Poll: Do you believe the people that have the most, have "earned" it?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

:rotflmao:

Whatcha talkin' about Califain?

[Duncan]

We don't need to "fix" it, as such.

We do need to acknowledge it, and sometimes account for it in our policies.

Honestly recognizing that some of us have an easier road to travel does not inexorably lead to Communism.

Is it your position we don't acknowledge it? Trillions of dollars in social programs, a progressive tax system, affirmative action, and on and on. I think we sometimes account for it in our policies.

[Smoot Point Really]

If people haven't earned what they have, then they took it from someone else who had it by force... I'm having trouble understanding how wealth redistribution will put money into the hands of people who earn it.

[China]

If people haven't earned what they have, then they took it from someone else who had it by force...

Or they inherited it.

[stevenaa]

Simple question. Have the "have's" in this country truly earned what they have? The "elitists," the upper echelon? Do they deserve how they live? Many people in this country scrape by check to check, barely able to make ends meet, and others have so much that it's embarrassing. Do you think the financial "system" works. I've had a rough day, I'm pretty pissed off, and I'd like to know what people really think.

I find it much more constructive to focus on what I can do to improve my situation than it is to worry about others. I'm happy for those who have money, no matter how they got it. Wish I was so fortunate. I certainly don't hold ill will to anyone just because they have money. What's the point?

[Springfield]

Perhaps I should have voted "It's complicated" instead.

In general, people who are elite now were born into it. When the elitist (for lack of a better term) children are born, they are born into wealth. In their younger years, the pre-school years, these children are better fed, better cared for and have a better childhood experience. As they enter school, they get the best education that money can buy and generally learn (via tutor, good parenting, etc.) a lot more through the schooling years. Through high school, these kids are usually the best dressed, have the nicest material objects and thus become more popular. Popularity doesn't matter right? Wrong.

Popularity breeds a larger social circle and we all know that is it more about "who you know" than "what you know". They have a huge pool of resources to help them advance in life. Next comes college. Elitist kids will get a ivy school education which leads to better pay instantly. Add to that the diverse social circle that the young adult has and the world is at his/her fingertips. They have all the money, education and social network needed to be very, very successful in life.

Compare this "typical" example to a "typical" example of a middle (or lower middle) class citizen and you will see that the latter has a much more difficult time of actually being deemed a success. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.

As far as "have they earned it"? Sure they earned it. The fact of the matter is that they were set up for success though. It would be hard to go wrong with such a pre-existing financial fall back.

[LuvtheSkins428]

The fact that you conflated people with money with "elitists" is a mistake in my mind but hey, vent if it's healthy.

I personally don't understand envy of what someone else has got (no matter how they came by it---if it was legal). It gets you nowhere lamenting another person's station in life.

Now to your question: people who have earned it, with the exception of familial wealth, have almost always earned their spot. I guess I'll never understand class and wealth envy. Instead of being pissed off at people that have earned their way, I would much rather emulate or be inspired by them.

Couldn't agree more with everything you say here. There are many many in the wealthy class who have sacrificed and worked hard much of their lives giving up what many of us enjoy every day to make the money they have.

I'm not wealthy, I'm middle class, but I'm working hard to be wealthier than I am. I work full time as a systems analyst 50+ hours per week and go to school (upper level courses) in the evening and weekends. Not much of a social life, but it's my choice, I can go out if I want, I choose to work hard to have the things I want.

Meanwhile, I have a neighbor in her 20s who doesn't work and takes 3-4 hour naps every day (she says she just loves them) and she and her husband don't make a whole lot, and she is always expecting me to pay for things in our row of townhouses/shared yard area (I live in a row of townhouses in a historic area) because she thinks I have a lot of disposable income (I've never told her what I make). Thing is, when she does get money (tax, estate settlement) she goes out and spends it on a new laptop, expensive cosmetics, shoes, etc. My extra money goes into my stock account and I buy my makeup at the drug store and my groceries at Walmart.

I believe that if you want something in this life, this country gives us the tools to get it. Yes, some do inherit their wealth, but that's not the case for many.

[mardi gras skin]

Most people I know who are well off made smart choices at key moments in life and worked hard to see those choices work out. Most people I know who are not well off have a kind of victim mentality, always feeling run over when their plans don't pan out.

Predicto, I think, pointed out that different regions produce more successful people than other regions of the country. In my experience, this is irrelevant. Success and wealth are felt in relation to the people you come in contact with. Unless this is a theoretic exercise, "having the most" should be measured in the same way that it is felt.

I've seen this play out in rural Hortense, GA; suburban Owings Mills, MD and Ocean Springs, MS; and in urban New Orleans. Every region had wealthy people, but you couldn't compare income, education, opportunity, or status between communities. The typical person in Hortense, GA values time for recreational actives more than having a lot of stuff. They're unimpressed by the hard work and long hours of the northeast. Ocean Springs was a real artsy community that tended to value unique self expression. They would be repulsed by the townhouse, condo, cookie cutter lifestyle so many successful north easterners live.

So neither group would be impressed by the 90% success rate Predicto threw out. They don't want it and they don't work towards it, so of course they don't have it.

They just want that their neighbors have.

[Smoot Point Really]

Or they inherited it.

If you earned something, would you want someone else taking it away from your children because they didn't actually do the work? It was earned at some point.

The point is... money is either earned or taken... Would you rather earn it or take it from someone else?

I don't think this is very complicated...

[Commander PK]

Well there has been 27 "No" votes, which is less than the "Yes" votes...but only by 6. The Yes people have definitely been the more vocal bunch, and those that are leaning toward Yes. Where are the "No" people?

[Mister Happy]

No, but there is a lot of luck involved as well. Take Bill Gates for example. Brilliant businessman, sure. But no one thinks that MS-DOS was the best operating system when he created it, nor have Microsoft products ever been very good since then. However, MS-DOS had one advantage - it was the operating system chosen by IBM for its computers at the beginning, and at that time, whatever IBM did, everyone else followed because SOMETHING had to be the industry standard, and bang! Gates has an unbreakable monopoly that he can leverage into the Microsoft juggernaut and soon becomes the richest man in the world.

If IBM had chosen a different operating system, we never would have heard of Bill Gates.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/obituaries/mary-gates-64-helped-her-son-start-microsoft.html

[Midnight Judges]

The yes people are wrong.

And so are the no people.

The question is if people have earned it. Unless being born is some kind of accomplishment, I don't see how a person born into a billionaire family has earned it. That has nothing to do with envy. It's not to say they won't someday earn it. But if you are 1 day old, and have a billion dollars at your disposal, how the hell could you have earned it? Can one of the yes voters please explain that to me?

Also disagree with the no people. I posted earlier about my Dad and I would like to have somebody explain why he hasn't earned where he is.

[MissU28]

Am wondering how many "NO" people identify as liberal and how many "YES" people identify as conservative....

[sacase]

Here is the interesting thing when we talk about redistrobution of wealth. So if you feel people have not earned it, then you advocatate taking money away from them since they have not earned it. Well, what about social programs that give money to people who have not earned it? Are you going to take that money away from them, because surely they have not earned simply because they exist. The issue cuts both ways. However, if you really want to make it just a campaign against the rich, then you obviously have an agenda and are extremely jealous.

[Prosperity]

Here is the interesting thing when we talk about redistrobution of wealth. So if you feel people have not earned it, then you advocatate taking money away from them since they have not earned it. Well, what about social programs that give money to people who have not earned it? Are you going to take that money away from them, because surely they have not earned simply because they exist. The issue cuts both ways. However, if you really want to make it just a campaign against the rich, then you obviously have an agenda and are extremely jealous.

that's a good point, either way I think subtle redistribution can be pretty useful. But there is nothing inherently right about taking from someone and giving it to another. It ought to be a cost benefit analysis, but ultimately, subtle redistribution can be a beneficial action for society as a whole. Especially when you consider the diminishing returns given by material wealth

[No_Pressure]

Here is the interesting thing when we talk about redistrobution of wealth. So if you feel people have not earned it, then you advocatate taking money away from them since they have not earned it. Well, what about social programs that give money to people who have not earned it? Are you going to take that money away from them, because surely they have not earned simply because they exist. The issue cuts both ways. However, if you really want to make it just a campaign against the rich, then you obviously have an agenda and are extremely jealous.

It isn't an issue of earned for them it's an issue of deserving or needing, which is why earlier in the thread califan thought I was supporting the no vote. I was saying that I felt that in a perfect world people would be paid based on their value to society, so those who deserve more would get more.

That perfect society is 100% impossible to ever accomplish so we must deal with reality and our system which is to say, you are responsible for your success in life with the decisions you make. If you know that teachers make 50k per year tops in a decent school district while businessmen may just start out a 50k per year at a good job and have a ceiling in the millions, and you still choose to be a teacher you are accepting what is coming to you and have no reason to complain that someone else may make more money than you.

[MissU28]

that's a good point, either way I think subtle redistribution can be pretty useful. But there is nothing inherently right about taking from someone and giving it to another. It ought to be a cost benefit analysis, but ultimately, subtle redistribution can be a beneficial action for society as a whole. Especially when you consider the diminishing returns given by material wealth

But who is anybody to tell anybody else what to spend their money on? If people want to blow their money on material things, that's their business.

Subtle VOLUNTARY redistribution is fine, but just because you don't think someone is spending their money wisely is not a good argument to encourage mandatory wealth redistribution.

[Thiebear]

You can't fix "Human".

Its been this way since we lived in caves.. some were bigger..

Same with nature.. some win/some lose...

Top 10 in the US seem to have earned it..

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Christy Walton top 2009's 'Forbes 400: Richest Americans' list

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/work_career/2009/10/01/2009-10-01_bill_gates_warren_buffett_lawrence_ellison_top_2009s_forbes_400_richest_american.html#ixzz0TYY4FX2t