Does the average citizen harbor envy/jealousy, hatred for the extremely wealthy?

carpet bombing-means to saturate bomb an area to destroy an intended target knowing that your actions will cause massive collateral damage. very different from "carpet begging" (no clue what that means) or perhaps "carpet bagging" (a term from the post war south involving northern opportunists who moved there-in reference to the luggage they carried-carpet bags

Cassandra said:

Small businesses need greater demand for goods far more than they need lower taxes.

Click to expand...

It all starts and ends with jobs. Greater demands for goods create more jobs, jobs create greater demands for goods. When people have jobs, they are happy, less envious, more willing to lend a helping hand to those who can't fend for themselves.
JOBS.

I have no clue if most are jealous ... and you might define extreme wealth.

My definition of extreme wealth would be a person far about a seven figure annual income and over 10 million in assets ... as the lowest rung of wealthy. Generally I consider extremely wealth as those with hundreds of millions of dollars.

I am not jealous ... yet I am sometimes skeptical often of how wealth is accumulated to that degree. If someone accumulates wealth by manipulating markets, putting working people out of jobs, destroying investments of middle class Americans then I feel it is wrong. Especially considering today's tax rates on wealthy Americans are LOWER than they've been in almost 80 years.

Fact ... despite all the posturing by Republicans ... even with chopping the budget to no social entitlements and cutting military spending we cannot balance unless we increase tax revenues. Bush went on spending spree as he cut taxes ... spiraling into a possible depression the stimulus added ...albeit at least it was to invest in our own countries infrastructure and attempt to save the economy.

My disagreement with the Dems ... they define wealth as income above 200k and therefore that bracket is included t in their the tax increase propostion. Sorry the schmucks in that income bracket are usually working 50+ hours a week ... when all is considered with property/state/federal taxes they end up paying > 50% tax bracket. That income ... the kids never qualify for Pell grants or FAFSA. We actually buy our health insurance at a cost of about 15,000/year ... so taxes should be lowered on anyone in the 400k or below.

The extremely wealthy (per my definition) ... hell yes raise their taxes!

Now before you push me into a left leaning ... detest the wealthy parrot .... think again.

Personally ... except for medicare and social security ... all social entitlements should be cut. Those in need should have to compete at eye level for social welfare and pass tests demonstrating they are drug free.

It almost seems those abusing social entitlements/ Pell grants and disability are in the same bankrupt character as those who manipulate financial systems that are destroying the American economy.


Another point ... evidence repeatedly points to middle income Americans best adjusted and happy. Sadly, we have a shrinking economical middle class.

Jeezy said:

...but my definition does place more "weight." The rich are paying a higher rate because they have more of the taxable asset. That you want rich people to pay a higher PORTION of their total income follows from...nothing, besides you wanting the rich to pay more.

If they're already paying more cents per dollar than a poorer person on a certain tax, then why isn't that tax progressive enough for you? Why do they have to actually dedicate a higher portion of their TOTAL income to that tax?

Click to expand...

There are lots of reasons that taxes should increase as the person makes more money. One particularly strong reason is that it just makes sense that the more benefit somebody gets from something the more they should pay to maintain it. If we order a pizza and you eat 7 slices, but I only eat 1, it would certainly be reasonable to expect you to pay more for it. The more income somebody makes the more benefit they're getting out of society, so they have to chip in more to keep that society strong.

Another reason is the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Money has less value per dollar the more of it you have, so drawing taxes from people that have a lot of income had less negative impact on things. Put more simply, a tax of $5k is going to hurt a person that makes $10k/year a whole lot more than it will hurt somebody who makes $300k/year.

Jeezy said:

So even the top 1% isn't rich?

Click to expand...

It's just a word. How we define it is arbitrary. Personally I can see somebody considering the entire top 1% to be "rich", but I'd draw the line more at like the $1m/year line or something.

Cassandra said:

The thread topic is about anger/envy of the rich. My point is that a rational analysis of the current fiscal mess should lead to anger at the wealthy perpetrators of the current fiscal mess. Not sure what you mean about "carpet bagging" but closing loopholes and right-offs and raising taxes slightly on those who can easily afford it, is a practical matter. Small businesses need greater demand for goods far more than they need lower taxes. Wacking the incomes of lower income earners as Repubs and some Dems appear bent on doing through cuts in social spending, will reduce demand and prolong the recession. And I am still unenlightened as to what is the logic of tea party people who seem resistant even to end tax right-offs for the wealthy. What American voted for Grover Norquist for President!!? ?

Click to expand...

Even Grover Norquist said the GOP would not be breaking their pledge by eliminating the temporary tax breaks because that would not technically be an increase.

:sun

Saying folks that do not make as much are jealous is just a weak cop out for saying I got nothing in reguards to the rich paying their fair share. That is it.

Kali said:

Saying folks that do not make as much are jealous is just a weak cop out for saying I got nothing in reguards to the rich paying their fair share. That is it.

Click to expand...

since the top one percent pay almost 40% of the INCOME tax and ALL the death tax but only make 22% of the income and certainly don't have all the wealth when they die what exactly is your definition of a fair share?

I'd start with either one percent of the income tax (the lowest objective limit) to 22% (the highest objective limit)

Kali said:

Saying folks that do not make as much are jealous is just a weak cop out for saying I got nothing in reguards to the rich paying their fair share. That is it.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head Kali!!! :sun

CaptainCourtesy said:

Since I am WELL above average, I cannot participate in this poll. Sorry.

But if I WERE average, I would answer no.

Click to expand...

You are VERY average in certain catagories... arrogance, for one. :lol: