Comments about ‘Is the 1% greedy? Study says yes’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Feb. 2 2014 12:10 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Nebsy
Ephraim, UT

The opposite of poverty is NOT wealth.
The opposite of poverty is justice.

Ed Grady
Idaho Falls, ID

My problem with the 1% is that they want to cut their taxes and raise mine. That is the 1% solution to deficit reduction.

TimD
ASHBURN, VA

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.

JayTee
Sandy, UT

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.

RBB
Sandy, UT

@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.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

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:

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

averageguy
WASHINGTON, UT

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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

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.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

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

Northern
Logan, UT

The rich aren't greedy they earned it, poor people are greedy, they want something for nothing.

TRUTH
Salt Lake City, UT

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.....

A_Chinese_American
Cedar Hills, UT

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.)

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

An old movie said it right, and said it best --
WallStreet,

"Greed is Good!" ~ Gordon Gekko [played by Michael Douglas]

thework
SAINT GEORGE, UT

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[1] 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.

[1]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,

golf
tooele, UT

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.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

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 taxes.

TimBehrend
Auckland NZ, 00

@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.

TimBehrend
Auckland NZ, 00

@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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments