Do left-wingers have a hatred of the rich?

[Fahran]

We all know they do, which I find is stupid, why are the rich, rich? It’s because they’ve done something that’s revolutionised the world and they deserve the fortune brought to them.

Actually a good chunk of them are only rich because their banking off of the revolutionary things their parents/grandparents/etc... did.

62% of American billionaires are self-made. Many of the rest took several generations to amass their family fortune.
Source.

This is also true of most American millionaires, with the average age of an American millionaire being around sixty one. These are people who have more or less worked their whole lives to make a fortune. Trust fund babies, such as Trump, are a rarer occurrence.
Source.

[Sovaal]

I don't hate rich people per say, but I hate how authoritarian the big corporations have become turning our government into oligarchy to rob from the poor...

I mean government by itself isn’t exactly much better.

[Dogmeat]

Actually a good chunk of them are only rich because their banking off of the revolutionary things their parents/grandparents/etc... did.

62% of American billionaires are self-made.
Source.

This is also true of most American millionaires, with the average age of an American millionaire being around sixty one. These are people who have more or less worked their whole lives to make a fortune. Trust fund babies, such as Trump, are a rarer occurrence.
Source.

38% seems like a "good chunk" to me.

[Bolkenia]

My parents gain more than the average-pay in France. According to this logic, I'm rich yet I support some of the view of the Left. Who knows.

[The Flutterlands]

I don't hate rich people per say, but I hate how authoritarian the big corporations have become turning our government into oligarchy to rob from the poor...

I mean government by itself isn’t exactly much better.

Yeah, but their should be a wall between corporations and state as strong as the wall between church and state.

[Fahran]

38% seems like a "good chunk" to me.

Yes, but we must also account for the fact that many of that 38% built on wealth they had inherited over the course of generations. Take the Rothschild family for instance. Multiple generations of astute bankers and investors made that fortune. They didn't miraculously acquire a billion dollars one day. Most members of the family remain astute business people who would probably do well enough for themselves without the advantage of their familial fortune. Hating an entire class because a minority of them "don't deserve" their wealth by your standards is silly.

[Xadufell]

I mean government by itself isn’t exactly much better.

Yeah, but their should be a wall between corporations and state as strong as the wall between church and state.

Walls you say?
HMMMMMMM

[Dogmeat]

38% seems like a "good chunk" to me.

Yes, but we must also account for the fact that many of that 38% built on wealth they had inherited over the course of generations. Take the Rothschild family for instance. Multiple generations of astute bankers and investors made that fortune. They didn't miraculously acquire a billion dollars one day. Most members of the family remain astute business people who would probably do well enough for themselves without the advantage of their familial fortune. Hating an entire class because a minority of them "don't deserve" their wealth by your standards is silly.

By my standards? Hate?

You don't know me.

[Great Minarchistan]

Not owning private property means you're poor tbh.

85% of society being poor is a pretty big claim.

85% of society doesn't have anything that they can call their own? :thronking:

[Great Minarchistan]

62% of American billionaires are self-made.
Source.

This is also true of most American millionaires, with the average age of an American millionaire being around sixty one. These are people who have more or less worked their whole lives to make a fortune. Trust fund babies, such as Trump, are a rarer occurrence.
Source.

38% seems like a "good chunk" to me.

It halved since... 1970s?

[Dogmeat]

38% seems like a "good chunk" to me.

It halved since... 1970s?

Christ mate, don't read too much into this. All I'm saying is that "it's actually only about 40%" doesn't very-well refute the "good chunk" claim.

EDIT: Although, if we're going to be nitpicky, the second article only asks rich people if they "felt rich" growing up. Not terribly rigorous.

[Hirota]

Again, still not the only form of tax.

I think it says a lot when the only argument you can summon is the fact the Poor might pay more on Alcohol excise taxes, while ignoring that said tax is completely voluntary.

And I think it says a lot that you ignore the fact the evidence supporting your claim is dubious at best.

[Oil exporting People]

Why is that necessarily a bad thing? Let's say the poverty line is $20k and you have five people. Four make $60k a year while one makes $10 Million a year. Yes, this is a large amount of inequality but this doesn't mean the other four are worse off. I'd think the Left would be better off focusing on stagnant wages then inequality.

Why not both?

A democratic society ought to more closely resemble a sphere then a pyramid. With the highest concentrations of wealth and population being concentrated at the center rather then the top and bottom (respectively.) This produces a healthier dynamic.

Why and how? What also exactly defines healthy? As I already pointed out, just because someone is better off than you comparatively doesn't by necessity mean you are worse off in actual terms.

[Oil exporting People]

I think it says a lot when the only argument you can summon is the fact the Poor might pay more on Alcohol excise taxes, while ignoring that said tax is completely voluntary.

And I think it says a lot that you ignore the fact the evidence supporting your claim is dubious at best.

Uh, no. I've already cited empirical data that proves the Rich pay more than their fair share and effectively carry the rest of us while you could only cite one voluntary excise tax that does not compromise any meaningful percentage of public finances. This is the economic equivalent of one guy doing all the work and another guy just showing up and saying they're equal because of that fact.

[Post War America]

Why not both?

A democratic society ought to more closely resemble a sphere then a pyramid. With the highest concentrations of wealth and population being concentrated at the center rather then the top and bottom (respectively.) This produces a healthier dynamic.

Why and how? What also exactly defines healthy? As I already pointed out, just because someone is better off than you comparatively doesn't by necessity mean you are worse off in actual terms.

Even if the world were a magical place where even the least wealthy people in society were well out of poverty, there would still be a significant disparity in power wherein a small minority has a vast amount of power over a very large populace with very little power. In the context of a democratic society, that's not a good thing if one believes that maintaining a democratic system is a good thing.

[Hirota]

And I think it says a lot that you ignore the fact the evidence supporting your claim is dubious at best.

Uh, no. I've already cited empirical data that proves the Rich pay more than their fair share and effectively carry the rest of us while you could only cite one voluntary excise tax that does not compromise any meaningful percentage of public finances. This is the economic equivalent of one guy doing all the work and another guy just showing up and saying they're equal because of that fact.

Let me quote what you are ignoring. If you want to continue to ignore it, that's up to you. I'm sure people might assume because you won't argue against it, is evidence you can't.

It's also worth noting that your report from the aei breaks the wealthy into the "top quintile" - the top 20%. I'd submit given there is evidence of an inequality between the very top and everyone else ("the 99%", to use the old term), that this figure doesn't show much at all when it obfuscates the inequality between the 1% and the 99% by hiding it behind another 19%. Still, the report talks about a study that mentions the very wealthy:

For instance, in 2013, the top 1% of taxpayers paid a higher tax rate (34%) than in the year Reagan took office (33.2%).

- what that doesn't mention is that the top 1% of taxpayers own much more of the proportion of assets and wealth than they did in the year Reagan took office. So whilst maybe the US tax system is more progressive based on income, it doesn't adequately keep pace with the increasing imbalance in wealth between the top 1% and everyone else.

And I think thats where your argument lacks strength - most of your sources talk about the top 20 or 10 percent, but most of your critics are talking about the top 1 or 5 percent.

[Jebslund]

We have an entire theological doctrine in the US called Prosperity Theology that tells people that there is a direct correlation between a person's wealth and a person's morality.
So I can easily believe that there's a more 'hate the poor' vibe then the other way around.

A theology that the vast majority of right-wingers, and especially the religious right, consider to be heretical at best, apostasy at worst.

It's not a conscious, professed belief. Several people in this thread clearly display it, even though, were you to directly ask, most of them would say they do not believe such. That belief is evident in the idea that the rich are rich solely through great achievements and hard work, and the fact that the poor are poor must mean that they did not put in the effort and/or did not create anything of worth.

Case in point: The fidget spinner. An overnight success, some people would say. The better informed, however, know that the people getting rich on it are *not* the person who put in the work of developing it. The people getting rich on it are getting rich because they waited for the patent to expire, then snapped it up and began selling the product. Prosperity Theology dictates that the inventor didn't do enough to 'deserve' to profit, and the fact that the company that stole her invention did profit means they *did* earn the money, not because the theft is considered right (though there are those who regard that theft as intellect because it was legal). To someone out of the know, the situation looks like a rich company creating another successful product, thereby earning their wealth, and a non-wealthy person who produced nothing and therefore deserves nothing. Those on welfare are seen as leeches who do nothing and deserve nothing, even when they have been looking for work for years, whereas wealthy CEOs are hailed as hard workers who earned every cent even when they have incomes in the millions and a significant chunk of their employees are on welfare with three jobs (who, incidentally, are seen as lazy, until it's pointed out how hard they work, which then sparks a change in the narrative where it's not work ethic, but intelligence which holds them back.).

[Oil exporting People]

Why and how? What also exactly defines healthy? As I already pointed out, just because someone is better off than you comparatively doesn't by necessity mean you are worse off in actual terms.

Even if the world were a magical place where even the least wealthy people in society were well out of poverty, there would still be a significant disparity in power wherein a small minority has a vast amount of power over a very large populace with very little power. In the context of a democratic society, that's not a good thing if one believes that maintaining a democratic system is a good thing.

Which ignores that one man, one vote is a thing. If you're worried about campaign finance, pass regulations in that area.

[Claorica]

A theology that the vast majority of right-wingers, and especially the religious right, consider to be heretical at best, apostasy at worst.

It's not a conscious, professed belief. Several people in this thread clearly display it, even though, were you to directly ask, most of them would say they do not believe such. That belief is evident in the idea that the rich are rich solely through great achievements and hard work, and the fact that the poor are poor must mean that they did not put in the effort and/or did not create anything of worth.

Case in point: The fidget spinner. An overnight success, some people would say. The better informed, however, know that the people getting rich on it are *not* the person who put in the work of developing it. The people getting rich on it are getting rich because they waited for the patent to expire, then snapped it up and began selling the product. Prosperity Theology dictates that the inventor didn't do enough to 'deserve' to profit, and the fact that the company that stole her invention did profit means they *did* earn the money, not because the theft is considered right (though there are those who regard that theft as intellect because it was legal). To someone out of the know, the situation looks like a rich company creating another successful product, thereby earning their wealth, and a non-wealthy person who produced nothing and therefore deserves nothing. Those on welfare are seen as leeches who do nothing and deserve nothing, even when they have been looking for work for years, whereas wealthy CEOs are hailed as hard workers who earned every cent even when they have incomes in the millions and a significant chunk of their employees are on welfare with three jobs (who, incidentally, are seen as lazy, until it's pointed out how hard they work, which then sparks a change in the narrative where it's not work ethic, but intelligence which holds them back.).

Almost all of the right wingers that I personally know don't regard anyone who is poor as "deserving" of their plight without an understanding of why they are there.

[Oil exporting People]

Let me quote what you are ignoring. If you want to continue to ignore it, that's up to you. I'm sure people might assume because you won't argue against it, is evidence you can't.

I'm not the one who apparently refuses to read empirical data and has failed to cite anything in my case. Your apparent inability to utilize basic reading comprehension and critical thinking is your own issue, not mine.

[Post War America]

Even if the world were a magical place where even the least wealthy people in society were well out of poverty, there would still be a significant disparity in power wherein a small minority has a vast amount of power over a very large populace with very little power. In the context of a democratic society, that's not a good thing if one believes that maintaining a democratic system is a good thing.

Which ignores that one man, one vote is a thing. If you're worried about campaign finance, pass regulations in that area.

There are other ways to buy influence, and this of course ignores the fact that people could self finance their campaigns (45 being a prime example). One could also influence the government with one's wealth by threatening to pull investments out of a country. Even so, if one were to remove the influence that money plays in politics, one would likely also see reductions in inequality as the state would be more inclined to rule in favor of the bottom of the period, and less inclined to do so for those at the top.

[Hirota]

Let me quote what you are ignoring. If you want to continue to ignore it, that's up to you. I'm sure people might assume because you won't argue against it, is evidence you can't.

I'm not the one who apparently refuses to read empirical data and has failed to cite anything in my case. Your apparent inability to utilize basic reading comprehension and critical thinking is your own issue, not mine.

So you continue to avoid it, and attempt to obfuscate through ad hominems.

I read your article -would not be able to quote it if I did not - so that appears to be an obvious falsehood on your part.

Honestly, it's Up to you, but it's worth noting that I do generally agree with you that "most" of the wealthy do pay their fair share. I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational to someone who is more sympathetic than most.

My disagreement, where we differ, is that i believe the very wealthiest do not pay their fair share. And I believe the burden of proof is upon you to prove they do, not on me to prove they do not.

But if you want to fail to discuss in good faith, that's your choice.

Edit: typos on a mobile

[Oil exporting People]

There are other ways to buy influence

No, their really isn't if you pass meaningful campaign finance law and keep corruption illegal.

and this of course ignores the fact that people could self finance their campaigns (45 being a prime example).

Okay, and? How is using ones money to run for office a bad thing?

One could also influence the government with one's wealth by threatening to pull investments out of a country.

Okay, and? The ability to use one's money how they want is an essential element of our system, and to do what you're implying here is called Communism.

Even so, if one were to remove the influence that money plays in politics, one would likely also see reductions in inequality as the state would be more inclined to rule in favor of the bottom of the period, and less inclined to do so for those at the top.

No, we just go from one extreme to the other. The Tyranny of the Majority is just as real as that of the Minority.

[Oil exporting People]

So you continue to avoid it, and attempt to obfuscate I ad hominems. Up to you, but it's worth noting that I do generally agree with you the "most" of the wealthy do pay their fair share.

My disagreement is that i believe the very wealthiest do not. And I believe the burden of proof is upon you to prove they do, not on me to prove they do not.

But if you want to fail to discuss in good faith, that's your choice.

And again I'll repeat I've already cited empirical data to prove my case which you have categorically failed to do so. Here, I'll post another source since you're being obtuse:

In 2014, 139.6 million taxpayers reported earning $9.71 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes.

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.

In 2014, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent.

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

[Claorica]

I'm not the one who apparently refuses to read empirical data and has failed to cite anything in my case. Your apparent inability to utilize basic reading comprehension and critical thinking is your own issue, not mine.

So you continue to avoid it, and attempt to obfuscate I ad hominems. Up to you, but it's worth noting that I do generally agree with you the "most" of the wealthy do pay their fair share.

My disagreement is that i believe the very wealthiest do not. And I believe the burden of proof is upon you to prove they do, not on me to prove they do not.

But if you want to fail to discuss in good faith, that's your choice.

I think you have to understand that the wealthiest are not the 1%.

The 1%, IIRC makes somewhere around ~$300,000-400,000. As I've said, most of the bottom of the "1%" are people like farmers or other small business owners, who have a lot of material wealth but almost never keep it liquid. the .01% is what you have a problem with, people who actually make millions every year.