4 ms·

I think this “vilify the rich minority” mentality that’s so popular these days is destructive in the fact that the people that popularize this, see it as a path

by zarro 7y ago

I think this “vilify the rich minority” mentality that’s so popular these days is destructive in the fact that the people that popularize this, see it as a path of least resistance to getting subsidized at the expense of the rich, instead of working toward improving themselves and the value of the products/services they provide so that they may, in return, purchase valuable services for themselves. In the end when this sort of mentality is allowed to win out, what it leads to is the dissolution of those valuable services these “rich” people provide which made them their wealth in the first place. It’s unfortunate that only AFTER their dissolution, the original proponents of this mentality are the ones that suffer and realize their short sightedness.

empath75 7y ago
What about all those services like public education, roads, the military, police force, federally funded research, societal stability and so on that government provides which enabled those wealthy people to gain and maintain their wealth to begin with. And what services did Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump provide the world, or all the other heirs and heiresses of vast fortunes who earned it by virtue of being the scion of someone who actually accomplished something -- or maybe the offspring of the offspring of someone who actually accomplished something?
- zarro 7y ago
  The argument is, all those services and much more could be provided for privately much more efficiently.
munificent 7y ago
> see it as a path of least resistance to getting subsidized at the expense of the rich. If making the tax code more progressive is equivalent to "subsidizing the poor at the expense of the rich", does that mean you're saying the current regressive tax laws subsidize the rich at the expense of the poor? If so, flipping that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
- zarro 7y ago
  Taxes that aren't flat and equal for everyone are discriminatory.
xphilter 7y ago
In your opinion, would there be any way of pushing back against tax cuts for wealthy without "vilify the rich minority"?
- zarro 7y ago
  The question itself comes off as prejudiced because you seem to imply that the wealthy should pay more than those that are not wealthy, and discarding the fact that your discriminating against those that are wealthy by doing so.

by zarro 7y ago

empath75 7y ago

What about all those services like public education, roads, the military, police force, federally funded research, societal stability and so on that government provides which enabled those wealthy people to gain and maintain their wealth to begin with. And what services did Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump provide the world, or all the other heirs and heiresses of vast fortunes who earned it by virtue of being the scion of someone who actually accomplished something -- or maybe the offspring of the offspring of someone who actually accomplished something?

zarro 7y ago
The argument is, all those services and much more could be provided for privately much more efficiently.

munificent 7y ago

> see it as a path of least resistance to getting subsidized at the expense of the rich. If making the tax code more progressive is equivalent to "subsidizing the poor at the expense of the rich", does that mean you're saying the current regressive tax laws subsidize the rich at the expense of the poor? If so, flipping that sounds entirely reasonable to me.

zarro 7y ago
Taxes that aren't flat and equal for everyone are discriminatory.

xphilter 7y ago

In your opinion, would there be any way of pushing back against tax cuts for wealthy without "vilify the rich minority"?

zarro 7y ago
The question itself comes off as prejudiced because you seem to imply that the wealthy should pay more than those that are not wealthy, and discarding the fact that your discriminating against those that are wealthy by doing so.