Published: Sunday, Feb. 2 2014 12:10 a.m. MST
The opposite of poverty is NOT wealth.The opposite of poverty is justice.
My problem with the 1% is that they want to cut their taxes and raise mine.
That is the 1% solution to deficit reduction.
The study authors conclude that wealthy people do not support the plight of the
poor, but that findings appears to be the authors interpretation of survey
questions that ask a different question. Wealthy entrepreneurs who made their
millions through hard work (and perhaps some luck) I think would tend to agree
that many social programs keep people in poverty rather than try to lift them
out of poverty. Thus, the authors conclude that the wealthy are heartless
because they oppose such social programs when the wealthy might oppose such
programs because they create disincentives to work. A better question would be
to ask the wealthy what proportion of their wealth they contribute to different
causes--such as humanitarian aid.
Government is the great equalizer: It makes all equally poor, except those who
are politically connected. Many wealthy people help the entire society simply
by providing more opportunity for others. After all is said and done, lifestyle
comes from production, not someone stifling production by controlling, limiting,
and confiscating according to political whim.
@Baron,Actually the statistics are the opposite of what you propose.
80% of millionaires are first generation rich. They started plumbing
businesses, went to professional school and saved, or simply were very
conservative with their money. Yes it is hard to want to pay more to a
government which is already taking 40% of what you make.I do not
want more taxes and I want to help the poor to get out of poverty. I would much
rather give $20,000 to a charity that is actually helping people turn their
lives around than send $10,000 to Washington where it will be squandered.Remember, the government spends over $20,000 on anti-poverty programs
for each person in poverty. Yes, over $80,000 in tax money is spent on a family
of 4 in poverty. If you just handed them the cash they would be solidly middle
class.Maybe it is just that the wealthy understand how incredibly
inefficient the government is and do not want to waste more of their money.
some_guy is bothered by people using scripture to justify their concern with our
top-heavy wealth distribution. I hate to ad gas to the fire, but from the
online Book of Mormon 4 Nephi: And it came to pass in the thirty
and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face
of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and
disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not
rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the
heavenly gift.Some-guy also believes that forced redistribution is a
bad thing. To a degree I agree with him. A major redistribution would be very
disruptive. But as Marx would say "it's not the people, it's the
system." In other words capitalism simply created huge inequalities. We
have to learn other ways of thinking and doing. A first step would be to get
familiar with Marx. Sooner or late this is going to happen.
This is a lousy article. The fact that the wealthy do not think that government
entitlement programs are an effective way to deal with the challenges of poverty
is no reflection on the compassion of the wealthy. Government is inefficient,
compulsive and ever growing.
Look at the Warren Buffet rule, [not the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,
Glenn Beck rules]and that pretty much says it all.When his
secretary pays more in taxes than he does [%], When Mitt Romney pays less
than I do [%]....WE - in America - have a problem, and MOST
wealthy will not admit, and they DO use their money as power to influence
Laws in their favor....Just like the Gadianton's did.
Mitt Romney and other rich people pay millions in taxes, and you and I do
not.The 1% are already paying for what they use AND for what others
who are lazy and refuse to pay for what they use.The govt does not
become more expensive simply because Mitt made a lot of money.We
should all pay for what we USE, and Mitt doesn't use more government
resources than I do
The rich aren't greedy they earned it, poor people are greedy, they want
something for nothing.
Let me see...so I have 40 trillion dollars.....the last thing anyone should be
calling me is greedy.......but rather I with 40 trillion think you who think me
greedy are the real greedy covetous losers.....
Very interesting article:1) Rich people are greedy! I’M
SHOCKING! if you are not greedy how do you get rich? Promote people to purchase
lottery?!!!!!)2) “87% rich people think the very important
problem is to eliminate national budget deficit”, SHCOCKING! Rich
people are wise here!3) By the way, rich people also are right on to
reduce or eliminate “minimum wage” regulation. SHOCKING! Rich
people are wise here! Do you think the USA is still a free-market-oriented
country? (Please refer to “2014 Index of Economic Freedom”, USA
continue to slide since 2008! currently 12th over the world.)
An old movie said it right, and said it best -- WallStreet, "Greed is Good!" ~ Gordon Gekko [played by Michael Douglas]
The article's author implicitly makes the huge assumption that
"increasing the minimum wage" actually "improves inequality".
If we could decrease inequality by increasing the minimum wage, why not raise
the minimum wage to $25/hr or more. A plethora of studies have shown that
increasing minimum wage in reality increases NOT decreases inequality.
Increasing taxes has proven similar results. Once these fallacies are exposed
the author's accusation that the 1% is greedy is a moot point. Instead of
creating laws forcing others to share by coercion our efforts would prove more
effective if we created a God loving society. We would then love to share with
our neighbor. Richard V. Burkhauser and Joseph J. Sabia,
“Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help
the Working Poor?” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 77, No. 3 (January
2010); Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, “Does the Minimum Wage Reduce
Poverty?” Employment Policies Institute, June 2001; Jill Jenkins,
“Minimum Wages: The Poor Are Not Winners,” Employment Policy
Foundation, January 12, 2000; Ronald B. Mincy,
I'm sure many are greedy but by saying hand outs are not the answer
doesn't mean your greedy. We have to remember that incentive is what made
our country great not hand outs.
Why don't we discuss how to create good paying jobs that people are
qualified for?Instead we focus on how to steal money, give handouts,
and not solve the real issue. Which is the economy and not the need to increase
@conservative scientist: "The ultimate 'wealth redistribution' is
the experiment of the USSR which ensured that everyone was poor and all waited
in lines many hours to simply get bread". Why do you consider the USSR
example, brutal failure that it was in every way, more 'ultimate' than
successful examples like European style social democracy? Scandinavian
socialism? Isn't it normal practice to include successful models when
testing the merits of social policy, and not just at the most egregious
failures. To seek and cite only the negative is a tendentious and fallacious
form of argument.
@benevolus: "For example there is ample evidence that raising the minimum
wage actually hurts the poor because it eliminates jobs and opportunities for
low skilled workers to gain skills that can command higher wages."
Benevolus, I've heard both this and its opposite from partisan sources. Can
you point to the places and times in which raising the minimum wage had the
effect that you describe, and provide citations or links to non-partisan sources
that you are basing this statement on? How long did the lower employment
statistics take to return to pre-hike levels in those cases? Does the history of
minimum wage hikes in the United States follow this pattern, or are you
referring to other countries? Thanks.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments