rich, but not rich enough for his greed. Which is why I hate the upgrading of the word rich. It is an endorsement of the greed of the $80,000 a year families who seemingly refuse to see, or admit, how rich they are.

where a family making $80k a year would *definitely* struggle. And in any town in this country people on $80k/year or $100k/year can't just stop working and not worry about what happens next.

Do you think it's *greedy* to make $80k or $100k a year? Do you think every job should pay the same amount?

There is no area in this country where people are not making it, albeit by struggling or scrimping, on much less. On the one hand, it almost seems like nobody in America really struggles. Almost. Even some of the poorest people I have seen can afford cigarettes, cell phones, internet and PCs, cars, tatoos, and all kinds of other things which certainly are not necessities.

I did not say it was greedy to make $80,000 a year. What is greedy is to make $40,000 a year and be unhappy with it because you are not 'keeping up with Star Jones or Bill Gates'. It is greedy to make $80,000 a year and not realize how rich you are, to be unaware and/or unconcerned about all the people making much less. If they are not rich, why should they pay an extra $5,000 in taxes so that the uninsured can have health insurance? And that $5,000 increase would probably not even get them back to pre-Bush levels.

The super-rich cannot pay for everything. The top 5% gets 22.4% of all income, but the top 20% gets 50.1% and the top 40% gets 73.1% and the top 60% gets 87.7%. If the bottom 40% is gonna come up from 12.2% they're gonna need to bring the top 40% down a peg. It cannot all come from the top .5%.

pay for health care through taxes. I don't know about the specific numbers but I agree that more than just the top 5% will have to be involved.

I don't understand why other people cannot understand this concept.

If they still have to earn their wages, still have to save for retirement, still have to take a loan to buy a car, they aren't rich.

Does a person making $50 an hour really "earn" that money? For example, I do janitorial work, at what I consider to be the very generous wage of $12.17 an hour (plus benefits). Do I earn that wage? I do my job. I put in time and effort, but there are people in the schools and elsewhere in this town doing the same job for $8.5 an hour or less. So how do I 'earn' the extra $3.5 an hour? Do I work harder? Smarter?

Or do I just 'get' rather than 'earn' the extra pay because I 'got' the good paying job through some combination of luck and experience? Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Does Tiger 'earn' his prize money and his endorsement money? Does Oprah 'earn' her $30 million a year? Does Steve Alford earn his $1 million a year for poorly coaching the Iowa Hawkeyes who will probably not make the NCAA tournament (again)? They 'earn' their money too, and have to save for retirement (or they would except for the fact they already did save a few million).

My dictionary defines 'rich' as 'abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds' and defines 'abundant' as 'present in great quantity, more than adequate'. So rich people, unlike super-rich people, still have to save for their retirement, or borrow money to buy a new car. So what? That still does not take away from the fact that they are doing both out of an abundant income compared to most of the rest of us in this rich nation.

Based on the education that is required to acheive and maintain the position, based on the degree of responsibility, and even on the scarcity of persons qualified to do the job.

Your "definition" lacks any objective standards - "more than adequate" would make most all Americans rich by world standards.

It sounds like you think anyone who has more than you is rich.

are rich.

Physician is only one example. That's why I compared one janitor to another, but I have been to doctor visits where they did not seem to do much of anything, but they still want their big fee. I worked as a temp beside people who were making more than twice what I did. Never saw them earning it for the most part. Plenty of higher wage people do not necessarily 'earn' their wage differential. Some do, but it is not a given.

I am not saying that rich is an absolute term, but my objective standard is 'making more money than 80% of the rest of your neighbors'. Thus, there will be a different level to it in San Fransisco, NYC or any other metro area.

And I think it is important for Americans to realize that they are rich by world standards, and that we should enjoy our wealth instead of tearing up the world and ourselves trying to get more, more, more.

You've basically split the world in people who make more than median, and people who make less. It ignores the fact that there is a hell of a difference between earning $100,000 a year and earning 2 million a year - or more.

If you think physicians don't do much of anything, don't go to one. You'll see how valuable their time is.

Why does one janitor earn more than another? Aside from issues of experience and so on, probably because one worksfor a more prosperous company. Why is it more prosperous? Because it earns more.

But since by world standard you too are rich, none of this should be a problem for you.

Median would be half. I am talking about 80-20.

Actually, in my example, both janitors are working for the government. One for the city, and one for the school district. The temp and the non-temp are working for the same company.

I am not denying that there is a hell of a difference between the rich and the giga-rich. I am denying that only the giga-rich should be considered rich. Just because the rich are not giga-rich, does not mean they are not rich.

It's hard to remember the 3rd world when you are working right beside people who are making so much more money at the exact same company, and who often knew less and did less.

Sometimes companies like Haliburton and my local utility do not 'earn' more money - they swindle more money or squeeze it out of the poor and middle class. Their latest rate increase fell more heavily on the poor - just like their last one.

you earn an income by having someone willing to pay you for your work. the woman who cleans my apartment makes $50/hour, and she earns that because she provides a service to me that I am willing to pay $50/hour for. Therefore, by definition, she earns it.

I earn my salary (which would make be 'rich' according to many people on this thread) because my clients feel they get more value from me that I cost them. the minute they don't feel that way, they will stop paying me for my services.

Does my insurance company 'earn' the money they get from me, or do they rip me off? I say the latter. Just because every other insurance company is running the same scam does not mean the scammer that I eventually over-pay is earning it.

By the way you just stated it a CEO is earning his money too because there is a board of directors willing to pay him. Never mind that they are all in bed together, or just plain insane (as the people who regularly pay these college coaches millions of dollars, until they fire them and then pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars to do nothing - are they getting their money's worth, or is this all just one majorly fu$%ed up system? I say the latter.) and often-times making their money by nefarious means.

Are you really going to tell me that you pay somebody $50 an hour to clean your house AND that you are somehow still 'not rich'? Because that, too, is fu$%ed up. I can state that quite certainly. "Only rich people can afford to pay $50 an hour for somebody to clean their apartment." Then again, what is a rich guy doing in an apartment instead of a house? Yer blowin the curve zax :spank:

I am not certain about the 'many' people on this thread either, because I feel pretty alone in this. Maybe one other DUer has my working-class back.

Of course, I make my living off of other people's taxes. I'm not sure the taxpayers feel they are getting their money's worth from me, to say nothing of some others who use their sick leave like it is vacation and other higher paid workers who I often see sitting around gabbing or playing spider solitaire. To say nothing of people who get their highly paid positions because they are related to the boss.

I know many very middle class people who occassionally use housecleaning services.

Again, it suonds like you think RICH Is anyone earning more than you.

What else do they do or have? Next you will say "I know many very middle class people"
who own $400,000 houses
who eat out all the time
who goto Disneyland or the Carribean
who own a Lexus or a Hummer
who own summer homes

If we are trading accusations I would say it sounds to me like you think everybody who is not on the Fortune 400 is not rich, and maybe even some of them are not rich.

I know one person who I would put in the middle-middle class, and not only does she not hire somebody to clean her house - she actually cleans other people's houses on the side. Is there no such thing as the upper middle class, or is everyone below the median income 'destitute' in your eyes?

who own $400,000 houses - sometimes - that's not a bad price for a home in Seattle
who eat out all the time - no
who goto Disneyland or the Carribean - not regularly - maybe once
who own a Lexus or a Hummer - no
who own summer homes - no

And yes, I certainly think there's an upper middle class. You're the one who broke it into rich vs everyone else.

and defined 'rich' as only the top .5%
and you that said "very" middle class when you described what I thought of as "upper" middle class.

Of course "middle class" remains undefined. :-)

it is worth it to me to pay someone to clean my apartment twice a month. I despise it so much, it is a good use of my money, to me.

I got your working-class back back hfojvt!:hi:

I should buy you a :beer: and a :donut:

if income classes are local, and you define 'middle class' as those in the 25th to 75th percentile of income in the area (in this case the District of Columbia) I am very definately middle class, I don't know how else to define it. and in several suburban counties, I would barely reach the median household income, since I am, by definition, a household, I am therefore middle class.

Of course, when you consider that fully 1/3rd of my take home pay goes directly to my landlord, another tenth to the good people at FAFSA, and a tenth to utilities, it's not all that much, when you really think about it.

And anyone who owns a home in the District I guess is out of your range for middle class, my one bedroom basement apartment is worth about $400,000, if it was to go on the market. And it's not that nice (my mom stays in a hotel, ever since my neighbor got stabbed on my front stoop)

so yes, I pay someone $100 a month for two hours of cleaning. It's worth it to me. and it's well below the going rate (I know babysitters who claim $30/hour in this town)

Sure, I'd be well off in Dubuque, but I don't live there, do I?

and empirical data?

term paper-itis, I guess.

KILL ALL RICH PEOPLE. and by RICH PEOPLE, I mean ANYONE WITH MORE MONEY THAN ME. Just to be safe, we should include everyone else who has the same amount of money as me, they might overtake me soon, and then I'd be poor again!

I, for one, never said anything about killing. It is they who do the killing.

(Sorry, that last line was from Trek's "City on the Edge of Forever" I had to put that in there.)

And I am almost alone in saying that the top 20% are rich too.
I certainly never said 'anyone who has more income than me'. I said, someone who has 5 times as much income as me, and the rest of DU did not jump in to defend me either. (More like a Confederacy of Riches.) And not just more income than lower-middle class me, but 2.5 times the national median average. Sure there are neighborhoods with much higher median incomes. Does that mean people near the median in those neighborhoods are middle class, or working class? No, to me it means they live in a neighborhood or suburb, where most of the rest of the country cannot afford to live.

BTW, I agree with your definition of middle class, and said it would vary by metro area. However, I also introduced the fact that 1 in 5 workers in NYC makes less than $10 an hour. However, 25-75 is the middle class (although I would go 20-80, with 20-40 being lower middle class, 40-60 being middle middle class, and 60-80 being upper middle class). It is just that, to me, people in the upper middle class are not as solidly middle class as those in the lower middle class.

Don't tell the manager of the one-room kitchenless bachelor apartment I barely manage to afford at $700 a month (the only one I could get thanks to fucked-up-by-my-ex-wife credit) that, she'll wonder why my rent has to be late so often.

If you mention it to her, she won't buy "medicine", "major car repairs" and "child support" as excuses for my late payment anymore!

And when I'm eating that microwave mac and cheese while worrying over how to make ends meet here in Los Angeles, I'll just have to remember that I'm really rich, and when I can't pay my bills, I'll just tell the collectors that, and we'll all have a hearty laugh at my silly rich self!

Look, I sympathize with your plight, but if you think a guy like me is rich, you're out of your mind.

In LA, you may, in fact, be lower middle class, perhaps the top end of lower middle class. I think I already conceded that it depends upon regional costs, particularly for housing.

Obviously too, income is not the only factor. A childless single guy such as myself at $60,000 is richer (monetarily) than a family of three with the same income. A person with my income who has $30,000 in the bank and a house that's paid for is richer than a person with my income who has no savings and is paying rent. A person with good credit and no chronic medical conditions is richer at $60,000 than somebody with bad credit, and chronic medical conditions.

However, as an economist, I invoke 'ceterus paribus' or 'all other things being equal'. And thus the person with a chronic medical condition, bad credit and car troubles and income of $60,000 is much better off than the same person would be at income of $20,000.

I am not the one with a plight. I just deliberately cut my income in half, by retiring to part time work, before the age of 45 :woohoo: The way I see it, you make enough money to be rich, but are not because you have been hit with some catastrophes like divorce and bad health. Plus you live in a high cost area.

$100,000.00 a year is rich.

it's hard to know what something is like unless you've been there.

I can't think of anything more misguided than a declaration falsely presented as fact that I'm actually rich or something. Pretty laughable actually. I have a small old home, used car, and not a whole lot of discretionary income to toss around. We aren't suffering, so I'll agree with that, but I don't think a living situation of 'not suffering miserably', or one where you simply have the mandatory comforts such as a car, roof, heat and hot water, warrant a false declaration of being called 'rich'. Not by a long shot.

then median household income where you live is $40,000. So you make 2.5 times as much as 50% of your neighbors. How can that not be at least upper middle class? I would love to see the numbers on your expenses because it is mind boggling that you have little discretionary income. I would also love to see the housing market there. I am guessing that there are lower cost neighborhoods, but people with higher incomes do not want to live there. Possibly I cannot blame them. I looked at some $15,000 houses when I was house hunting, but there was no way I was gonna live in one of those neighborhoods, but it is nice to make enough money to have that choice.
Since college, however, I have never considered a car a 'mandatory' comfort. I only bought one in 1996 because I wanted to 'move up' in the world.

You seem to think it does.

Not being poor only means that one is not poor.

$100,000 after taxes per month = approximately $6000 per month.

Mortgage/Taxes: $1800
Daycare(2): $1885
Electric: $150
Garbage/Water: $75
Phone Bill: $80
Cable/Modem: $130
Heating Bill: $225
Car Payment 1: $150
Car Payment 2: $150
Car Insurance: $160
Food @ 125/w: $500
Diapers/Clothes: $150
Gas For Autos: $320
Medicine/Copay: $100
Car/Home Repairs: $100
------------------------
Totals: $5975
Income: $6000
Left If Lucky: $25

So as you can see, we have little if nothing left at the end of each month.

Now if you think simply living in a circa 1925 2 bedroom 1 bath house with a phone and cable tv/internet while having a crappy car for each parent to commute to work is financially rich, then I would seriously question your definition. That does not make one rich: It makes one simply not poor.

your population sample is too small - 18,000 people. It's like looking at the median income of the richest neighborhood in this county. Show me that it holds for the whole county or state.
And this:
Average Household Entertainment Expenditures $4050 per year $2207.08 per year
does not make them look middle class when they seem able to spend twice as much on entertainment as the national average.
Oh, and check this out:
Average Household Retail Expenditures $33894 per year $18600.46 per year

An extra $15,000 per year in retail spending, more than my annual income. Now why would I think those people are rich? Of course, it is always possible that a bunch of $300,000-500,000 people are pulling the average up. But just down the road they are not as rich
http://realestate.yahoo.com/Neighborhoods/detail.html?csz=Netcong,NJ
or even a little closer
http://realestate.yahoo.com/Neighborhoods/detail.html?csz=Dover,NJ

Yes, facts are helpful, but it's not honest to sift facts to support your argument.

Talk about disingenuous.

First off, Denville is where I friggin live. Second of all, please see the two links below for my two neighboring towns. Third of all, you're the one who falsely claimed that I make 2.5 times more than 50% of my neighbors, based on your completely false analysis of median income being 40,000. You were utterly and completely wrong with that figure, period.

So now that I show you the true facts, you have the nerve to accuse me of sifting facts. Oh really? The town I live in and my neighboring towns' median incomes are over 80,000, but I'm sifting somehow? Wanna talk about sifting? Sifting is you providing a link to Dover, which is a mainly minority mini-city with many poor people, and providing a link to 'Netcong', of which isn't even barely a town at all. Cherry-picking those two means it was YOU, not me, doing the sifting in a desperate attempt to support your failed argument. And furthermore, Denville isn't by a HUGE longshot a rich neighborhood. Neither is Boonton, neither is Rockaway. To call them 'Rich' neighborhoods just proves how much you are debating my area with utter ignorance to any reality of it. I think it makes you look really silly to keep throwing these declarations out there that you have no legitimacy towards.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/Neighborhoods/detail.html?csz=rockaway,NJ

http://realestate.yahoo.com/Neighborhoods/detail.html?csz=boonton,NJ

I also notice that you so conveniently ignored my other reply to you, of which I completely decimated your outlook of my situation.

I will repeat again: Not being poor, does not make one 'Rich'. You keep trying to twist it as such, but it is beyond absurd to try and classify it that way.

(and :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: at your 'Denville's a rich town' absurdity)

Is the average poor? Is the rest of the nation poor?

Denville is where you CHOSE to live, unless that is some kind of job requirement. A higher than average median income looks to me like richer people are flocking there to get away from the poor people and minorities who are pushed out or bought out and forced to live somewhere else.

When I finally got what I considered to be a really good-paying job, that started at $11.3 an hour, I looked for houses in a 50 mile radius to find something that was affordable. Perhaps you are already at your driving limits, considering how much you spend on gas, but the towns I picked do not look that much further.

As for your other post. I had not read it yet. The facts seemed more interesting. Plus I made a valid response in that you were narrowly defining neighbors. Unfortunately that site does not give numbers for larger regions, like your county of residence. But what's in a county? I moved to a different state from the one I worked in to get more affordable housing.

Again, is it really necessary to resort to pejoratives - frigging, silly, twist, absurdity, etc.? I make 10-25,000 a year and am not poor. You spend $20,000 a year on day care. Most people I know COULDN'T AFFORD that. People who can afford things I, and my working class peers cannot, seem rich to me. No amount of derision from you is gonna change that. But the rich love to cast their derision on the poor and working class don't they?

You appear to want to refuse to understand the concept of not every town in every state being equal. It's like you are arguing from inside some small bubble or something. I'll waste no more time trying to show you the err of your logic. It has been an immense waste of time already.

But all I will say, is that I'm not close to being rich. You can say it all you want, you'd still be completely and totally wrong.

Again, the circumstance of simply NOT BEING POOR, and NOT LIVING IN THE TOWNS AND MANNER THAT POOR PEOPLE DO, does not make one rich.

So silly. This has just all been so ridiculously silly.

I have made a score of posts, long posts in this thread. Seemingly without changing the mind of a single rich person.

Next thing we need to have another argument, about whether the people in the 2nd quintile are poor or not. You seem to think they are.

It is rich people who are in a bubble. Spending all their money on things most other people cannot afford and then thinking they are not rich.

Towns only become poor around a metro area, because richer people do not want to live so close to the canaille. A luxury most of us cannot afford.

"I have made a score of posts, long posts in this thread. Seemingly without changing the mind of a single rich person."

Now golly gee, why do you think that is?

:spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

$1200 mortgage/tax payment
$1000 daycare/month
$300 for car payment
$130 for gas (house)
$250 for car gas
$80-120 for electric depending on the season
$80 for cable (to work from home)
$12 for tv cable
$500 a month for food (for family of four)
$200 a month in insurance (life car ..etc)
$500 a month in health insurance
$200 a month in child college fund
$1200 a month in retirement fund money...(my husband and I have NO PENSION..we must sock away cash or starve in old age)
$120 cell phone bill (this is for my husband's job but can't expense it)
$30 garbage/sewage


Now this doesn't count when the tires on the minivan go....and other expenses like my son's $200/a month braces bill...and other incidentals like the $100 a month in copays for my and my kids asthma medications...but it gives you a sampling...

We aren't rich...and we worry all the time because we live very very close to the bone...and yet we see people who are living so large and we think we are doing something wrong.

We also know we are very lucky right now...but we also know that we might not make as much later or one layoff would change the equation entirely...

Having a high income from your labor is completely different from having a high income from other people's labor. Income from your labor can stop in an instant from any number of causes, from being fired to becoming disabled. Income from other people's labor is much harder to stop. It requires either overspending (hard or impossible for the über-wealthy), the inability to resist being raided, or a complete change in the basis of society.

now if the folks making $100K a year put away some cash and save and perhaps invest wisely...they may one day have a bit more financial independence from working...let us say they might be able to retire and not have to work at WalMart for extra cash for their prescriptions.

The truly rich do not worry about healthcare, housing or anything...

My mother in law worked for an heiress and my MIL's job was to take care of writing out the checks for the household goods and the small charities...that was it...the woman was so rich that she had people who watched her money.

I have a family member who manages trusts...there are folks out there that make millions of dollars a year in interest on their trusts...they do not have to worry about anything...that is rich.

it is extremely rich. Obviously if I made $100,000 a year in my city, in my state, I would be rich. How can anybody deny that?

OMC was right. This is ridiculous.

See Paris Hilton.

because we have the poor and the lower middle class being so resentful of those who make a bit more money than they do that the infighting keeps them from seeing that the truly rich are laugh their asses off.

It's people over the median income who are doing most of the Republican voting, and they are doing most of the donating (other than PACs). Legislation is written to benefit them, not the lower class.

Yes, of course, it was only my own resentment that kept me working as a temp (for three years, mind you. I might still be working there if I had not left the state of Iowa). It was not the greed and selfishness of the non-temps who thought to themselves "I am not rich. I do not have enough money." and thought far, far more of their own 'problems' than they did about mine. Yeah, my resentment was a way bigger problem than their lack of empathy.

would you be rich?

no.

If you made $100K a year for 30 years and socked away enough cash...you might be comfortable and afford to retire...but rich..hardly.

I have been in the circles of the truly wealthy...they have vacation homes, take vacations that last months and they summer in Italy so that their kids can brush up on their Italian... that is rich.

$100K a year is middle class.

Now there are some people who can stretch the money out...and that is wise money management and that is advisable but it isn't rich.

There are people who make $45K a year and waste most of the money...just like there are folks who make $100K a year and they waste money...but unless you have enough cash equity or cash on hand to live without working...you are not rich.

but that does not prove that I was not rich when I had the job.

What you call 'truly wealthy' I call extremely wealthy. Yes, the $100,000 per year person is poor compared to them, but that does not make them poor. Leaving aside Washington DC, Boston, NYC, LA, etc - places where it is admittedly expensive to live (although, I cannot emphasize this enough, 1 in 5 NYC workers is making less than $10 an hour. If they can live in NYC, then the $100,000 must look like alot to them too.) In this town $100,000 a year would make me 90th percentile in income.

You are not middle class, or even upper-middle class if you make more money than 90% of your neighbors. Median household income is $40,000 in this town, and in this country. Half of the households in this country are living on less than $40,000. Rich means you make more money than most other people. It is not about having enough wealth so that you never have to work or worry - that's not rich. It's independently wealthy.

$17,970 ** $33,314 ** $53,000 ** $83,500 ** $150,499

Those were the quintile breakdowns in 2001. 20% make less than $17,970, 40% make less than $33,314, 60% make less than $53,000, 80% make less than $83,500, and 95% make less than $150,499. Explain to me, how a person can make more than 90% of other Americans and still be considered 'middle' class. How can the 'middle' be so close to the top?

According to wiki, only 1.5% of all households make more than $250,000, but according to you a person or family making $300,000 a year is not rich, because they still have to work for their money. If I had $250,000 in the bank and was living on the interest of $12,500 (my current annual income) would I be considered rich? By your definition - yes.

Would you mind terribly defining a few of the terms you used in the first substantive sentence of your post which you appear to have passed over?

By this, I mean, the term "decent", the term "justifiable", and the term "parasites", as used in the first sentence of your post.

Thanks in advance.

until I realized it was a simple lack of megalomania. Once you reach a certain point, money isn't just money, it's power. The ability to do whatever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want. Me, I prefer to set goals and reach them. Half the fun is in the journey.

We are "the people." We don't exert power as individuals, only collectively.

I think a lot about why we cling to the "individualistic" delusion in our culture. ALL other cultures -- Asian, African, European, South American, Latin American -- are more "collectivistic" than are we. Native cultures everywhere are "collectivist."

Why do we cling to the MYTH of the "American Dream" -- if YOU just work hard and are independent then YOU will become a success. This is a damn lie.

Your post just turned that question a bit in my mind -- it isn't so much why do WE cling to the individualistic delusion -- the question is why would the people in power -- those who control the media and write the history books want us to believe that delusion?

And the answer is obvious -- by getting the people to maintain the attitude that everything I accomplish I have done for myself -- that keeps the people from having power -- because we only express our power collectively. No collective -- No power.

Power to the People

maybe that's why I've always been a bit seperate from the system. Just because my dream doesn't fit the mold of the 'american dream'. :)

American Dream (c) - A male earning more $$ and having a more prestigious job title (more cerebral, less physical) than one's father.

I am sure it is in the American Heritage Dictionary just that way...

And, no, that is not any dream I've ever had...

:hi:

to go back to school, that isn't hard to do at the moment.
T'was funny the one day when his car was in the shop and I had to drive my dad to school though... I had to mightily resist the urge to yell something as he was walking away like, "Don't let the bigger kids pick on you!" or "Do you have your lunch money?" :)

you accompany this post with a picture of a self-made multi,multi millionaire. At what point did he 'earn' his multi-millions?

to get away from huge crowds of screaming fans...

where 'the ladder' is other people. the carrot is always there...people go for it...and if others don't, they think that's good enough reason for those people to spend their lives in utter poverty. it's ok that they work in the worst jobs and do not make enough money to support themselves. this attitude is very prevalent.

Top 2% is $250,000 or higher
Top 3% is $200,000 - $249,999
Top 6% is $150,000 - $199,000

Did I get that right?

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new06_000.htm

So I'm not sure how people here are defining the word "rich". Someone who has just finished a surgical residency, for instance, may suddenly be making $200,000 a year, but he may have no savings and may also be $200,000 in debt, making his net worth precisely zero. He is definitely not rich, plus he's working 60 hours a week.

Yet people here seem to be lumping him in with the Paris Hiltons of the world.

over $100k are rich (just not super rich).

Or that those in the top 2% are rich.

It's an interesting discussion, if we can agree on what the terms mean.

The rich and ruthless have always been with us and always will. Some in this thread had advocated revolution -- how long after "the revolution" will it take for us to become a soviet style repulic, with the same priviledged few and struggling masses?

America has always been in flux between serving the masses and catering to the whims of the super rich.

If you want to see social change -- scare the upper middle class. They are the ones that do the rich's bidding (sometimes begrudgingly), they are the ones who march in lock step based on some kind of fantasy that they are just like the rich.

Scare the hell out of the upper middle class that the massses are coming to burn down their homes and you will see progressive people elected into office. Scare the hell out of the upper middle class and then they will care about health care, poverty, etc.

My first post,I have been lurking for months and you guys have saved me from dispair in this world gone mad.

I love this post and whole heartedly agree with the author, however, in this discussion I am not hearing the reality. If you attack the upper middle,our peers, you are a terrorist and the military could rightfully shoot you down. That is just the same old war between peers.

If we put pressure on the uber rich they will move away...anywhere they want to go, they are not dependant on us anymore.

The difference between the real rich and the rest of us? They have never had financial insecurity, they have never felt hopeless, they do not know how hard the rest of us struggle.

I am ready to live sustainably. But life with out our flourishing economy will look nothing like this orgy of consumerism. Any debt could likely sink your ship if we upset the apple cart as many are suggesting.
I am all for it myself, but many people would suffer and chaos would insue.

The key to more gradual change, lies in taxing WEALTH instead of income.

...but I must take exception to this:

"If we put pressure on the uber rich they will move away...anywhere they want to go, they are not dependant on us anymore."

Access to the US as a market of consumers is an extremely lucrative privilege. Yes, the uber-rich are still dependent on us.

Welcome to DU

:hi:

...is the answer. Redistribution of income and wealth to avoid the corrosive and destructive dead hand of the past (the aristocracy of inherited unearned income) and corporate networks more powerful than the state itself.

Redistribution of wealth and the reimposition of national limits on the export of capital are necessary and normal in the democratic, constitutional nation state. Corporations and the uber rich seek to transfer all taxation to those who must work for a living. The corporate share of tax revenues has dwindled greatly and essentially been transferred to working people.

The truth is that the uber rich elite families controlling the instruments of power are deliberately destroying any institution or tradition capable of limiting their drive to total arbitrary power.

Their targets are:

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

the nation-state

the 50 states individually

citizenship as a civic identity

the electoral process

non conforming elected officials, judges, and teachers.

due process and access to the courts by ordinary people, whether criminal or civil in nature.

independent/non-conforming social organizations, whether political, economic or social.

The family.

Social services.

Public education.

Public health.

Public safety.

independent media.

borders whether economic, political, or geographic.

By destroying these, one can handily impose tyranny over those who manage to provide for themselves and loved ones by working their butts off.

IMHO this tyranny is already imposed, what passes for politics for the last decade or more is largely a charade. Especially since 2000.

America "land of the free" has more people in the penal system, per capita, than any country on earth. 5 percent of the people, 25 percent of those whose liberty has been taken.

The uber rich elites have more in common with the reactionary restoration elites who fought democratic notions of government during the 18th and 19th Centuries than they do with the founding fathers and the principles underpinning democratic government.

<<<<<The key to more gradual change, lies in taxing WEALTH instead of income.>>>>>>>>

When you look at the wealth of the top ten per cent of our citizens, you are not seeing moneys posted on a W-2 or earned income. Taxes for social security and medicare are paid only on earned income. An individual can can have a vast income and not pay one penny for these valuable programs while another and poorer individual can pay a hefty share of his needed earnings for SS and Medicare.

That is just one example of a huge number of inequities in raw and unregulated capitalism. The answer here is to begin a progressive program of wealth distribution that does not punish workers who earn sustaining wages and are kept in that position by the system.

The people who make our laws have a huge disconnect with those who are subject to their fallout.

Some form of socialism combined with capitalism is kinder and fairer. The word socialism carries a connection with the word communism. Therefore any socialism (just the word) can and is used to stir up fear in the electorate. Rich is an old term and conjures up a mind's eye of an evil guy sitting in an office with bucks flowing out of the safe. Rich today is money the government cannot find or tax under the present system.

A whole lot of reforming, not a revolution, needs to be begun.

A comic strip today has a character, recovering from a stroke, hearing his MD say that his mind and his mouth are not connected. Stroke victim opines that he could have a career as a politician. Need some new sort of politicians as well and mindset of reform.

The key is indeed taxing wealth, not income.

Gee with at least 10 posts in this thread encouraging revolution, is it any wonder why feds may be reading this board?

sorry to disagree-- and I am not rich!

There's a difference between inherited wealth and self-made wealth. Perhaps many or most are self-interested shits, but you don't address good works and philanthropy by mega rich who have good and decent intentions. How about Bill Gates? He is giving most all of his accumulated wealth away, donating his billions to fight disease in developing nations and investing in computer science education here in America. Or Warren Buffet who is leaving his wealth to the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation? How about the good works of the Rockefeller family during the Great Depression? I went to an excellent tuition-free college (Cooper Union, in NYC) which was created by a mega-rich guy Peter Cooper, and runs on endowment he left. One of the students in the class below mine came from a mega-rich family, and they are among the most generous"patron of the arts" in America, funding artists, galleries, scholarships, museums, etc.

I can't believe you believe all of that above. Oh yes, there are many many many rich, amoral shits out there. But sweeping generalizations to stir up class warfare are not particularly helpful or accurate. Trust me, there are plenty of poor people who would become horrible, heartless shits if they hit it rich.

I wholeheartedly agree

You just don't see it because you live in it. There's always been class warfare. And we always lose.

There was a guy who owned the most prosperous automobile lighting company in the US during the '30s. It was prosperous because of how he squeezed the workers, and the fact that, as a member of the board of several local banks he was able to get his own money out before they crashed at the start of the depression. He was fine, everyone else was screwed. Yet later he was considered a very wonderful person for donating to charity. Nobody seemed able to figure out that the need for charity would have been far smaller if it hadn't been for him!

The rich have an entire party and a conservative movement to push their agenda ...for free.

The poor have nothing but to live in a country that eats the poor.

No spokesman, no think tanks. Nada. And its getting worse.

http://mediafilter.org/shadow/S43/S43grand.html

SHADOW: And people would resist?

LEWIS: Well obviously. And unions were created. We used to have a saying: "If you don't get the asses of the masses out in the street, forget it." And you get enough of them out there, the ruling class gets scared. That's the only thing they're afraid of, is numbers. Numbers! See, one thing you have to understand.

There's very few people who understand, especially people who deal in outlaw newspapers and magazines. The ruling class is smarter than you, and they're more creative. And if you forget that lesson, you go down the drain. Because if they weren't, they wouldn't be around as long as they have been and as strong as they have been. It's not an accident. Not an accident. Never underestimate your opponent. They'll tell you that if you're a fighter. Never underestimate. You can poke fun at 'em, you can do satire, but they work 24 hours a day. It's like Lord Acton said: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I say that power works 24 hours to remain in power. Throughout history. Go back to kings, feudal times. The same thing. While you and I, here we're bullshitting, and then we go out: "Tompkins Square, blah, blah, blah..." Their fucking machine works 24 hours a day, man. It grinds, it grinds. Otherwise they don't stay in power, they topple.

My question is whose job is it to maintain the yawning gulf between "The Rich" and all the bodies they leave in their wake?
Whoever these people are should be calculated in when discussing the inevitable worldwide uprising.

Are people like Ted Kennedy, Frank Lautenberg, Jay Rockefeller, Maria Cantwell, Jon Corzine, John Kerry just like us?



They are the uber rich.... Well... They don't have to "work" for a living...

we'll take all of the millionaires we can get. we have so few.

and, while I am lovin gates and his fellows who are publically giving away their excess dough, it is a speck in the 84% of wealth held by the top 20%.

:hi:

eom

out of the dot com boom - but still lots of young Microsoft retirees around these parts.

that they choose to work for a living. After all, Corzine and Cantwell made their own money (and Lautenberg doesn't belong on this list, he's not THAT rich)

It doesn't matter what you have, it's what you do with what you have that makes you interesting.

A $10 billion dollar company...

If I had his money I'd burn mine...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Data_Processing%2C_Inc.

lists assets of between 38 and 90 million. Yes, that's a ton of fucking money, but it's only good enough for 6th on the senate list. He may have founded a ten billion dollar company, but he doesn't own any of it any more according to his report (you can read it, if you want: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00000659_2005.pdf) he actually made more from Genentech in 2004 than ADP (although he does have a nice $184,000 pension from ADP) From selling securities, he made about ten million in 04, a lot, but really not that much, when you really think about it, I mean that's a middle reliever in baseball money.

they're at the top, and why they should not be allowed to lead.

Does Loophole Give Rich Kids More Time on SAT?

Educators Say More Wealthy Students Get Diagnosed With Learning Disabilities to Get More Time on Test More high school students, especially at elite schools, are being diagnosed with learning disabilities in order to get more time to take the SAT and bump up their scores. The College Board no longer flags test-takers who were given special accommodations. (The Associated Press)

by JAKE TAPPER, DAN MORRIS and LARA SETRAKIAN March 30, 2006

When Ali Hellberg, 19, was in prep school, she said several of her classmates obtained notes from psychologists diagnosing them with learning disabilities, even though they didn't have any learning problems. They faked learning disabilities to get extra time to take the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or SAT, in the hopes of getting a higher score, she said."I had a friend who is a good math student but is no math brain, and she got extended time and got a perfect score on her math SAT," Hellberg said. That friend now attends an Ivy League school. Some call this scheme the rich-kids loophole. With intense competition to get into Ivy League and other elite colleges, students say they need nearly perfect SAT scores, as well as great grades and impressive extra-curricular activities. A rising chorus of critics say high school students from wealthy ZIP codes and elite schools obtain questionable diagnoses of learning disabilities to secure extra time to take the SATs and beef up their scores. Hellberg believes that to get into Harvard or Princeton, she'd need to score at least a 1500. The highest SAT score is 1600. "I got below 1400 and I knew I didn't have a shot getting into an Ivy despite my grades and extra-curriculars," she said. 'Hired Guns' Give Diagnosis Approximately 300,000 students will take the three-hour-and-forty-five-minute SAT this Saturday; about 30,000 taking the test this year will be given special accommodations, including extra time. For decades, the College Board, which administers the SAT, has allowed up to twice as much time to accommodate students who have legitimate learning disabilities, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. But with college admissions more competitive than ever, guidance counselors and other educators say privileged kids have gamed the system.

http://members.aol.com/clinictest/SATnightline.html

and


Paying for a Disability Diagnosis to Gain Time on College Boards
by Jane Gross, New York Times, September 25, 2002
For more articles on disabilities and special ed visit www.bridges4kids.org .


Dr. Dana Luck and Dr. Steven Mattis work in a modest suite of offices here, in the shadow of Westchester County's fanciest mall. The sign on their door reads "Center for Neuropsychological Services." These days, for the two educational psychologists, that often means the diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities.

Clients pay $2,400 for a battery of tests and an evaluation, $200 an hour for psychotherapy and $250 an hour more if Dr. Luck or Dr. Mattis visit a high school or the Educational Testing Service to lobby for a learning-disabled student who is not getting the special services the law requires.

Lately, Drs. Luck and Mattis are seeing many parents and college-bound teenagers who want only one thing: a diagnosis that will entitle the youngster to additional time to take the Scholastic Assessment Tests. They assume this has something to do with a recent decision by the College Board to remove the asterisk flagging the scores of disabled students who take the exam under various special conditions.

"More and more people are asking legitimately," Dr. Luck said. "But more and more are also asking because, why not ask? It's part of our culture that every point matters, so they're looking for any kind of edge," including time and a half or double time on the stressful three-hour exam.


http://www.bridges4kids.org/articles/9-02/NYTimes9-25-0...

Warren Buffet

It irks Jimmy too...

well - if you are only talking about the people who are born rich with a trust fund.


Not all people who we would consider rich have always been rich. While it's probably not difficult to forget what it's like to have to worry/struggle - I think it would be pretty different to live ones entire life with more than enough money - than it would be to "earn" it (one way or another).

We can pay our bills, send our kids to private school (which will be changing next fall--public school is just as good and a hell of a lot cheaper--long story), and eat well. There was a time when the credit cards helped us eat, and we were struggling to pay our bills. We never went hungry, but we were close. We never went without needed medication, but that was because of my mom sending the money. Now we can pay her back for all those years of helping us out.

On the other hand, we aren't rich-rich. That idea's laughable. We'll never be that rich.

Me personally, I'm just hoping to be at least one of those two someday... :)

The best teaching experience I had in college was teaching at Chinle High School on the Navajo Nation Reservation. I loved it. I would've taken the job if Hubby hadn't been in med school.

You know, it's nice to be able to breathe when paying the bills. I wasn't sure we'd ever get to that point, but it's nice. What scares me is that the government considered us middle class when Hubby was in residency--we only survived on credit cards, and I was quite the penny pincher. I don't know how anyone is making it these days.

a truck covered with confederate flag, pro-Bush, anti-liberal bumper stickers, and the 'Welcome to America: Now learn to speak English' bumper sticker was right there in the middle. :) It's just like hey... we were the immigrants here at first. (well... three-quarters of myself is immmigrant. :) As near as I can figure at least. Most anyone who could answer my question as to exactly how much native blood is in my veins is out of contact with me. But I THINK my dad was half.)

they are no longer "one of us"?

That sounds pretty goofy.

They are white collar thieves and will take from the poorest individual if they can get away with it, because its almost like a game to them.

It's very bizarre, but they think everything belongs to them.

Are you suggesting something?

This is unmitigated tripe. I know living, breathing counterexamples to your analysis, and I suspect the only thing that could come out of such a polemic involves a guillotine. I say "your analysis" generously, because I suspect no empirical evidence was used in its construction.

I know there is a wealth imbalance in this country. I know we have a huge problem, and it is getting worse rather than better. This piece, however, is nothing but propaganda. You draw no logical connection whatsoever between the evils you discuss and the wealthiest .5% of the American populace. If what you wish to build is a civil war based on some illusory image of wealth, this is wonderful material. If you want to fix the problem, get to work getting the officials who will do something about it elected.

There is no magic bullet to this problem. Writing polemics won't do it, and violence won't do it. As someone noted above, if you put the poor in the place of the top .5%, you'll find a bunch of new people acting as badly as the old crew. Meet the new boss. The only thing that will effect the change you want is getting in a cadre of pols who will actually tax the rich and set things straight. Will that happen? Probably not. But it is more likely than fomenting insurrection; the police state has advanced too far to be undone by protestors at this point.

were being discussed as a certain subspecies of human. They are not defined by just having money, although they are "within" the top 1/2% of wealth and income. They are born and bred within that peculiar world they have created for themselves, and their environment has been fashioned to shape their view of the world.

This group does not really include individuals like Gates or Buffett -- those are newcomers who might be given probationary status if they met other membership criteria, and they or their heirs might become full members. But even Joe Kennedy's wealth was never enough to buy entry for his family, even though he wanted that status.

These "The Rich," are the masters of the universe, and their spawn. Some play an active role in ruling, some are little more than appreciative collaborators, some are totally useless, but they all share a common and unique experience and sense of being apart from and superior the commoners. A few born in that group may break free and ally themselves with the people, but those are rare.

They have no experience in common with humankind generally. Nothing in their world has ever given them reason to regard us as their equals, and they have every reason to regard us as lesser beings.

"The Rich" are not like Us.

Thank you.

Do you think they regard you as human?

Besides, I'm still not clear on your measure. Top 1 or 2% of what - inherited wealth? Annual income? What?

seems like you have just as much disdain for them as you think they have for you. And who's to say that yours is the real experience, and not theirs?

reverse snobbery is still snobbery.

Well said.

I am not in the I Want Italian Food Let's Fly To Rome For Dinner set by by damn near anyone's account I am rich. I wasn't ALWAYS rich and have never forgotten what it was like to struggle and stretch the food stamps. But I'm rich now and I still vote Democratic, give to charity and provide employment for a great number of people.

have you no shame? property is theft, you thief! go back to freeperland where your type belong!

:+

A "welfare queen" for lefties, if you will.

They act "rich" just like "The Rich". They might not be buying multi million dollar boats, but they have always lived in a nice house, had nice toys, had nice cars, and never had to worry about surviving. They may even have hired help, at least part time. Children growing up in this environment may not have to try hard to get ahead. They just have to graduate from college to get a relatively easy job commanding a high salary. Even if they choose not to work or choose a lower paying profession, their parents will support them enough so that they can afford an above average place to live, wear nice clothes, and not worry about things that most people with such a job might have.
Isn't it just a matter of scale?

...
So their parents, or grandparents, or great grandparents worked hard to gather wealth for their posterity. I'm not sure that this should be a crime, or punished or discouraged.

You could claim that it is unfair that they won the birth-canal lottery, but as any person with a modicum of intelligence will tell you, life isn't fair. Some people are born with Down Syndrome, some are born with great athletic ability, some with retardation, etc.

Myself, I started off very poor, but thanks to a good brain (again, by sheer genetic luck) I was able to gain a bit a money, invest it, and build wealth. If I want to leave it all to my kids and they use it to snort coke off a hookers ass while sailing their yacht, what is the harm?

Now, if you're just talking about taking down the mega-rich who use their wealth to hurt other people then you'll get no disagreement from me.

How many middle class Americans can the planet support? With that degree of wealth comes a certain level of consumption which requires tremendous amounts of resources which requires extraordinary amounts of energy to obtain which creates extreme pollution and the catastrophic climate change which we are experiencing today.

We all know the statistic that America consumes 25% of the world's resources with only 4% of the world's population. Well what does that mean as it relates to our daily lives? How much of the world do we colonize with our daily habits of conspicuous consumption?

Yes the uber-wealthy are the primary culprits but there are millions of others who are using way more than their share. Simply by living in this country with all of its requisites most of us are using too much but it's important to acknowledge that and limit our damage.

If someone's parents or grandparents starts a successful company selling a nationwide or worldwide product that eventually makes millions in profits every year, is that really different than someone's parents or grandparents starting a successful single location restaurant or store that allows their descendents to enjoy an above average lifestyle whether they work or not?
The really rich descendents may have a lot of money and power can come with that money, but they choose to use it how they wish. Some may hurt people. Some may benefit a great many people. Others may just spend a lot of money on toys, but at least some of that goes back into the economy.
It would be great if we could encourage ethical business practices and widespread philanthropy amongst the rich. Maybe, we'll just have to increases their taxes though.

her father was a well paid engineer. She was an only child and spoiled beyond comprehension.

She graduated from college, got a job...got fired for incompetence.
Went to another state..found a guy to marry and literally sucked his 401k dry to buy her "dream house"
her parents furnished it so that their "baby" wouldn't go without...
Kept footing the bill until the daddy retired and guess what...the money spigot started to dry up...

When "baby's" hubby got laid off...the floor almost fell out...and she literally went grey overnight...because mommy and daddy weren't going to bail her out...because while they footed the little luxuries like furniture here and there...they couldn't make the astronomical mortgage payment on "baby's" house...

she and her hubby landed on their feet...but learned nothing from the lesson...but when her parents die...she will eat up the money left and then she will learn her lesson the very hard way...

"The Rich And The Super-Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg
(Who really owns America? How do they keep their wealth and their power?)

Interestingly enough, this book's copyright is 1968, but it could just as well have been written today. He also wrote a book thirty years prior to this one titled "America's Sixty Families".

and come away thinking... No wonder America is so fucked up.
ANYONE who is dependent on a salary to stay afloat is NOT among the Über class. It seems to me that many here do not understand that "wealth" like "race" is a construct.

what we tell ourselves, and what we believe. I am not shocked to read about the extent the top percentage of wealth controls all aspects of life in this country, nor how impenetrable that class is. What shocks me is that I seem to have vaguely 'known' it forever, and yet never heard or saw such a cumulative account. The pervasive 'common knowledge'...makes me want to scream my bloody head off.....

Maybe we're not that different from the Republicans after all.

and you're easily looking at a FR post.

Than the elites behind the curtain. You are a wanna-be thief, kidnapper and murderer.

The OP-despite being way too quick with generalizations-didn't say anything like that. Blame some of the other folks in this thread.

That said, if I was in power, I'd do my best to redistribute some of the wealth (not income), and leave the Paris Hiltons of the world with "enough to do anything they want, but not enough to do nothing." I think Warren Buffett said that when referring to how much of his fortune he was going to leave his kids.

"That said, if I was in power, I'd do my best to redistribute some of the wealth (not income), and leave the Paris Hiltons of the world with "enough to do anything they want, but not enough to do nothing." I think Warren Buffett said that when referring to how much of his fortune he was going to leave his kids."

Is this not theft? Will you not kidnap Paris Hilton if she does not comply with your demands? Will you not murder her if she resists your theft? I am not talking about whether she is deserving of her wealth, whether it is best to take it from her, I am questioning the ethics of it. I am having an ethical crisis with my beliefs, how can someone who is a pacifist ever support government?

That's hardly theft. Nor would imprisonment be kidnapping, and the state doesn't inflict capital punishment for tax-related stuff. Chill on the histrionics.

And this isn't LibertarianUnderground, dude. We support government here, just not Republican/oligarchical government.

I guess I am not progressive at all. Pacifism and government are utterly incompatible. Taxation is another word for theft, imprisonment of tax evaders is kidnapping, killing them for resistance during the kidnapping is murder. If I am not willing to do this, no matter how noble the cause is, how can I support others doing it?

it's alittle like watching a fish trying to describe the motivations of a mammal.

Ascribing any manner of motivations to the rich seems a tad silly when you aren't rich, and so have no fucking idea what they think, or what who they are aware of. Not to mention that people become wealthy by a multitude of paths.

Making sweeping broad brush generalizations about a group of people you know little about strikes me as rather ignorant.

Take Chimpy and Poppy, for example. Or the Rockefellers, or Mellon/Scaife, or Coors, or Kaiser, or even the Hiltons. Show me where I am wrong. They are raised as fascists, born and bred in the aristocracy and trained to regard their advantage as their right.

Do you believe that growing up where everything you want is given to you as your birthright is no different than being raised in a world where bare survival is a challenge? If so, tell me why you think "The Rich," despite their upbringing, are actually like the rest of "Us."

... or maybe not. :yoiks:

got it right. In following this thread I am reminded of the bitter words of Phil Ochs:

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal