Why should the rich get richer?

[reddread]

cant believe I have to ask that question here.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. Because they contribute to Super PACs to make it happen. n/t

[onecaliberal]

2. Because it's not their fault that people are stupid or lazy and poor without education

[Hiraeth]

3. How rich is rich?

[Orsino]

4. Because they are better people than we are.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be rich. Duh.

[Nye Bevan]

5. OK I'll bite.

Because a guy who has built a business and hired a bunch of people won't expand his business and hire more people if he's not allowed to get richer?

[reddread]

6. if he is going to hire offshore workers?

and thats how they get richer.
PERIOD.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. I work for a guy who started his own business.

I don't consider him "Rich".

Successful, yes. But he isn't in a mansion living off investments and only paying 15% on that income.

I think you misunderstood the question.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Many, many rich people don't live in mansions and drive Porsches.

They pay their taxes like you and me and drive Hondas and Toyotas, paying cash for them and keeping them for many years.

But the OP did just say "rich", as opposed to "rich people living in mansions and living off their investments".

[reddread]

18. I said WHY SHOULD THE RICH GET RICHER

in light of how everyone else has done over the last 30 years?
I guess you needed a little more information.
Now, about that offshore and outsourcing strategy?

[Nye Bevan]

22. I stand by my original answer.

Sorry if you don't like it.

[reddread]

24. worked for Reagan

[Nye Bevan]

25. DU economics threads.

Gotta love 'em.

[reddread]

28. everything I ever needed to know I learned from David Stockman

[Motown_Johnny]

19. Hillary defines only the top 5% as being above "Middle Class".

I guess I was thinking that a couple hundred thousand a year is not enough to qualify as "Rich". It would seem that you disagree, with both myself and Sec. Clinton.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/hillary-clinton-middle-class

^snip^

Hillary Clinton's Strange Definition of "Middle Class"

The Democratic candidate promises to not raise taxes on people who are well within the top 5 percent.


There's a problem with Clinton's line of attack: She is promising to exempt a lot of indisputably rich people from paying more in taxes. Clinton pledged last week that, should she become president, she wouldn't allow taxes to be raised on households earning less than $250,000 per year—by any measure a very high ceiling for the middle class.

The middle class is one of those nebulous terms with no clear-cut definition. But a glance at the distribution of income across the country makes it hard to argue that anyone earning close to $250,000 a year could be considered part of the "middle" of the income range.


The median household income for 2014, according to the US Census Bureau, was $53,657, about where it has been for the past three years (though still down quite a bit from the $57,357 mark in 2007, before the recession hit). To get into the top 20 percent, a family needs to make more than $112,000 per year. Entry into the top 5 percent requires more than $206,000 in annual income. A typical definition of the middle class wouldn't include the top 5 percent of earners, who took in more than half the money earned nationwide in 2014. And yet Clinton's bar is even higher.

[hill2016]

7. it's not "should"

but they do. And the reason is maths/economics.

The reason is that they own CAPITAL, which can be used to work for them to generate returns.

Easiest example is to think of owning a rental property. They can rent out these to people who don't have their own homes. This is a transfer of income from those without capital to those with capital. Over time, this rental income accumulates and they can buy a second home etc. Process repeats. For the renters, they keep paying this rental and help the landlord accumulate equity in their homes, instead of accumulating equity for themselves. The only way to break out of this cycle is to save enough for a down deposit for their own homes.

You can imagine this as other forms of capital as well e.g. owning debt, equity, businesses, land etc.

[revbones]

9. And take advantage of corrupt candidates that create loopholes for them.. nt

[hill2016]

13. maybe

but not absolutely necessary.

[revbones]

14. Sure but many do, and there are many candidates like Hillary corrupt enough to help them... nt

[ReasonableToo]

8. If you are making over, say, $500,000, you are either over charging customers or

Or underpaying employees. Or you are a manager/ CEO/ board member/etc of a company that does.

Not sure exactly where to draw the line but 500k is a start when current fed minimum yields roughly 15k

(Not disagreeing with your question)

[hill2016]

12. not really

tons of people earn >$500k by just showing up for work (not being part of management).

Think hedge funds, private equity, lawyers, specialists, investment banking, etc.

[mainer]

11. Sometimes they just get poorer.

Sometimes it goes up their noses, or the market crashes, or their kids blow it all. The rich don't inevitably get richer.

[reddread]

20. thats not the rich

come on. wealth and income gaps are facts.
throw some dirt on that.
drug habits are much more affordable when you are wealthy
and know where to buy in bulk.
and have your own jet.
thats whats up here.

those stereotypes are well out of date.

[mainer]

26. We have third-generation trust funders here

Their grandfathers were among the wealthiest in the country. Two generations later, the families are not wealthy. Some of those third-generation kids are losers.

I guess it depends on what you define as "wealthy." Someone with ten million? That much can be gone in a flash. Someone with 100 million is pretty secure and insulated, but there aren't that many in the country.

[reddread]

27. no news there

so much local large scale farming has been handed over to the agri corps
because the kids were incompetent.

this has very little to do with the exploding gap in wealth disparity.
the truly rich are getting massively wealthier off of anti-American labor moves.

lets keep it simple and honest.

lets face the truth.

[tabasco]

16. In order to become monarchs

Unregulated capitalism will result in oligarchy and eventually monarchy.

[northernsouthern]

17. Not sure if there is a good answer to that...

Society benefits from a social safety net as I understand, since it prevents people from going around the rules if the rules have no positive benefit to them. Also we are born social animals, so we do need a society. People need inspiration/motivation to build create...but I don't see that being affected by a cap. Elon Musk and several others that have been building may be a result of a government that seems to not reward innovation and cuts back sending it to the private sector...but they are definitely trying to innovate with their wealth. Having a cap on wealth, or rather a curve may be good to prevent the robber barons of the world from using wealth for wealth's sake. Many of the older inventions did not make people wealthy as much as it gave them prestige or just solved a problem. Wealth for wealth's sake seems very hollow and from the sounds of it hurts the economy by reducing the flow of capital. It would be interesting if genetically some people are less inclined to being social so more driven to only think of themselves, but due to the large pool it is less obvious that some of us are less of a social ape (I think that was how Desmond Morris put it).

[Gregorian]

21. Because the poor are powerless to stop the rich from ripping them off?

That made it ok for Clinton.

[reddread]

23. You might have that slightly scrambled