Are You a Classist?

[Navy Pride]

I don't have a problem with sports people or celebraties making millions........Its called supply and demand............If no one watched them they could not make the millions.......

 

[aquapub]

I don't much care to see corporations lobby government for research and development subsidation and then show record profits once it has been created.

I don't care to see Oil company profits break records while we spend trillions on wars in far off Oil producing lands.

I don't much care to see professional athletes salaries keep up with the ever increasing size of their rap sheets.

But all in all, I don't consider my self classist.

Your examples suggest impropriety or corruption. The question, and the point to this thread was whether or not it bothers you just to see those who already have money get more money. THAT'S classism, and it seems to be the envy-driven basis of Socialism.

 

[Iriemon]

The problem I have with it is that most of them are making so much money that they don't need any more. Some have enough that they could retire at 30-40 and live a happy life without losing much as far as lifestyle goes.

That is actually an argument against the so-called supply side theory.

The supply side theory argues that by cutting taxes, people are incentivized to work harder, and will produce more.

However, if wealthier folks can save more, and some retire earliers, society is actually losing some of the more productive members of society because of tax cuts.

 

[RightOfCenter]

These folks are able to make wildly disproportionate incomes by virtue of living in a nation that tolerates an economic system that allows them to do it.

They are making wildly disproportionate incomes by virtue of being good at their jobs, why should society punish them because of this? They should be encouraged.

Society has the right to have these folks pay taxes for this ability at any level society wants to set. Personally, I don't think taxes should be so high as to disincentivize people from achieving or producing.

By what right should society have the ability to claim the just rewards of succesful people?

 

[ARealConservative]

Society has the right to have these folks pay taxes for this ability at any level society wants to set.

First, what you called a "right" is actually a "power".

But where does this power you claim come from?

 

[ARealConservative]

They are making wildly disproportionate incomes by virtue of being good at their jobs, why should society punish them because of this? They should be encouraged.

Let's not get carried away. There is a reason elections cost 100's of millions of dollars afterall. That money spent is an investment in today's world.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Let's not get carried away. There is a reason elections cost 100's of millions of dollars afterall. That money spent is an investment in today's world.

Elections cost millions of dollars because CEOs do well? Afraid I don't follow. Elections cost millions of dollars because TV stations are smart enough to make a buck off of them.

 

[Hatuey]

If I see that some bum *** no education hillbilly, who's family has lived in trailers since they were invented, win the lottery. Of course I'll be pissed and will probably say : " He doesn't deserve it cause he's a no class redneck...but thats life.". If I see a b-ball athlete get more $10 Million deals, I'll probably say "We'll he can't spell much...but at least he can throw a ball. Thats his hustle. If he's good at it. Good for him". If I see some CEO make an extra $50Million a year I'll most likely pick up any books he's written on business and try to emulate his success. Don't know if this makes me a classist in Pubby's eyes. Does it? Oh Jebus say it ain't so!

 

[aquapub]

If I see that some bum *** no education hillbilly, who's family has lived in trailers since they were invented, win the lottery. Of course I'll be pissed and will probably say : " He doesn't deserve it cause he's a no class redneck...but thats life.". If I see a b-ball athlete get more $10 Million deals, I'll probably say "We'll he can't spell much...but at least he can throw a ball. Thats his hustle. If he's good at it. Good for him". If I see some CEO make an extra $50Million a year I'll most likely pick up any books he's written on business and try to emulate his success. Don't know if this makes me a classist in Pubby's eyes. Does it? Oh Jebus say it ain't so!

The only thing you said here that makes you look classist at all is your trashing of trailor trash.

 

[Hatuey]

The only thing you said here that makes you look classist at all is your trashing of trailor trash.

I didn't trash trailer trash in general. Just the ones who win lotteries. Have you ever noticed how it always seems to be some ignorant *** baffoon who ends up blowing it all on fancy cars and big houses? If I wont 100 Million tomorrow the first thing I'd push my money towards is bottled water companies.

 

[aquapub]

I didn't trash trailer trash in general. Just the ones who win lotteries. Have you ever noticed how it always seems to be some ignorant *** baffoon who ends up blowing it all on fancy cars and big houses? If I wont 100 Million tomorrow the first thing I'd push my money towards is bottled water companies.

I've seen so many liberals trash the Middle American working poor as ignorant, violent bigots, I thought I'd check.

 

[Hatuey]

I've seen so many liberals trash the Middle American working poor as ignorant, violent bigots, I thought I'd check.

....They're not ignorant and violent bigots? I ow an apology to the good people of Alabama and Kansas...

 

[ARealConservative]

Elections cost millions of dollars because CEOs do well? Afraid I don't follow. Elections cost millions of dollars because TV stations are smart enough to make a buck off of them.

No. Increased government power, regulation, and spending has contributed to increased election costs and CEO salaries.

Successful CEO's know how to play the game. A game that exceeds 100 million dollars spending for the presidential elections alone. It shouldn't be a surprise they have benefited from the game more then the average Joe would.

 

[RightOfCenter]

No. Increased government power, regulation, and spending has contributed to increased election costs and CEO salaries.

I still don't see how the government spending more increases CEO salaries.

Successful CEO's know how to play the game. A game that exceeds 100 million dollars spending for the presidential elections alone. It shouldn't be a surprise they have benefited from the game more then the average Joe would.

They certainly do know how to play the game, and I'm sure they and theri companies donate to political campaigns but how does this make CEO salaries go up? I would think it would make the company more profitable, and their employees (including CEOs) and the economy in general would be better off to have business favorable candidates in office.

 

[Iriemon]

They are making wildly disproportionate incomes by virtue of being good at their jobs, why should society punish them because of this? They should be encouraged.

They should not be discouraged.

How many sports stars you reckon would give up their professional careers because they were paying a top marginal rate of 40%? 70%?

Yeah, that is what I think too.

By what right should society have the ability to claim the just rewards of succesful people?

Society makes the rules that allows them to have those rewards, society has the right to tax those rewards for whatever it wants.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iremon
Society has the right to have these folks pay taxes for this ability at any level society wants to set.

First, what you called a "right" is actually a "power".

What's the difference, except whether you think it is "right" or not?

But where does this power you claim come from?

In this country, the people.

 

[RightinNYC]

What's the difference, except whether you think it is "right" or not?

Well, by definition, "rights" are granted to individuals (by the constitution or by nature, if you're into that theory), and "powers" are granted to the government.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, by definition, "rights" are granted to individuals (by the constitution or by nature, if you're into that theory), and "powers" are granted to the government.

OK, the government has the power to tax all your income and you have little "rights" to it.

Not saying it should. But folks trying to start their argument by talking about what "rights" they have to their own property and the government doesn't have any right to take it blah blah are just talking semantics.

Individuals only have whatever "rights" the majority decide they can have. Even those in the constitution exist only as a matter of consensus, ultimately.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Society makes the rules that allows them to have those rewards, society has the right to tax those rewards for whatever it wants.

Bullshit, society's rules do nothing but take those rewards away. Simply because you think the succesful owe you, who had absolutely nothing to do with their success, money does not make it true.

 

[RightOfCenter]

OK, the government has the power to tax all your income and you have little "rights" to it.

Not saying it should. But folks trying to start their argument by talking about what "rights" they have to their own property and the government doesn't have any right to take it blah blah are just talking semantics.

Individuals only have whatever "rights" the majority decide they can have. Even those in the constitution exist only as a matter of consensus, ultimately.

So if a majority of people decide we shouldn't have free speech any more then the first amendment is null and void? Advocating for a tyranny of the majority is completely shocking to me.

 

[Cephus]

The problem I have with it is that most of them are making so much money that they don't need any more. Some have enough that they could retire at 30-40 and live a happy life without losing much as far as lifestyle goes.

Who are you to judge what they 'need'? Someone starving in the streets might look at you and decide you don't 'need' any more, are you going to agree with them?

It's not really a matter of need, it's a matter of drive, desire and talent that gets people what they get. If they earn more than you, it's only because they've worked harder to get it.

 

[RightinNYC]

OK, the government has the power to tax all your income and you have little "rights" to it.

Not saying it should. But folks trying to start their argument by talking about what "rights" they have to their own property and the government doesn't have any right to take it blah blah are just talking semantics.

Individuals only have whatever "rights" the majority decide they can have. Even those in the constitution exist only as a matter of consensus, ultimately.

Well, the argument is that until 3/4 of the states agree to amend the constitution, there are certain "rights" that are fundamental and cannot be infringed upon.

Furthermore, natural law adherents would argue that there are some other rights, (pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, etc) with which we are endowed by our Creator and that are inalienable. In that scenario, those rights are not subject to the will of the majority.

 

[Cephus]

So if a majority of people decide we shouldn't have free speech any more then the first amendment is null and void? Advocating for a tyranny of the majority is completely shocking to me.

Actually, if the majority vote to overturn the first amendment, then yes, you would no longer have free speech as guaranteed under the first amendment. That's highly unlikely to ever happen but it's certainly possible. Rights are granted by the society under which you live. They can be rescinded at any time.

 

[Cephus]

Well, the argument is that until 3/4 of the states agree to amend the constitution, there are certain "rights" that are fundamental and cannot be infringed upon.

Not necessarily fundamental but certainly protected by law and guaranteed under one of the most important founding documents of this country.

Furthermore, natural law adherents would argue that there are some other rights, (pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, etc) with which we are endowed by our Creator and that are inalienable. In that scenario, those rights are not subject to the will of the majority.

Sorry but natural law adherents are idiots. You try being a female in Iran and tell them that you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and are going to toss off your burka and see how far you get.

 

[BushWhacked]

But the ability of that kid to catch a ball, or hit a ball, or run with a ball, increases the college experience for the thousands of kids who go to the games and for the tens of thousands of parents who follow their alma maters, and then donate money back to the school in amounts that far exceeds the small investment made in that scholarship.

I don't care if it increases the college experience. I'm not complaining about the scholarship, if they do that, that's great. I'm talking about "professional" atheletes getting the millions for working 4-5 months out of the year doing what most people do for recreation. I understand it's supply and demand, that doesn't mean I can't think it's pathetic and disgusting. Do you think that it's sad that someone who is a benchwarmer makes more than the president of the united states? That might be another debate is if the President should be the highest paid person (salary) in the country during thier term?

That brings up another point that's significant here. We are the most charitable nation on Earth, by far.

Yes we are, and how many times are we told by those we give to that we are hated? It's the double edge sword. If we don't give we are considered stingy and heartless, if we do give it's never enough or just arrogance.

I didn't trash trailer trash in general. Just the ones who win lotteries. Have you ever noticed how it always seems to be some ignorant *** baffoon who ends up blowing it all on fancy cars and big houses? If I wont 100 Million tomorrow the first thing I'd push my money towards is bottled water companies.

LOL I have only ever noticed rich people winning the lotto here.