A Nation of Entitlements

College Life
21

<p>tobaccoNchocolat:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>People measure wealth in relative terms. That’s why rich people can be miserable, while poor people can be happy: it depends on how they measure themselves against their neighbours.</p>

<p>Yes, while it is true that even 19th century American aristocrats didn’t enjoy the benefits of a George Foreman grill or the internet, no poor American is going to stand by idly while the gap between himself and those in the upper classes increases just because he can tell himself that he’s at least better off than those in the past.</p>

22

<p>^ But what can you do about it?</p>

<p>Just give that person enough money till they are “happy?”</p>

<p>Sure, we all want more, but remember, “more” comes from somewhere…</p>

23

<p>"Here’s a lesson for you, BigEast — the rich need the poor 10,000X more than the poor need the rich.</p>

<p>The rich exploit the poor for labor.
The rich also rely on the poor to buy their products."</p>

<p>What tasks do the poor perform that the rich would not? I think the rich could ring a register at a department store, stock groceries at the supermarket, take the trash to a dumping venue. </p>

<p>The rich possess a skill set that few people have, therefor their labor is worth more. That is not exploitation, that is reward for cultivating skills that few have. </p>

<p>Marxism is dead. Its application has failed, time and again. Communism has never been implemented successfully in modern times. People prefer freedom, not collectivism.The only people who prefer collectivism are either those that directly benefit from it, or those who do not lose their earnings to support such a system. There may be a wild card like Bill Gates who voluntarily uses his massive wealth to help society, but I guess he is just an evil capitalist for inventing a product that has changed the world and benefited people from all economic classes. </p>

<p>Capitalism is not a system of expoloitation, it is a system of economic liberty. It allows all members to voluntarily enter and exit contracts, and choose how to spend their time and money. No one is forced into being “subserviant.” Capitalism allows everyone the opportunity to advance- no one is denied an opportunity solely because of their income. In fact, the poor are given much more financial support than the other classes. Especially in terms of financial aid at colleges. </p>

<p>The whole Marxism thing is a concept for the ignorant, angry people who either support the belief because it makes them feel like a better person for “defending” the poor, or they have a disillusioned view of economics, or they feel cool giving an f-u to the establishment. Marxism is not even worth discussing. History is the greatest teacher. </p>

<p>“Not paying them enough, not giving them enough benefits, not giving them a say in the economy.”</p>

<p>90% of those with health insurance get them from their employer. The gov gives tax credits to businesses to offer health insurance. Those who are in poverty get free insurance. A healthy percentage of those who are uninsured already qualify for free insurance, they just have not applied for it. That is hardly exploitation. </p>

<p>Minimum wage was instituted to give living wages, and instead has priced many minorities and poor people out of the labor market, and has made them dependent on the government. This dependence is almost a bribe to vote for politicians who expand the welfare state.</p>

<p>"
But doesn’t everyone have the right to life? Doesn’t the government have the duty to provide for it? Doesn’t the right to life entail the right to all things required to sustain life, such as food, water, shelter, safety, and medical care?"</p>

<p>The right to LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY. Notice there is NO RIGHT to ECONOMIC equality or entitlements. Poverty existed when the country was founded, and the founders did not believe in incorporating any type of socialism in the constitution, for good reason. Socialism violates economic liberty and property. Income is property, forcing people to lose their property to give it to someone else violates a person right to economic freedom and keeping their property (the SC has ruled that income is property, the only reason the income tax exists is b/c of the 16th amendment, meaning that the founders considered income property. This change did not occur until the Progressive movement). </p>

<p>Food stamps. Public water. Section 8 housing. Law enforcement paid by the state. Rules forcing hospitals to treat all patients. All of those so called, unestablished, unprecedented “rights” already are practiced through the welfare state. Infringing on one persons rights because they happen to earn a living, in defense of another persons alleged "rights (notice nothing you consider a right has been declared as such by the SC or constitution) is a violation of the first persons rights. You can’t take away one person’s rights to “help” another. That is unconstitutional and violates the doctrine of natural rights. </p>

<p>It’s fine to think that something is a right, but do realize there is no support for that belief.</p>

<p>“The income increases of the poor do not even keep up with inflation, meaning that the poor are getting poorer. With the cutting of taxes for the rich, income is flowing upward much more quickly, the “middle class” is eroding, and the poverty level increases.”</p>

<p>Nothing is keeping up with inflation- health insurance, college tuition. The issue with inflation IS the welfare state- inflation is occuring because we are spending far too much money on bailouts and flawed health care reform. It’s ironic that you point to inflation as the problem, and you want the gov to spend MORE money. </p>

<p>The constitution is meant to protect the people from the state. It is meant to be a check on government abuses. It’s completely fine to think the government owes its people at the expense of the successful, but do realize that the constitution, the history of this country and representative democracy do not support you views. If you have such an issue, move to Cuba. Castro loves Marxism. It’s work out really well for them, too. it’s not like their citizens make rafts and try to make it to the shores of America for a better life.</p>

24

<p>Some people are so stupid it hurts.</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>I think American poor people are really wishing American companies would come back to America to “exploit” them.</p>

26

<p>^ Good call…</p>

27

<p>

Proportionally though, it evens out. The wealthy lose a lot smaller portion to sales tax, the SS tax is capped, and capital gains (where much of the wealth comes from) is taxed at a lower rate.</p>

<p>

Yes Marxism is dead. Nobody’s disputing that. I think many argue that it has never really been properly applied, but that’s a moot point now.

Bill Gates is an evil capitalist because of his monopolistic practices. He seems like a nice guy though, personally.

Financial aid doesn’t really have anything to do with capitalism. In fact, federal aid is not a whole lot different from socialized medicine, economically. Of course since this is the type of socialism people the right do like, maybe we should just call it capitalism. As for exploitation, it would be silly to suggest that employers aren’t in a much stronger bargaining position than the people that need jobs (surely you wouldn’t argue that people could choose not to get a job).</p>

<p>

I don’t think you really understand Marxism, and you seem to be confusing the word disillusioned for delusional, but that’s cool.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, the constitution is meant to set up a stable, representative government. It’s actually a rather conservative plan, with a lot of checks (like the electoral college or the now-defunct indirect election of senators) designed to protect the people from the people. The bill of rights was meant to check government abuses of political rights. This has nothing to do with government economic policy.</p>

28

<p>

</p>

<p>Is the continuation of this trend desirable? Would reversing this trend be desirable? Would it make sense for the government to enforce whichever is desirable (assuming it has the ability to do so)?</p>

29

<p>Time and time again, the idiocy among certain posters on this board astounds me.</p>

<p>They all give the same simian, 4th grade-style arguments based on gut reactions that have been made time and time again by fools smarter than them, and discredited years ago.</p>

<p>It’s laughable because you guys aren’t even touching the best arguments that are typically made for your position. Just spewing out nonsense.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Incorrect sir. If you pay for the services this country provides, including protection by means of its massive military, you pay taxes IN FULL depending on your tax bracket and personal income.</p>

<p>Your business’s profits and assets will be taxed according to the country it is in, but your personal income will be taxed IN FULL by the United States, with the exception that you will receive a tax credit for any foreign taxes already paid/ levied on your personal income.</p>

<p>If you don’t like it, get the hell out!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes. The rich profit from every single employee’s labor. 50% of the value of his labor the employee keeps, and 50% of the value of his labor the employer (who doesn’t labor much usually) keeps. Sometimes the cut of profits is even worse for the employee (see: associate lawyer vs. partner).</p>

<p>African-American slaves were paid in food and shelter as well. But you want to know the real reason slavery was destroyed? It’s cheaper to pay people BELOW LIVING WAGES! It’s cheaper than taking care of slaves.</p>

<p>I’ll give YOU a job BigEastBeast. It’s called selling steak knives. And I’m 100% serious if you take me up on this offer. I’ll provide you the steak knives: you get commission of 50% the steak knive you sell, and I’ll take the other 50% you make. Losses are considered as your debt against the company.</p>

30

<p>Also, consider the fact of disposable income. After basic food, housing, and clothes necessities, the poor and lower middle class have 15% disposable income, if that. Hence, they are taxed on 100% of their disposable income.</p>

<p>The rich have 90-95% disposable income. Hence, they are taxed on 35-45% of their disposable income. Looks like the poor are taxed more.</p>

<p>Also, you “na</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, and the poor have the right to LIFE. It’s the entire basis of the social contract and obeying the government’s laws.</p>

<p>If there is no guarantee to life, there is no longer any incentive to obey the government, and a killing/ murder/ robbing spree shall begin.</p>

<p>Then who will toil in your fields?</p>

32

<p>There is only ONE argument to why the rich want to be taxed less.</p>

<p>THEY WANT MORE MONEY.</p>

<p>And so do you.</p>

<p>End of discussion.</p>

<p>And BigEastBeast, your bar analogy should be edited to reflect the real reality of the situation.</p>

<p>THE TENTH MAN OWNS THE BAR AND THE BEER.</p>

<p>… AND THE OTHER MEN BREW IT!</p>

33

<p>lol peter_parker sounds broke</p>

34

<p>^ No. Just too smart for you. XD</p>

<p>Listen, when I’m making 7 figures, I’ll advocate for lower taxes for the rich, too. Because I’m greedy.</p>

<p>Until then, the rich can pay ME.</p>

<p>To hell with them.</p>

35

<p>peter:</p>

<p>"No, often the rich were born into the right family. Next thing you’re going to tell me that rapists should be rewarded for their rapey skills and reap the benefits. "</p>

<p>[Most</a> Affluent Americans Earn Their Wealth, Feel More Secure During Economic Downturns, PNC… – re> PHILADELPHIA, April 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --](<a href=“http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/most-affluent-americans-earn-their-wealth-feel-more-secure-during-economic-downturns-pnc-survey-reveals-57351597.html]Most”>http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/most-affluent-americans-earn-their-wealth-feel-more-secure-during-economic-downturns-pnc-survey-reveals-57351597.html)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The NY Times article cites only 19% of the wealthy inherited your wealth. And that is a notoriously liberal publication. I hardly think 19% equates to the VAST MAJORITY. You are making false assumptions based on your own personal biases. Your assumptions are quite idiotic, and it’s hilarious that you think they are in any way right. You are the one making vast and unsubstiantied claims, and false accusations. Your ignorance is truly astounding.</p>

<p>“Also, you “naïve idealists” have it in your head that every rich person has earned every dollar they have made. For many rich people, sure, this is true. But for the VAST MAJORITY, this simply isn’t.”</p>

<p>Is it not equally “naive” to think that the VAST MAJORITY of rich don’t earn their wealth, and that the vast majority of the poor are just “unlucky?” Your argument seems extremely hypocritical.</p>

<p>“That multi-million dollar house is going straight to the children, who never earned a penny of it.”</p>

<p>You do realize that there is something in this country called the estate tax, meaning nothing inherited is “free,” even though that inherited entity has been taxed during the now dead person life. </p>

<p>It is so so so funny that you get all emotional because people supposedly make assumptions about the poor, yet you are making outlandish, false claims yourself. And then have the audacity to call others ignorant because they have another opinion. You give a horrible portrayal of the average idealistic, Marxist far left liberal. Congratulations, you made your entire argument look like some massive myth based conspiracy theory with absolutely no backing.</p>

36

<p>^ I mentioned the estate tax, you wench.</p>

<p>Use those reading comprehension skills.</p>

<p>And the articles you cited are JOKES. They used self-reporting surveys - and that’s all they say. They speak nothing of methodology.</p>

<p>OF COURSE the rich think they’ve earned it. But hardly.</p>

<p>Rich daddy = connections and FAT 7 FIGURE JOBS at “Daddy’s company” where the son does absolutely nothing but collect a fat pay check. That would be considered “earning it.”</p>

<p>Link me to a google scholar or scholarly journal article. Oh wait, you have no brains. Just spew out more nonsense then.</p>

<p>Why the hell are you defending the rich tiff? You are likely a poor college student, probably WITHOUT a job because you have a rich daddy.</p>

<p>Oh, that’s why you like the rich. Rich daddy. You want him to be taxed less. So you can get those killer shoes. That you’ve “earned.”</p>

<p>Go bake a pie and stop embarrassing yourself.</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>Your mindsets about money will probably prevent you from making 7 figures</p>

38

<p>No, greedy is usually a prereq for being rich.</p>

<p>And none of the conservatives here have an even basic grasp of economics.</p>

39

<p>Is it possible to become less intelligent after reading so much BS? Because I can feel my brain shrinking.</p>

<p>Tiff and BIGeastBEAST, if you have such a problem with taxation in the US, then please leave. We would be a better country for it. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You. Cannot. Be. Serious. Please elaborate. On second thought, please don’t. </p>

<p>As for financial aid, did you ever consider how much harder a lower income student has to work to be admitted to college in the first place? Unlike your private prep school, school districts in poor areas don’t exactly have SAT prep classes and volunteer trips to Haiti. In fact, they’re the ones for whom you are building that Habitat for Humanity house. Not that you two would ever volunteer for a cause like that. </p>

<p>Then the students have to be in a position to forgo working in order to actually attend college. And it’s probably more difficult for them to secure loans due to their parents’ limited incomes and (possible) poor credit history. Financial aid is actually a bad example in this case, because the government actually provides very little of the cost of attendance at most colleges. Yes, there are Pell Grants, SMART Grants, subsidized loans, etc. but that usually doesn’t cover everything. Their parents aren’t sending them a weekly allowance, either. Often, staying enrolled in school is an even bigger challenge than getting admitted in the first place (due to financial limitations). </p>

<p>Sure, many wealthy people actually earned their wealth… after their parents funded prep school, elite college, and med/law/business school. Please tell me which part of this concept you are having difficulty understanding. </p>

<p>I’m slightly disappointed in myself for taking the time to reply to this thread, but I guess someone has to do it.</p>

40

<p>"I mentioned the estate tax, you wench.</p>

<p>Use those reading comprehension skills."</p>

<p>Really mature. I envy your exemplary debate skills. Wait, they don’t exist.</p>

<p>You can’t offer a single spread of evidence to support your delusional claims. Maybe when you grow up you will enter the realm of reality and rational thought. </p>

<p>It’s not even worth having a conversation with someone who is so biased and disillusioned that they will deny any rational thought or facts countering their argument. You are living in a hole. Your opinions have no factual support whatsoever, yet you probably think the poor are all unlucky, and their living situation has nothing to do with their efforts. One day, hopefully, you will wake up and see the world as it is. Until then, it is useless to even have a respectful conversation with you, because you refuse to accept reality. Your beliefs are completely irrational. </p>

<p>It’s funny how you feel the need to name call because their is an absence of substance in your outlandish, and, quite frankly, laughable claims. </p>

<p>You also do realize taxes are based on self reporting, yet those statistics are rarely questioned, and are accepted as factual. All surveys conducted by places such as Gallup are self reported, so should we conclude that the findings are false? Your thought lack logic, unless that logic is irrationality.</p>