Poll: 58 Percent Of Americans Believe Rich Deserve Their Wealth

[Deuce]

Nor does it mean they believe that the wealthy should get the **** taxed out of them.

Correct. The poll provides absolutely no useful information because of its poorly written question.

Of course, I would argue that a 3% increase on the top marginal tax rate is not "taxing the ****" out of anybody. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here, we're talking about returning to income tax rates from the Clinton presidency.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Nor does it mean they believe that the wealthy should get the **** taxed out of them.

Well i never claimed that now did i?

 

[cpwill]

This report in no way shape or form contradicts other surveys of the American people which indicate strong and majority support for increasing taxes upon the wealthy.

Yeah, and then you start digging into those numbers and you discover that Three-quarters of likely voters believe the nation’s top earners should pay lower, not higher, tax ratesl.

You see, that questionnare asked them what the top rate should be (I believe the term you use is "appropriate"), and 75% answer that it should be 30%. So it seems that the majority of American voters agree that the top tax rate should be raised... to 30%.


Gosh, you'd almost think that the average American was a low information voter, or didn't hold particularly strong views on this topic, or something.....

 

[washunut]

Correct. The poll provides absolutely no useful information because of its poorly written question.

Of course, I would argue that a 3% increase on the top marginal tax rate is not "taxing the ****" out of anybody. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here, we're talking about returning to income tax rates from the Clinton presidency.

You should be a bit careful when using that 3% number. That is the increase on ordinary income. Dividend income, the type that Buffett rails against will go from 15% to 43% and capital gains from 15 to 23.8%(including the Obamacare surcharge).

Also folks might want to remember that state income tax in some of our wealthiest states is also raising their rates. California will be something like 13%, NY about 10%.

 

[Aderleth]

If you deduct the the rich from the survey and just use the "99%", you still have 57% of people who think the wealthy deserve their money.

Well that's a stupid question. "The rich" aren't a singular, monolithic block with a consistent background and homogenous value/worth. People acquire (or achieve) wealth in a variety of ways. To lump them all into a single category is ridiculous.

 

[hazlnut]

If you deduct the the rich from the survey and just use the "99%", you still have 57% of people who think the wealthy deserve their money.

Also, pay close attention to 2 of the 4 on the bottom of that list... Common sense should tell you something, but for those of you who put politics first and therefore are incapable of seeing it, I'll explain it... Greece is on the bottom of that list, along with Spain and they are the 2 poster children for how not to run a country. The fact that they are both in financial ruin (the 2 worse economies in Europe) and they are the 2 most "take from the rich" believing societies in Europe, should make very clear what imposing a government of that belief will get you... Are you listening Occupy movement?




Poll: 58 Percent Of Americans Believe Rich Deserve Their Wealth


View attachment 67130864

And if we raise their taxes three percent, they'll still be wealthy.

Get it?

 

[Moot]

Interesting, only 15% strongly agree.....

The other 28% only "somewhat agree" because they think they might actually have a chance to get rich. ROTFL

 

[Neomalthusian]

I find it kind of sick that we've even found it a common thought process in layman economics to ponder whether people "deserve" what they have. That exercise alone strikes me as the sort of thing Orwell and Rand spent their life trying to warn folks about. There's something that smacks undeniably of jealousy when we're specifically asked to look at people with more than us and actually decide if we think they "deserve" it.

We're all buying the **** the rich sell. If we don't think they deserve what they have, we should stop trading with them.

Oh but wait. No one wants to do that. Because we rather enjoy the **** the rich sell. And hence our opinion of the degree of deservingness of the rich from whom we so regularly buy is not worth dick.

 

[Moot]

I find it kind of sick that we've even found it a common thought process in layman economics to ponder whether people "deserve" what they have. That exercise alone strikes me as the sort of thing Orwell and Rand spent their life trying to warn folks about. There's something that smacks undeniably of jealousy when we're specifically asked to look at people with more than us and actually decide if we think they "deserve" it.

We're all buying the **** the rich sell. If we don't think they deserve what they have, we should stop trading with them.

Oh but wait. No one wants to do that. Because we rather enjoy the **** the rich sell. And hence our opinion of the degree of deservingness of the rich from whom we so regularly buy is not worth dick.

Almost everything Americans buy comes from China, so what exactly are the rich selling besides selling us out and emptying out our bank accounts?

 

[cpwill]

Almost everything Americans buy comes from China, so what exactly are the rich selling besides selling us out and emptying out our bank accounts?

Well, for example, my uncle runs a contracting business, and sells specialized construction services to companies and local governments.

Approximately 80% of America's millionaires are first-generation, and they got that way by selling goods or services.

 

[cpwill]

The other 28% only "somewhat agree" because they think they might actually have a chance to get rich. ROTFL

:shrug: you do. In fact, if you are willing to consistently apply wise personal and financial choices, you have a pretty daggum good chance of becoming rich.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Almost everything Americans buy comes from China, so what exactly are the rich selling besides selling us out and emptying out our bank accounts?

Liberals do this dance so endlessly. Hate the very successful, but when it's suggested they cease doing business with the very successful, they balk and act as though that's not a legit choice because it would be so inconvenient or more expensive to go without the stuff successful people's companies provide.

If you don't like the wealth imbalance, get mad at the throngs of folks who are maintaining it with their instant gratification consumerism. We play directly into their hands on a daily basis and act like we have "no choice." Yeah right. We have oodles of them. Complaining about consequences while refusing to change the behavior that leads to those consequences is just childish.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah, and then you start digging into those numbers and you discover that Three-quarters of likely voters believe the nation’s top earners should pay lower, not higher, tax ratesl.

You see, that questionnare asked them what the top rate should be (I believe the term you use is "appropriate"), and 75% answer that it should be 30%. So it seems that the majority of American voters agree that the top tax rate should be raised... to 30%.


Gosh, you'd almost think that the average American was a low information voter, or didn't hold particularly strong views on this topic, or something.....

Whoah there. Hold the **** on. You're saying a lot of Americans don't know **** about what goes on around them?

I'm shocked. This is just unbelievable.

 

[imagep]

:shrug: you do. In fact, if you are willing to consistently apply wise personal and financial choices, you have a pretty daggum good chance of becoming rich.

I someone opened an investment account, and if on average they earned 2% over the inflation rate (which means that right now they would have to earn about 5% which is about 20 times what a savings account pays round now), and if they started out with just $1 and invested $1,000 a month, in 50 years they would have a million bucks.

Unfortunately, a million bucks doesn't make one rich by any means. The current definition is five million. At the same investment rate, it would take close to 150 years to become rich. And thats with a savings rate of over 35% of pre-tax income.

Now if that median income individual could manage to save and invest his entire paycheck, a maybe by living off a sugar mama or something, also somehow managing to avoid income and payroll taxes, then it would only take 82 years to have $5 million dollars. If invested his entire pre-tax earnings at 10% over the inflation rate, it would only take 28 years, but of course even B Madoff didn't report to his clients profits that big, and he was lying.

Winning the lottery is a much more likely way for a median income earner to become rich than saving and investing. I invest every Wen and Sat in Powerball.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I someone opened an investment account, and if on average they earned 2% over the inflation rate (which means that right now they would have to earn about 5% which is about 20 times what a savings account pays round now), and if they started out with just $1 and invested $1,000 a month, in 50 years they would have a million bucks.

Unfortunately, a million bucks doesn't make one rich by any means. The current definition is five million. At the same investment rate, it would take close to 150 years to become rich. And thats with a savings rate of over 35% of pre-tax income.

Winning the lottery is a much more likely way for a median income earner to become rich than saving and investing.

And that's assuming inflation never takes off, or some other massive event doesn't set us back and effectively confiscate the nest egg.

The more pessimistic one's long term outlook, the more one has to question whether markets can return their 100 year average looking forward another 100, which in an era of globalization, overpopulation and oil decline starts seeming extremely challenging. Long-haul, there may be no such thing as a 5%/yr investment.

 

[Mach]

I someone opened an investment account, and if on average they earned 2% over the inflation rate (which means that right now they would have to earn about 5% which is about 20 times what a savings account pays round now),

You're doing it wrong, go public pension, they use a number larger than 5%.

Calif. teacher pension posts low investment return | UTSanDiego.com

The expected return for the nation's second-largest public pension system had been 7.5 percent, which was lowered earlier this year from 7.75 percent.

Because they get to take extra risk because the state is considered more stable than private markets, and they benefit from this as a result of taxpayers backing it.

Why don't all those public employees, especially those teachers unions, switch to 401Ks like the rest of us again? Because they can make more using government to take from taxpayers and back their defined plans of course.

If you can't do, then use government to take from do-ers, it's a lot easier. ;0

 

[Mach]

Your reply -using mine as the lead - makes no sense. The fact is that the OP was put here for a purpose. And the polls I cited show that that purpose is at best disingenuous. We still live in a nation where the majority rule........... if only for a little while longer. And taxation - including progressive taxation - is part of the Constitution.

Who sets the limits on what majority rule determines?
Let me guess, the majority?

What about government being instituted to protect our inalienable rights? Those also give way to majority rule? Then governemnt isn't supposed to defend our inalienable rights form the majority?

 

[imagep]

And that's assuming inflation never takes off, or some other massive event doesn't set us back and effectively confiscate the nest egg.

The more pessimistic one's long term outlook, the more one has to question whether markets can return their 100 year average looking forward another 100, which in an era of globalization, overpopulation and oil decline starts seeming extremely challenging. Long-haul, there may be no such thing as a 5%/yr investment.

I am not nearly as pessimistic as you are, but I agree, I suspect that they day when someone can randomly pick a stock portfolio and average 10%+ over 30 years is over.

 

[Mach]

I am not nearly as pessimistic as you are, but I agree, I suspect that they day when someone can randomly pick a stock portfolio and average 10%+ over 30 years is over.

And cap gains may go through the roof shortly, don't forget that (Thanks Democrats!). So any amount someone might have needed to earn off interest, will likely increase substantially.

Of course, certain investments are probably legally worked-around such capital gains penalties. Like oh, I don't know, some defined benefitions plans! They **** us coming and going, and they love it. (how's early retirement haymarket?)

 

[washunut]

Who sets the limits on what majority rule determines?
Let me guess, the majority?

What about government being instituted to protect our inalienable rights? Those also give way to majority rule? Then governemnt isn't supposed to defend our inalienable rights form the majority?

Very nicely said, thanks.