i make good money. why do i feel that others think they are entitled to it?

[Red Dawn]

Anyone else tired of the "Obama the Messiah" crap cliche?

I'm more tired of dmcfatasses674's crap

 

[Soltis]

Instead of putting so much effort into taking from the "rich", maybe we should put more effort into teaching people how to become "rich"? Heck I think alot of people would be satisfied with going from 35k a year to 90k a year. Are you a "bad person" for becoming "rich"? or waiting until you had some financial security to start a family? It sounds like you're more socially "accepted" if you're not rich, even though technically that means you take way more than you put in from society?

 

[ebaycj]

i come from a lower middle income family that preached the value of education and hard work. i didn't live in the inner city ghettos, but i was not exactly privileged.
i studied my ass off and worked throughout HS and college to contribute to my family's expenses as well as funding a splurge here or there (computer components, my first used car, ipod, gadgets, etc.).

fast forward to today where i have a cushy job that pays fairly well, but i believe i earned it. the hard work from previous years paid off.

however, when i come into p&n and read threads, i can't help but feel that many think i should be penalized for my work ethic. that somehow the rewards that i am now reaping should be distributed to the less fortunate.

when i look back and think, what were they doing when i was taking the bus that takes me to the store where i worked after a full day of school? hanging out, maybe playing ball, at the pool hall, possibly up to no good. who knows...
all i question is why i have to fork out more money to support them and their bad behavior?

while i'm paying a sh*t ton of taxes, they're not just being unproductive, they're being the opposite by leeching off gov't funds that i contribute to.
yet the gov't feels this is fine, and not only that, they want to take even more from me now?
something is not right here...

and don't paint me as someone who wants to hoard all my money, not wanting to help others out. i have donated to my alma mater and to the hospital whose services i've used and am grateful for.
i'd rather choose where my money goes, rather than having it go to someone who's on welfare for life but perfectly able to work and provide for themselves.

You need a strong dose of "I am nothing". That will set you free.

Oh, and you didn't "earn" shit. That sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Oh, and you didn't "earn" shit. That sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

No, the entitlement mentality uses the word "deserve," not "earn."

 

[nonlnear]

Oh, and you didn't "earn" shit. That sounds like an entitlement mentality to me.

With logic like that, who needs logic?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That explains a lot....

...about you.

 

[Soltis]

No, the entitlement mentality uses the word "deserve," not "earn."

qft

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Instead of putting so much effort into taking from the "rich", maybe we should put more effort into teaching people how to become "rich"? Heck I think alot of people would be satisfied with going from 35k a year to 90k a year. Are you a "bad person" for becoming "rich"? or waiting until you had some financial security to start a family? It sounds like you're more socially "accepted" if you're not rich, even though technically that means you take way more than you put in from society?

That will never happen. That's more of a threat to rich people's wealth than any government redistribution.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Instead of putting so much effort into taking from the "rich", maybe we should put more effort into teaching people how to become "rich"? Heck I think alot of people would be satisfied with going from 35k a year to 90k a year. Are you a "bad person" for becoming "rich"? or waiting until you had some financial security to start a family? It sounds like you're more socially "accepted" if you're not rich, even though technically that means you take way more than you put in from society?

Judging from the responses in the other thread we had about what constitutes "rich," 90K would be borderline "rich." I think the referenced charts indicated that an AGI of $113K or above means you're in the top 10%.

 

[Red Dawn]

Judging from the responses in the other thread we had about what constitutes "rich," 90K would be borderline "rich." I think the referenced charts indicated that an AGI of $113K or above means you're in the top 10%.

Well they're wrong, Rich is were you have enough money where you don't have to worry about money.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Well they're wrong, Rich is were you have enough money where you don't have to worry about money.

Exactly. My wife and I would be considered "rich," and the last time I checked, I didn't have a Rolls sitting in my garage or a yacht waiting for me on Lake Michigan. You can't make a determination if someone is wealthy based solely on income.

 

[sandorski]

That will never happen. That's more of a threat to rich people's wealth than any government redistribution.

Supply/Demand comes into play there. If everyone could be a Millionaire, being a Millionaire would become the equivalent of being just above Minimum Wage.

A Population as large as the US simply can not support everyone being "Rich". There are simply not enough R&D opportunities, Product, or Patent Licensing Exports for 300 million people to acquire large sums of Real Wealth. Then there's the problem of maintaining the Infrastructure, you need a large Workforce to do that and, as it seems, there's great resistance to Paying them a Wage beyond bare existence.

Lichtenstein could do it though.

 

[nonlnear]

Well they're wrong, Rich is were you have enough money where you don't have to worry about money.

Nobody has to. People choose to worry about money, typically out of self-interest. Your definition has merit, but only as a zen riddle - or joke.

 

[Red Dawn]

Nobody has to. People choose to worry about money, typically out of self-interest. Your definition has merit, but only as a zen riddle - or joke.

Lol, so when the Bank wants to know where my Mortgage payment is I'll just tell them "Don't worry, be happy"

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Supply/Demand comes into play there. If everyone could be a Millionaire, being a Millionaire would become the equivalent of being just above Minimum Wage.

A Population as large as the US simply can not support everyone being "Rich". There are simply not enough R&D opportunities, Product, or Patent Licensing Exports for 300 million people to acquire large sums of Real Wealth. Then there's the problem of maintaining the Infrastructure, you need a large Workforce to do that and, as it seems, there's great resistance to Paying them a Wage beyond bare existence.

Lichtenstein could do it though.

If you want a real world example of just this phenomenon, check out this video on the middle class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
Basically the effect of everyone trying to push and claw themselves above middle class just inflated the income level of being middle class. Now the middle class is working harder just to maintain that same middle class lifestyle.

 

[Jaskalas]

What do you produce, sir - other than a drop of fecal matter upon the intertubes?

What do you wish to have government take from him at the point of a gun?

Right, you want his wealth.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Sorry OP, I reread your post twice and really tried to feel sorry for you.

But it still sounded like your a whinny little bitch with an entitlement attitude

 

[HumblePie]

To the OP here's how I look at it. You are only seeing a very small slice and in a very narrow minded view set.

I am also middle class. I make more than the average. I got a degree and do well. There are things I resent, and there are things I realize are practical.

Take things like roads, fire, police, schools, and other items that our "collective" tax dollar pay for. These all used to be at one point in time privatized. It was a mess. It didn't work to well. For example:

If you were paying for a fire department, but your neighbor wasn't and his house caught on fire then the fire department wouldn't put it out. But like most fires, eventually it would spread and your house might be next to catch on fire. Once it did, then the fire department would try to put out your house fire. However, that doesn't change the fact your house still received damage. Damage it wouldn't have received had the fire department put the fire out in your neighbors house before it spread. This actually did happen all over America. at one point. Communities would normally form fire brigades instead of relying on paid people to do the job. Now we got communal fire departments.


Also, you are not living in a shelter, eating off a food line, and requiring daily medicines you can not afford currently. However, that can all change in an instant. The stock market crashes where you lose everything. Or you get in a car wreck that was your fault because something mechanical went wrong in your car before you fixed it. Then you get massive hospital bills. Or you get divorced and the wife manages to take everything because she's fucking the lawyer for payment. Or maybe a combination of bad luck befalls you. It has happened to plenty of good people. When that happens, what do you do? What happens when friends you once knew shun you, because now you are the guy with no house, no car, and no job? What do you do then? Many of your taxes go toward helping you out in this instance. When I got laid off for several months, I was glad I could collect unemployment. Sure, you maybe extremely lucky through the rest of your life and never need to use the social services your tax dollars pay for. If so, good for you. However, if at any time you do need it, then you will most definitely be glad it's there.

Now what do I resent? I resent my tax money going to stupid shit like bailing out big businesses. I was pissed when credit card companies, the automotive industry, and many banks were given my money because they have been stupidly greedy. I resent when people "live" off the welfare state. People that can move out of free housing, can get an education, can work a job, and can try to reach higher than they currently can go but do not. These people I resent. They need to be kicked to the curb and taken off the social welfare teet. The people going for 4+ kids for the free food, tax money, and other breaks while they sit around all day watching Oprah and playing WoW while overfeeding their kids to obesity on free food need to be sent to prison.

On the flip side, I also resent those people in reality making millions a year, but only paying themselves 20K a year on paper to get the same benefits of someone actually only making 20K a year also need to be kicked to the curb or put in jail.

The difference between the OP and me is I see the valid needs of where my tax money goes. Yah, it would be nice to keep every penny I earn for myself, but I know doing so my life would not be as well off as it is now.

 

[Red Dawn]

On the flip side, I also resent those people in reality making millions a year, but only paying themselves 20K a year on paper to get the same benefits of someone actually only making 20K a year also need to be kicked to the curb or put in jail.

Where again you end up paying for them.

I do believe that people living off Welfare should be made to do something to earn it instead of just being. The problem is to administer it would be cost prohibitive.. or not.

 

[Hacp]

Only read OP post but if you were poor your family certainly paid far less in taxes than it received in government services, one way or the other (be it roads, military or whatever) so you were not paying your share then. You said you took the bus. Many (most?) public transport systems are operated at a loss. Literally each time you pay your buss fare it's not enough to actually cover what you use. Taxes fill the gap.

And, as mentioned, the public education that your family never even came within a ballpark of paying their fair share for.

I'm tired of people trying to make this argument. The government has a monopoly on bus lines. You try to start your own private bus line and the government suddenly has restrictive rules and regulations you need to follow. The cost of him taking his individual bus line is probably not high at all. I'm sure a private operator who isn't bogged down by union salaries could operate a line that made a profit with just the fee.

Public education is also another fallacy. Again, the government takes your taxes to pay for public education. If the government stopped taking those taxes and allowed you to buy and choose, more people would have affordable education. I attended a parochial school, cost 4k a year. New York schools spend 15k a year per student.

 

[nonlnear]

Lol, so when the Bank wants to know where my Mortgage payment is I'll just tell them "Don't worry, be happy"

You chose to assume a large debt to pursue the norm of home ownership. Did you have to do this? You chose to conform to the supposedly required societal norms whether you want to admit it or not. Granted most people do not make these choices consciously because they are in denial of the scope of their will. If you ascribe moral imperative to the movements of the herd then you might only have to make a real decision one or two times a decade. This is the freedom many people seek, but are too cowardly to name. "Need" as such is almost complete fantasy in the wealthy parts of the modern world for all but the most abjectly destitute. It is an excuse used to abdicate responsibility for one's identity.

edit: It is interesting that you seem to be saying that the only alternative you see between the path you have chosen to commit yourself to is the abdication of responsibility. I am advocating quite the opposite: the acknowledgment of TOTAL personal responsibility. Not only for the contractual obligations you have chosen to assume, but also for the underlying decision when you chose to pursue your desire ("need") for home ownership. It's hard to argue that the "need" for much more than 100 square feet per person is anything more than a culture-conditioned vanity. Even that is probably much more than what physical needs could ever be claimed to require.

 

[Soltis]

To the OP here's how I look at it. You are only seeing a very small slice and in a very narrow minded view set.

I am also middle class. I make more than the average. I got a degree and do well. There are things I resent, and there are things I realize are practical.

Take things like roads, fire, police, schools, and other items that our "collective" tax dollar pay for. These all used to be at one point in time privatized. It was a mess. It didn't work to well. For example:

If you were paying for a fire department, but your neighbor wasn't and his house caught on fire then the fire department wouldn't put it out. But like most fires, eventually it would spread and your house might be next to catch on fire. Once it did, then the fire department would try to put out your house fire. However, that doesn't change the fact your house still received damage. Damage it wouldn't have received had the fire department put the fire out in your neighbors house before it spread. This actually did happen all over America. at one point. Communities would normally form fire brigades instead of relying on paid people to do the job. Now we got communal fire departments.


Also, you are not living in a shelter, eating off a food line, and requiring daily medicines you can not afford currently. However, that can all change in an instant. The stock market crashes where you lose everything. Or you get in a car wreck that was your fault because something mechanical went wrong in your car before you fixed it. Then you get massive hospital bills. Or you get divorced and the wife manages to take everything because she's fucking the lawyer for payment. Or maybe a combination of bad luck befalls you. It has happened to plenty of good people. When that happens, what do you do? What happens when friends you once knew shun you, because now you are the guy with no house, no car, and no job? What do you do then? Many of your taxes go toward helping you out in this instance. When I got laid off for several months, I was glad I could collect unemployment. Sure, you maybe extremely lucky through the rest of your life and never need to use the social services your tax dollars pay for. If so, good for you. However, if at any time you do need it, then you will most definitely be glad it's there.

Now what do I resent? I resent my tax money going to stupid shit like bailing out big businesses. I was pissed when credit card companies, the automotive industry, and many banks were given my money because they have been stupidly greedy. I resent when people "live" off the welfare state. People that can move out of free housing, can get an education, can work a job, and can try to reach higher than they currently can go but do not. These people I resent. They need to be kicked to the curb and taken off the social welfare teet. The people going for 4+ kids for the free food, tax money, and other breaks while they sit around all day watching Oprah and playing WoW while overfeeding their kids to obesity on free food need to be sent to prison.

On the flip side, I also resent those people in reality making millions a year, but only paying themselves 20K a year on paper to get the same benefits of someone actually only making 20K a year also need to be kicked to the curb or put in jail.

The difference between the OP and me is I see the valid needs of where my tax money goes. Yah, it would be nice to keep every penny I earn for myself, but I know doing so my life would not be as well off as it is now.

Our system needs alot of work that likely won't ever happen, but having this type of attitude about it is what helps me get up in the morning and strive for the top still.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Now what do I resent? I resent my tax money going to stupid shit like bailing out big businesses. I was pissed when credit card companies, the automotive industry, and many banks were given my money because they have been stupidly greedy. I resent when people "live" off the welfare state. People that can move out of free housing, can get an education, can work a job, and can try to reach higher than they currently can go but do not. These people I resent. They need to be kicked to the curb and taken off the social welfare teet. The people going for 4+ kids for the free food, tax money, and other breaks while they sit around all day watching Oprah and playing WoW while overfeeding their kids to obesity on free food need to be sent to prison.

On the flip side, I also resent those people in reality making millions a year, but only paying themselves 20K a year on paper to get the same benefits of someone actually only making 20K a year also need to be kicked to the curb or put in jail.

Well said. Very well said.

 

[sao123]

the reason for this is simple. Whether you like it or not, our economy is communal.
What i mean by this is: if one segment of the poplulation suffers, the whole economy suffers.

if it often erroniously stated, that dems want to guarantee equal outcome, no... we need to guarantee minimum outcome.

in order for the economy to operate as it should, no segment of the population can be left behind. The movement started with profit maximizing and downsizing of the eightys and ninetys.

the original solution was to tax businesses, which taxes were just passed down to the customers... often the same people the tax was supposed to subsidize. The obvious answer is to tax the rich. Generally the rich and the business owner are one and the same, but a tax on the individual cant be passed on.

The solution is simple, as has worked under other economys... businesses need to worry more about paying higher wages to their lower employees, and lower wages to their higher employees, break even or even take a loss if necessary.

yeah yeah... i know your going to say if there is no profit, there is no motivation for creativity or progress. But you are wrong... progress comes as a result of necessity, not profit.

 

[Red Dawn]

You chose to assume a large debt to pursue the norm of home ownership. Did you have to do this? You chose to conform to the supposedly required societal norms whether you want to admit it or not. Granted most people do not make these choices consciously because they are in denial of the scope of their will. If you ascribe moral imperative to the movements of the herd then you might only have to make a real decision one or two times a decade. This is the freedom many people seek, but are too cowardly to name. "Need" as such is almost complete fantasy in the wealthy parts of the modern world for all but the most abjectly destitute. It is an excuse used to abdicate responsibility for one's identity.

Blah blah blah blah. I just posted that what I personally consider Rich is not ever having to worry about money and from you I get a pseudo moralistic diatribe in return. I don't resent them, I wish I had the means, smarts and do all to be like them,even if it just fell into their laps from being born to those who had the means, smarts and do all .