Is wealth evil?

[brett636]

So lets hear it. In today's political climate demonizing wealthy people seems to be the popular thing. So I just want to know is wealth, the accumulation of it, the desire for it, and or the holding onto it evil? If so, when does it become evil? Is a networth of $100,000 evil? $1,000,000? $1,000,000,000? More? If you wish to state that wealth is in fact evil please state some hard numbers as to when wealth should be confiscated because if it is truly wrong then it should not exist in society right? This is especially aimed at the "spread the wealth" mentality because I want to know at what point should we limit an individual's wealth for the benefit of others. Lets also discuss if "spreading wealth" really helps society as a whole or does it hurt it in the long with inflation.

 

[moreluck]

I think what somebody works hard for and earns is his/hers to do with what they want. I think many very rich people feel an obligation to help others, The tend to make big donations or set up trusts.

If someone chooses to hide in their house with their millions of $$, that's their business. We'll all be judged later.

Forcing someone to share their wealth is despicable !!

Money is just paper and can't be evil by itself.

 

[pickup]

If it is evil, may I be cursed now.

 

[diesel96]

So lets hear it. In today's political climate demonizing wealthy people seems to be the popular thing. So I just want to know is wealth, the accumulation of it, the desire for it, and or the holding onto it evil? If so, when does it become evil? Is a networth of $100,000 evil? $1,000,000? $1,000,000,000? More? If you wish to state that wealth is in fact evil please state some hard numbers as to when wealth should be confiscated because if it is truly wrong then it should not exist in society right? This is especially aimed at the "spread the wealth" mentality because I want to know at what point should we limit an individual's wealth for the benefit of others. Lets also discuss if "spreading wealth" really helps society as a whole or does it hurt it in the long with inflation.

Probably, not a good idea to lump the wealthy into one category, but rather evaluate individually. The real question should be, on an individual bases, "is the accumulation of wealth at the expense and demise of others and of the enviorment. And was it acquired morally, just, and in some cases, even legally? To all those that can passed that litmus test, we salute you. But lets not pretend and defend that all wealth acquirement is on the up and up. The old addage, "It takes money to make money" is so true. Our system is set up so the advantages in our society are tenfold to accumulate more wealth when one is already wealthly. So yes, those with more should pay more. They have more to gain and more to lose.

In today's political climate, it's also popular demonizing Hollywood.
I wonder why that is? Many in that click are willing to "spread the wealth", clean up the enviroment, end wars, feed the world, stop genocide. Yet many who defend the pure capitalists, profiteers, and war mongers bastardize this community.

What helps society? Well I'll tell you what doesn't help society, and that's "tax cuts" for the rich and Reagan-omics "trickle down". That experiement has not worked for 29 yrs now. Look whats happen to our society, our middle class, our dollar, our wages, our mfg sector, etc.. Dad's can no longer be the single breadwinner, and Mom is no longer able to stay home and raise the kids (unless you live in the sticks). Back in the day, when wages and the middle class was thriving, parents had these options...

I'm not here to demonize wealth and capitalism, there are many great American success stories that have not only bennefitted the entrepanuer, but his employees, his customers, his community, and his country. But in order to keep everyone honest and fair, a degree of social policies mixed with capitalism are the right ingredients in our society. The debate is what is the right recipe, and how much mix do we add or subtract so everyone gets their fair share of the American Apple Pie....

 

[tieguy]

The pursuit of wealth is what creates jobs.

Take your most dispicable character that has it and his pursuing and spending the wealth creates jobs for others who do not have the ambition or talent to creat their own success story.

 

[brett636]

Probably, not a good idea to lump the wealthy into one category, but rather evaluate individually. The real question should be, on an individual bases, "is the accumulation of wealth at the expense and demise of others and of the enviorment. And was it acquired morally, just, and in some cases, even legally? To all those that can passed that litmus test, we salute you. But lets not pretend and defend that all wealth acquirement is on the up and up. The old addage, "It takes money to make money" is so true. Our system is set up so the advantages in our society are tenfold to accumulate more wealth when one is already wealthly. So yes, those with more should pay more. They have more to gain and more to lose.

In today's political climate, it's also popular demonizing Hollywood.
I wonder why that is? Many in that click are willing to "spread the wealth", clean up the enviroment, end wars, feed the world, stop genocide. Yet many who defend the pure capitalists, profiteers, and war mongers bastardize this community.

What helps society? Well I'll tell you what doesn't help society, and that's "tax cuts" for the rich and Reagan-omics "trickle down". That experiement has not worked for 29 yrs now. Look whats happen to our society, our middle class, our dollar, our wages, our mfg sector, etc.. Dad's can no longer be the single breadwinner, and Mom is no longer able to stay home and raise the kids (unless you live in the sticks). Back in the day, when wages and the middle class was thriving, parents had these options...

I'm not here to demonize wealth and capitalism, there are many great American success stories that have not only bennefitted the entrepanuer, but his employees, his customers, his community, and his country. But in order to keep everyone honest and fair, a degree of social policies mixed with capitalism are the right ingredients in our society. The debate is what is the right recipe, and how much mix do we add or subtract so everyone gets their fair share of the American Apple Pie....

Its good to see you understand a large majority of wealthy people worked hard for their wealth. Why would you disrespect that hard work by allowing the fruits of their labor to be taken from them at gunpoint? Also please define "fair share". Should the top 1% of wealthy individuals pay 15% of our governments total tax revenues, 20%? 25%? More?

 

[diesel96]

Its good to see you understand a large majority of wealthy people worked hard for their wealth. Why would you disrespect that hard work by allowing the fruits of their labor to be taken from them at gunpoint? Also please define "fair share". Should the top 1% of wealthy individuals pay 15% of our governments total tax revenues, 20%? 25%? More?

Considering the top 1% rake in over 20% of the national income and the top 10 % rake in over half of the total income, yeah, why not ?

And please, don't give us this wealthy people work hard line of mularky. Working class people work just as hard if not more and where are their fruits of labor? I'll tell you where their friuts of labor are, there stagnate, just like their wages, yet the top wage earners, who profits from the sweat of the working class, their increases are more than 300 to one. At one point in 2005' the ratio was 500 to 1. Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's it was more like 30/40 to 1. Nowadays, they're even awarded bonuses for failures....

We're both poor slobs compared to the aristocrats that run/influence this country, they don't give a rat's a s s about you or me, yet, you'll defend them to the end. Didn't we break away from the Church of England and it's Monastary rule via The American Revolution, and didn't our forefathers write up the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution intending for our country not to be ran by "a few"? Looks like your in favor of going full circle right back to where this country's origins lie.....


Since the national rise of Ronald Reagan three decades ago, the United States has been on a deadly course for a Republic, with wealth rapidly concentrating at the top and average Americans sinking or struggling to stay afloat.

On the 233rd anniversary of American independence – a war fought for the equality of all mankind – writer Don Monkerud examines how these gross economic imbalances threaten that vision:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/070409a.html

 

[brown bomber]

Considering the top 1% rake in over 20% of the national income and the top 10 % rake in over half of the total income, yeah, why not ?

And please, don't give us this wealthy people work hard line of mularky. Working class people work just as hard if not more and where are their fruits of labor? I'll tell you where their friuts of labor are, there stagnate, just like their wages, yet the top wage earners, who profits from the sweat of the working class, their increases are more than 300 to one. At one point in 2005' the ratio was 500 to 1. Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's it was more like 30/40 to 1. Nowadays, they're even awarded bonuses for failures....

We're both poor slobs compared to the aristocrats that run/influence this country, they don't give a rat's a s s about you or me, yet, you'll defend them to the end. Didn't we break away from the Church of England and it's Monastary rule via The American Revolution, and didn't our forefathers write up the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution intending for our country not to be ran by "a few"? Looks like your in favor of going full circle right back to where this country's origins lie.....


Since the national rise of Ronald Reagan three decades ago, the United States has been on a deadly course for a Republic, with wealth rapidly concentrating at the top and average Americans sinking or struggling to stay afloat.

On the 233rd anniversary of American independence – a war fought for the equality of all mankind – writer Don Monkerud examines how these gross economic imbalances threaten that vision:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/070409a.html

 

[brown bomber]

I guess that makes the "OBAMA", one of those that should be giving the most.......after all, he's a millionaire ....a multi-millionaire

 

[brett636]

Considering the top 1% rake in over 20% of the national income and the top 10 % rake in over half of the total income, yeah, why not ?

How much do you think the top 1% are paying and how much do you believe they should pay?

And please, don't give us this wealthy people work hard line of mularky. Working class people work just as hard if not more and where are their fruits of labor? I'll tell you where their friuts of labor are, there stagnate, just like their wages, yet the top wage earners, who profits from the sweat of the working class, their increases are more than 300 to one. At one point in 2005' the ratio was 500 to 1. Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's it was more like 30/40 to 1. Nowadays, they're even awarded bonuses for failures....

We're both poor slobs compared to the aristocrats that run/influence this country, they don't give a rat's a s s about you or me, yet, you'll defend them to the end. Didn't we break away from the Church of England and it's Monastary rule via The American Revolution, and didn't our forefathers write up the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution intending for our country not to be ran by "a few"? Looks like your in favor of going full circle right back to where this country's origins lie.....

I could really care less how much richer someone else is over me. I don't hate people because they have more money in their bank account than I do. I am simply defending the basic premise that if you earned it you should be allowed to keep it. I will defend any "wealthy" person's ability to keep their earnings just as much as I will defend yours. I've done feeder driver tax returns and I've seen how much you guys pay in federal income taxes. Its ridiculous to say the least.

At the end of the day the amount of wealth someone has accumulated means squat when it gets down to election day. Bill Gates is one person with one vote. He may have billions in assets, but both Bill Gates and myself can only vote one time(unless Bill Gates was registered by ACORN where he will be voting multiple times without his knowledge), and both votes carry the same weight where they are cast.

I do not hate the little guy, or adore the rich. I simply want a system of government where it stays within the constraints of the constitution, and does not threaten any citizens right to life, liberty, or property without just cause. The problem we have today is people like yourself are too tied up in wealth and hatred of other people who may have it better that you are destroying the very fabric of society which made this nation great. That the universal belief that every man and woman in our society has the right to pursue whatever makes them happy without having to be concerned about government making itself a heavier burden due to their success.

 

[rod]

Only if you didn't have to earn it. Every silver-spooner I have ever known is an A-hole