Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So only the 1% not normal? What about the 1.000001%?
How did you determine? As soon as they reach 1%, they are suddenly not normal?
It’s pretty rich for you to say this while enjoying everything in your life - all are provided by the 1%.
If we make a psychological profile for the extremely rich and the extremely poor, we will notice certain patterns. As Jordan Peterson might say, successful people tend to be more orderly. And certainly, the rich are almost always more orderly than the poor.
So what other traits are common among the rich? Well, they also tend to be highly ambitious and self-motivated. But what causes them to be so ambitious? What drives them? Basically, why does Jeff Bezos get out of bed in the morning?
The reason these people want money is because we associate money with status, power, popularity, etc. Money makes you important, and they want to be important, superior even. Narcissism is the most common personality trait among the rich. Though that doesn't mean narcissism will make you rich, there are plenty of narcissists who are not, but it is one of the many elements which lead to the ambition of the rich.
And you could make psychological profiles for just about any occupation. Think of politicians, actors, musicians, police-officers, lawyers, teachers, prostitutes, etc. Certain professions appeal more to certain types of people.
And let me ask you a question, do you think the very rich are more or less likely to be strongly religious? And what religions are conducive to becoming extremely rich?
The rich are not normal, whether that is a bad thing or a good thing is a matter of opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
LOL. Everybody in US is filthy rich in the eyes of the rest of the world.
In the first place, no. And in the second place, think of a medieval King. He might certainly be impressed by the cell phones and computers and cars and televisions of our poor, but he wouldn't think they were rich. Rich is a comparative social status.
Around 15 years ago I remember reading that rich meant, either having everything you want, or having the means to acquire everything you want... And I told this girl I worked with(we were basically making minimum-wage), that I was rich because I have everything I want. She looked at me like I was crazy.
Our poor are definitely not rich. And they share a similar psychological profile as the poor in other countries, and for the same reasons.
Answer the question you challenged first. In what other countries do citizens go through medical bankruptcies or lose their life savings paying for treatments?
Your question is irrelevant.
Very few countries have freedom of speech, should we follow them?
Unless you can explain to me why other people must be forced to pay for your medical expenses.
Enslaved? Who doesn't know much about American history and slaves? Tell you what though, if people don't get off their butts and seize back their rights and freedoms, but rather choose to sit on their butts and wait for Uncle Sam to meet all their needs, we'll get a good picture of what being enslaved means by the time the Communists, first up Harris, rip through our rights and freedoms.
The poor as a group commit almost all the violent crimes including murders and don’t give a crap about their children and don’t pay their fair share into the society.
I can only assume that you worked for a public company, and thus thee CEO didn't "give himself" a $60M bonus.
However, about 1/2 the idea of your post I can agree with. A privately-held company, it's the owner's money, and he can do whatever he/she wants with it. Our society/government wasn't better because the rich paid a ridiculously high marginal rate. It was better because the gap between boss and a 5 year frontline employee wasn't that huge. It was better because typically we had career and intergenerational employment ... white collar employees rarely changed companies; blue collar moved up the "assembly line" and pay scale, and often their children worked for the same company.
There used to be an ethos that the better the employees did, the better the company did...and it was justified by satisfied customers who would buy more or pay higher prices for a better overall experience.
Again, I'm going to have to explain to everyone WHY the income and therefore wealth gap in the US is so much higher than that in European countries...
For those who think Congress (BOTH parties) encourages policies that result in the rich getting richer... Here's an explanation of WHY that is. (Hint: You yourselves are clamoring for exactly that to happen)...
Quote:
[Economist Anatole] "Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressives taxes creates "a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities."
Got that? If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities.
That's exactly what happens in the US, and that's what's inherently wrong with a progressive tax system; it distorts and exacerbates income/wealth inequality by necessity in order to maximize tax revenue. The Europeans (including the Scandinavians) have figured that out, and therefore rely most heavily on regressive taxes such as VAT and MUCH flatter income tax brackets.
THIS is how European countries tax: regressively. Be sure to read the scatter plot chart and understand what it is telling us. There IS a distinct pattern:
There's even a link to the research on which the Washington Post article is based. It includes numerous additional citations.
In summation... Why don't we just tax regressively like European countries? That removes the incentive for Congress to act in ways that widen the income and therefore wealth gap.
I agree with all that. And yes it was a public company. The board of directors awarded the CEO the 60 million dollar bonus. Of course the CEO was also the Chairman of the Board.
One person on a Board of Directors cannot outvote every other member. The problem is the shareholders themselves are supporting those compensation packages and golden parachutes.
Who are the shareholders? They're overwhelmingly the tens of millions (if not more) of American workers/retirees who have, in aggregate, $29.1 trillion worth of investments in their public and private pension funds and retirement accounts.
So... right back at you American workers and retirees... WHY are your shareholder votes (trillions of dollars worth) going to back the very pay packages and golden parachutes you supposedly claim to hate?
Please explain to me why other people must be forced to pay for your medical expenses.
He can't, unless he advocates slavery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
