It was interesting but what is considered "rich" ? I was just curious. Is it people making over a few million a year rich that can literally throw money around or people making 200,000 a year that are able to pay their bills and have a little left over for family vacations?

If you make $200K per year, you're in the top 1.1%. That's rich.

That's as maybe, our household income is somewhat less than $200K, but I do employ (albeit on a part time basis) a gardener, a pool guy, a maid. Monies that they may not have if I didn't re-distribute a little.

I'm one of those people that works hard to support more equitable taxing and social programs to help the working class get ahead but no matter what I do the working class continues to vote to give me even bigger tax breaks. I think the problem is working people have been duped into believing they are rich, or will be rich in the future, because they are the Teabaggers that continue to insist I pay too many taxes. Though, the Bush tax cuts directly return about $30k+ to my family every year that we really don't need. This study may have some validity but I think the working class is in on the joke...

I think it's a little under 3% of households that make 200k a year (as opposed to the individual statistic). If you make that much money and you're "struggling", you really need to revise your priorities and start living within your means.

I would believe it. More studies should be done. But frankly, you can hear the selfishness out of the mouths of the wealthy on BOTH sides of the fence. And the wealthy seem to regularly forget that they are the MINORITY.

"Just kill those poor people!" A comment from the typically spoilt that is rather funny. And then you tick off the middle class enough to the point that they come bursting into your home and ransacking everything in sight, because all your money and guns cannot protect you from a massive mob. The look of surprise, and then the begging and sniveling the wealthy and priviledged do when they are suddenly overturned by an uprising is historic.

The wealthy forget that they are allowed their position by the vast majority of their society. And most members of society are happy to allow a person to be wealthy. As long as that person doesn't F-k with them too much....but leave it to greed to keep pushing....

A friend of mine said

Why do people like us worry so much about keeping the economy afloat? If and when it tanks 98% of us won't see much of a current change but the 2% have a long way to fall to reality.

He has a good point! if 98% of us decided to print our own money and not recognize the old. Who really has power?

Duh! Really? I think most of us know that already. The actions of certain people certainly bring that fact home...

I think it's a little under 3% of households that make 200k a year (as opposed to the individual statistic). If you make that much money and you're "struggling", you really need to revise your priorities and start living within your means.

AGREE!! I have ZERO sympathy for those in this category who say "It's not easy!" Bull.

It is not the same as someone lower down on the totem pole struggling to make ends meet with multiple jobs and basic expenses. To insinuate that those of us who are really struggling are lazy is just plain ignorant and cruel.

Thus, making this study right on the money.

"Greed" is no longer a bad name in America. I don't know when the "haves" convinced so many of us that selfishness is good, but I'm not buying it.

Even Adam Smith, economic idol of the right, saw the problem:

In the final edition of the "Theory of Moral Sentiments," written over a decade after "The Wealth of Nations," [Adam Smith] added a chapter in which he describes the "disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition." This disposition, Smith says, colors the way we view the world, leading us to conflate wealth and greatness with virtue and poverty and weakness with vice.

Many posters are analyzing this article too literally. This story paints subtle overtones of Marxism and class warfare, especially their conclusion that those that they categorize as rich have little empathy for the poor. What's really happening is that the people that bust their butts and sacrifice in order to make something for themselves and their families do indeed resent being forced to finance the lifestyle of the lazy.

Regarding those that work hard but enjoy only modest success, be comforted in the fact that what you have, you acquired by your own labors. Accordingly, you are among the truly rich, as richness in not always determined by physical assets but by being capable and independent.

"Born on Third Base," a new study by the Boston-based United for a Fair Economy, shows that a majority of the Forbes 400 inherited their way onto the list, inherited already substantial and profitable companies, or received key start-up capital from a family member.

• 42 percent were born on home plate. These include older dynasties like the Rockefellers and du Ponts, and newer family fortunes from companies like Walmart and Gap. The Waltons of Wal-Mart are ranked nine through thirteen on the Forbes 400, with a combined $32 billion. Forbes thinks some of those born on home plate hit a home run. For example, it calls Philip Anschutz "self-made" even though he would have made the 400 cut just from the mineral wealth he inherited from his father.
• At least 6 percent were born on third base. They inherited wealth in excess of $50 million or a large and prosperous company, and grew this initial fortune into Forbes 400 size. For example, Edward Johnson III inherited Fidelity from his father and led it to the mutual fund world series.
• At least 7 percent were born on second base. They inherited a medium-sized business or wealth of more than $1 million or received substantial start-up capital for a business from a family member. Examples include poultry tycoons Donald Tyson and Frank Perdue.
• At least 14 percent were born on first base. For example, Bill Gates's parents were well-off professionals and he went to a private school where he and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen began their exploration of computers.

$200,000 have a LITTLE left over? Wow, love to see your budget. Most of us don't even come close to 6 figures so yeah $200,000 is rich.

Wet Willy, do you REALLY think the rich BUST their BUTTS? I'd like to see one of the CEO's making 20 million go out and do road construction for a single day or try to live on minimum wage while struggling with two kids and no medical benefits.

YES there are some lazy people who claim disability and I'm all for those people to be prosecuted, but the majority aren't like that.

@C Wood - Glad to see your response here.... if someone is making even $100K per year and struggling, they probably need some serious adjustments financially as they are totally mis-managing their money. That said, most people will never see $100K a year, let alone $200 or 500 or whatever. If 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth, then doesn't it stand to reason that 20% should pay 80% of the taxes? Am I missing something here? I'm a firm believer that the guy who cleans the CEO's toilets works just as hard as that CEO who probably doesn't even know how to unwrap toilet paper

From It's the Inequality, Stupid (Mother Jones News):

How Rich Are the Superrich?

A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household.

The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.

Lots of great charts there if you have time to browse the link.

Im middle class (make under 50k a year) and I don't think this article is spot on at all.

Sounds like a liberal agenda article to make rich people seem like they don't care. Hopefully there is an article next about all the cruel mean lower income class gang bangers, hoodlums, etc..because we know there are just as many of them as there are rich greedy people.

Spin is spin.

Super rich pay a lot less in federal taxes than they did decades ago
Associated Press, Sunday, April 17, 2011, 1:27 PM

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

I doubt that there is a person on here that has ever known or seen true wealth. And the truly wealthy do not waste their time on-line with such dribble.

The bottom line is a very, very very few, very wealthy people run and control the lives of everyone else. and our governments (All governments and churches) and are under the control of these few extremely rich.

Look what happened last night in WI recall... If you don't think that was big money well, I don't know what else to say...

"Wet Willy, do you REALLY think the rich BUST their BUTTS? I'd like to see one of the CEO's making 20 million go out and do road construction for a single day or try to live on minimum wage while struggling with two kids and no medical benefits."

C Wood,

I do not think it is valuable to try and assert a CEO is not working hard b/c he/she is not having to engage in manual labor. While I do agree some of those rat ba$tards had it easy from day 1, they still have to put numerous hours on the job. Working 100+ hours per week is not easy.

Jim, you aren't missing anything. I believe statistically that 20% of the people do pay 80% of the taxes. 49% don't pay any taxes.

I can't believe someone actually did a study to find this out...it's obvious.

In other words, rich people are more likely to think about themselves. “They think that economic success and political outcomes, and personal outcomes, have to do with individual behavior, a good work ethic,” said Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.

...and this isn't true? Individual behavior and a good work ethic don't help one succeed? I don't see anything wrong with that.

When you are given something that you didn't earn (welfare), of course you don't place the same value on money that someone that worked hard and earned it does.

The way I read this, the wealthier are driven toward personal responsibility, and the lower class looks to others to be responsible for them.

Maybe if the lower class started learning a little personal responsibility we wouldn't have this gap.

Sorry drew, don't by the whine. I worked for several months in Westchester county, and you know how many people I sdoing their OWN yard work? TWO.

Maybe if you got out of the house you apparently don't have time to upkeep yourself without hiring illegals (and I bet over 80% of the guys I DID see busting their butts doing other people's yard work were illegals), and got something you could handle, your available income would grow too.

And for the teabagger sociopaths here, this is just another in a long LONG list of studies that confirms that the wealthy and powerful are indeed different from most of us, but very SIMILAR to Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dalmer.

John - I very much doubt that many of those CEO's making $20 million or more work 100 hours a week. I've worked with a number of very wealthy people, and they spent a lot less time actually at work and a lot more "working" at places like the golf course than those under them.

And a trivia question for you, Wet Willy - which countries in the world have the most prosperous average citizens?

Try Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Singapore, Netherlands and Hong Kong.

See any of your "low-tax, small government" Shangri-la's on that list?

I really think it is how you are raised NOT the level of income. I may make a little more money than the average person but I have never forgotten where I came from. I worked my butt off as a waitress through college and grad school. I am the first one to stop to help a stranded person or someone with a flat tire. I am the first to help friends and family in need...and honestly , I am glad to do it because I have been so blessed---college came easy for me.

My five kids do go to several of the best schools in the country ( both intermediate school and universities) but we don't have a cleaning crew---we clean our own house, my kids make their own beds and scrub their own bathrooms. My youngest son is the only one in his class without a nanny---I am the one that shows up for every single class event. My children understand the importance of compassion and hard work. They save their money and are allowed to donate to their selected charity. We live in a multi-cultural / socio-economically diverse area where they are able to play with many different kids. It is how you are raised that makes the difference NOT the level of income. I really think my kids are going to be OK--I am raising them to be compassionate, free thinking citizens in our society.

BTW: EVERYONE HAS ENOUGH MONEY FOR CLASS and Compassion!!!!

BTW: drew is right

"@C Wood - Glad to see your response here.... if someone is making even $100K per year and struggling, they probably need some serious adjustments financially as they are totally mis-managing their money. That said, most people will never see $100K a year, let alone $200 or 500 or whatever. If 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth, then doesn't it stand to reason that 20% should pay 80% of the taxes? Am I missing something here? I'm a firm believer that the guy who cleans the CEO's toilets works just as hard as that CEO who probably doesn't even know how to unwrap toilet paper"

Jim,

Obviously the people who are making such large amounts of money will pay a larger sum of $$$ than those who make far less; however, I do not think they should have to pay a higher percentage of their salaries, especially since on average they will use far fewer social services (I am not saying that is exactly what you said...I am just making the statement).

A. Many of these people inherit their wealth

B. Individual behavior and a good work ethic don't help one succeed? Yes, but more often than not they don't help one succeed.

C Wood 1.15

Do you really think anyone that is rich had everything handed to them?

John 1.22

No, those CEO's couldn't do your job anymore than you could do theirs. Besides, don't you think it would have been wiser to hold off on having kids until being more financially able to support them?

And, Joe, that statistic about half of Americans not paying taxes is a LIE (founded on a half-truth) concocted by the Heritage Foundation (run by one of the Koch brothers):

The federal government's sources of revenues come from INCOME taxes, PAYROLL taxes, CORPORATE taxes, EXCISE taxes and a few others.

40% of ALL FEDERAL REVENUES now come from PAYROLL TAXES. Payroll taxes are only paid by working people making less that $106k a year.

U.S. Federal Tax Receipts - Fiscal Year 2010

Sources of federal revenue, Fiscal 1950-2008

The Heritage Foundation skews its facts by including only INCOME taxes, which now account for only 42% of ALL FEDERAL REVENUES.

And corporate taxes? They're only 9%! Do you really think corporations in America only make 9% of the income? (They added 28% to federal revenues in 1950's and 21% in the 1960's.)

Wet Willy - Severed Head has you there.

The income of a person's parents is a great deal more predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries. France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark all have more relative mobility than the US, while only the United Kingdom is shown to have less mobility.

According to the study done by Miles Corak, the United States' ratio of relative mobility is 1, whereas the other countries mentioned with more mobility have a range of 1.25 (France) to over 3 (Denmark).

Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well?

Yeah.. I did not need a study to tell me this, but it does confirm why the SUPER rich don't care about f@#$ing the average American.

Of course, this is a generalization. I'm sure there are some rich people who are compassionate and have empathy for those of us who struggle to feed our kids.

But you have to figure that hard work alone will not get you in the the top 2% of earners. Shady practices and back-stabbing is what gets you into upper management (generally). In which case, you are probably not a empathetic or compassionate person. Or an overall good person (probably). And once you're a billionaire executive the only people left to f@#$ for money is the American people.

Again, this is a complete GENERALIZATION.

I seriously doubt Lee Raymond, head of Exxon/Mobil until 2006, was killing himself with 100-hour weeks.

But that didn't keep him from walking out with a $351 MILLION golden parachute.

15 of the Most Astonishing Retirements, Bonuses and Cash-Outs in Corporate America

John, they put in megahours, but it's mostly meetings,networking, travel and events.

Kallie,

I completely agree!

I grew up in a household similar to one you have now. Both of my parents have done quite well, but are far from mean spirited and very cognizant of their background. They grew up in the Jim Crowe South, were raised in very very poor families (with outhouses, water pumps, several siblings, etc...), and had essentially had much of the US rooting against them b/c of their skin color. Despite this they both have achieved a significant level of success associated with nice hefty salaries.

I grew up in a really nice neighborhood and attended absurdly expensive private schools. Nevertheless, I was taught the value of hard work. We had a housekeeper and gardener growing up, but I still had weekly chores, was expected (and not bribed with $$$) to get good grades, and never had the fortune of anyone else cleaning up after me. Because of the environment in which I grew up, I had a myriad of resources at my disposal....but had I abused them my parents would have been more than happy to allow me to fail and learn the hard way.

I am cognizant of where I come from. Despite me not having anywhere near the same experience my parents had growing up, I am pretty sure my work ethic is just as strong and I am just as benevolent and aware of how blessed I am to have had the experiences I had growing up.

Anyways...kudos to you Kallie

Janellect,

Seems like you are minimizing those responsibilities. Running a company comes with a great deal of responsibility. If something goes wrong and investors are not happy guess who gets the axe?...the CEO

Two examples from my life which support the conclusions of this article:

I know a doctor who thinks of himself as a "self-made man" despite the fact that his father was also a doctor who provided him with a trust fund which paid for every penny of his education, including medical school.

I was lost in a very low-income part of an unfamiliar town and a man sitting out on his front stoop kindly got into his car and had me follow him out. Just a prince of a guy.

There is no "us" and "them". It's all "us".

In this vein, I would like to see two additional studies undertaken.

1) Why do rich people not only lack empathy, but actually ENJOY seeing others suffer?

2) Why do poor people keep electing Republicans who are only interested in redistributing the wealth - upward. They are only there to look out for corporations and their trust fund friends. Americans really are stupid.

I would like to see Rupert Murdoch run a McDonald's window for a day.

Cwood,

It has nothing to do with hard physical labor.

Did Bill Gates break a sweat everyday working on his software company (maybe earlier on when they were in a garage if it didn't have any ac)? Do CEOs break a sweat? The answer is no.

But these individuals are responsible for organizing millions or even hundreds of millions in assets, hiring/training/organizing their staff, etc. This work may not be physically demanding but can an uneducated laborer perform those tasks? Don't those tasks create value in the economy? If people were not smart enough to make deals, work together and so on do you think we would have all the things we do? Cars, tv, radio, trains, planes, skyscrapers, and tons of other products or luxuries we have came from someone organizing a million little things and bringing it all together to create a company that produces a good that increased our standard of living. You fault those rich people but without them coming before us we would all be walking to work (can't live far away in suburbs if we didn't have cars), we would be washing our clothes in the river (like India), and so on.

Some people can't even organize a trip to the darn grocery store. Do you want them running the companies or perhaps you would like them to get paid the same amount as a CEO even though they would be completely inept in terms of running a business.

Bruce...seems like you are one of those conservativesy who are hell bent on denouncing everything liberal.

Well, as a non-conservative (but not exactly liberal), I will question whether or not Tea Party members actually understand the ideology they have adopted and how it will affect their livelihood. It would not be far fetched to assume most of them, who (like you suggest) are middle of road middle class, do not!

John, I think that you'd get the axe no matter what job you screw up in.

And you still have mega bucks severance and a few options ... as well as consulting and board positions.

#1.4

Very well said.

Working Class has been duped which, is why they have no compassion either. Just as the Rich do not.

You can not have wealth without pushing people to the bottom.

You can't have wealth without enslaving people in deeds and actions ans beliefs.

want to talk about class warfare.its not this article its free trade/job exporting.this article is right on.they export our jobs because the rich couldnt care less about anyone but themselves.now that they see the social unrest brought about by their selfishness,only now are they starting to get worried.cities in england are burning because their young,frustrated at a lack of opportunites brought about by free trade/job exporting,are rioting.talk to people in this country and they too are very angry at a government that is sponsering job exporting,lowing taxes for the filthy rich and cutting benefits to our elderly.one spark here and our cities will burn too.the rich have filled this country with people that have nothing and nothing to lose

the top 400 PEOPLE earn more then the bottom 60 percent of wage earners.thats tens of millions of americans

free trade/job exporting means jobs for chinese

tariffs mean jobs for americans

janellect,

You are right; however, the ramifications of a CEO screwing up are far greater than that of a custodian.

The responsibility associated with these two jobs is not comparable. Furthermore, one is far more easily replaced with a new employee than the other.

Does this study also apply to John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama? I hear tell they've a good pile of money between them.

You know, there are plenty of rich liberals out there too but for some reason these studies like to paint a picture of a fat-assed Monopoly Man rubbing gold coins together in a suede chair. It sure gets the Newsvine belly-crawling socialists up in a lather, but then again that's the whole point of a "study" like this from a Berkeley psychology professor. This is called fomenting class warfare.

By the by, how much money do you think a Berkeley professor makes? Probably not "rich" but definitely enough to be at least half of a heartless, unempathetic Morlock that he describes rich people as being.

I think the article topic is interesting, but the author seemed bent on twisting the results to meet their agenda. I would like to see the actual survey, and who funded it - without the subjective adjectives used in this article.

Some people can't even organize a trip to the darn grocery store. Do you want them running the companies or perhaps you would like them to get paid the same amount as a CEO even though they would be completely inept in terms of running a business.

JohnLaz, no one disagrees on that point. Competence is not the issue this article deals with. I think most Americans accept some inequality and understand the CEO has to be better educated and experienced than Joe Schmoe.

But what about the CEO who essentially inherited his company and decides to lay off thousands of workers so he can have a $5 million bonus this year?

Not all CEO's are competent to make the decisions which make a company profitable, and when there's a bad year, it's not the CEO who suffers even though he's the one who made the wrong decisions.

Self interest" is the magic word of the conservative. Self first who give a shhiit about the country, I don't know why the Republican have the slogan "country first", it suppose to be self interest first. Since I learn how to be self responsible and self interest like a Republican, I'm getting greedy each day (it's a habit and you get addicted), I want more and more never enough. I used to donated to the Children hospital. When I started to work made about $25,000 a yr(I was single) and I donated about $1,500 to charity a year. Now I married have one child, we both work and we hardly donate anything to charity

@ Miss Kallie

If I or most of the people here made $200,000 a year we would not be having this talk.

#2 with that kind of income I and almost everyone here would be able to go on a vacation 5 times a year to almost any place.

If you can not pay your bills and go on a single vacation making that kind of money ,you need to learn how to budget alot better

Love the MSNBC spin. Two points:

1. "According to Gallup, Americans earning more than $90,000 per year continued to increase their consumer spending in July while middle- and lower-income Americans remained stalled," - Really? 90K is rich? I beg to differ. Tell that to a family of 4 living in NYC....hell, anywhere for that matter.
2. The wealthy are consistently under attack to pay MORE taxes. Of course they want to keep what they earn...call it fair...call it selfish...call it whatever you want. BUT... The simple truth is that 51% of Americans pay $0 in federal income taxes. That's bull***t.

I'm not rich. Far from it, but I'm working my azz off to get there one day. If I don't fight for my right to keep what I earn now, the liberal jackals will steal it that right (and by proxy my money) from me and my family through mob politics.

Liberal Jackals, answer me one question... What did you do to DESERVE other people's money???!!!

Regarding those that work hard but enjoy only modest success, be comforted in the fact that what you have, you acquired by your own labors. Accordingly, you are among the truly rich, as richness in not always determined by physical assets but by being capable and independent.

I don't know when I've read a more meaningless load of crap! Be satisfied with your increasing poverty and take comfort in the fact that those two jobs you hold down are a testament to your perseverance. Well, that should pacify the huddled masses.

"When they show you who they are...believe them!"

Joe...

Great post. I only have to disagree with one point.

"fortunately most Americans are smart enough to see through the liberal BS."- I wish I could say that were true. Unfortunately, we rank 34th in math and 192nd in common sense.

At some point we are going to collapse our entire country as we vote ourselves benefits. This whole 51% not paying any federal income tax really has me pissed off. If you can't afford taxesfine, but no more tax increases for the wealthy until we institute mandatory government/military service for those that pay nothing.

Don't like the government/military and can't afford to pay...go somewhere else. We have no need for those people that are unwilling to make sacrafices for their country and expect their country to make sacrifices for them.

Another "class warfare" article.

Expect to see a lot more of these in the coming months, and especially when the Liberals hit the campaign trail. Oh, Mr. Obama has been on the trail now for the last 3 years (nearly) and we continue to hear the "class warfare" and "Go Green" comments from his teleprompter.

Watch what happens in the "12" ring circus Super Deficit commission discussions, with Senators Kerry and Murray leading the charge for HIGHER TAXES when they should in fact go after the loopholes which allows companies like GE to get an IRS rebate.

@Joe-755363

You have skewed the article completely. We all agree that personal responsibility and work ethic goes a long way. And welfare recipients usually do not appreciate the money they do receive. That being said....

The article states that the rich DISREGARD THE ROLE THEIR WEALTH, CONNECTIONS, FAMILY MONEY, ETC play in their success.

It's a lot easier to build a successful business venture that makes you rich when you have inherited wealth/family business and have the funds to do so. It takes money to make money - and no matter how smart, determined, hard-working, etc someone is, without an investor it is near impossible to build a business that makes you rich/wealthy.

And guess what, banks tend to lend money to those who already have it. In the experience of many I know (hard workers, smart, with good credit and are reliable) banks won't give them a loan because they actually need it.

"I know a doctor who thinks of himself as a "self-made man" despite the fact that his father was also a doctor who provided him with a trust fund which paid for every penny of his education, including medical school."

i guess his father took his classes and passed them and did his internship for him too?

Wow, the class warfare being pushed is thick. The media wing of the DNC, which is MSNBC, is all on board. Ever ask how much a talking head for the media makes?

Great - more articles about class warfare. Yes, that's going to help the problem. Let's just hate, hate, hate anybody and everybody that has something we don't have. Sheesh..........

I'd like to see an article on how much wealthy people give to charities, including corporations. Every now and then you hear about chartible works, but I'd really be interested.

Why don't we hear things like, Houston has to close down pools in inner city because of money shortage, but local oil companies come to rescue and give the city the money to keep the pools open? Heck, even if we did hear about those things the article would probably start out by saying something to the effect of ..........

In order to reduce their tax liability oil companies had to do something with their massive profits so they threw some down to the little people.

I totally agree with this article and I'm so glad someone finally said something! There was a time in our history - predominantly in the first half of the last century when people created wealth within the industrial era - those wealthy people felt a certain patriotic duty to give back to the country and people that made them rich. These people were the Rockefellers, Carnegie, Vanderbilts, J.P. Morgans, etc. These people understood that they became rich off the backs of hard-working people and a government that allowed them the freedom to be enterprising. They gave back to their government in taxes and the people in philanthropic ways...and they had pride in that. Today's rich are a new breed of the nouveau riche...greedy, selfish, self-absorbed and lacking in vision and foresight! They have (more often than not) become rich by learning how to cleverly manipulate the system and market without thought about how they hurt other people. It's a level of ruthlessness that I have never seen before and find it quite alarming.

Not saying I agree with this post...but I really don't understand why it was collapsed. He did nothing to break the COH and his opinion is as relevant as anyone else's. Newsvine is showing it's bias again.

James-546195-1049965 Comment collapsed by the community

Im middle class (make under 50k a year) and I don't think this article is spot on at all.

Sounds like a liberal agenda article to make rich people seem like they don't care. Hopefully there is an article next about all the cruel mean lower income class gang bangers, hoodlums, etc..because we know there are just as many of them as there are rich greedy people.

Spin is spin.

Welcome to MSDNC, your news station for all the latest class warfare sermons.

LOL MSNBC chumps need to stop calling out Fox News idiots. You're both the same, just opposite sides of the spectrum.

So now we have an 'academic' study concerning the selfishness of rich people posted on MSNBC. Nothing like stirring the old pot, gotta get those rich people, they're selfish. Nothing like playing into sterotypes either. Note that rich is now $90,000.00, down from the $250,000.00 that Obama bandied about intially. Pretty soon rich is anyone making over thirty thousand. This is all a scam to get tax increases. Nobody seems to remember how the income tax was originally created to tax only the top 10% of the wealthy. Look how that has evolved, now everybody gets taxed and most for sure aren't in the top 10%. This is a scam and sadly, too many people are buying into it.

ill bet the rich move heaven and earth to keep from going back to the 90 percent tax rate we had during the 50s.the zenith of our countries prosperity and power

"Publicly subsidized, privately profitable" the anthem of the upper-crust the puppeteer untouchable.

We focus a moment, nod in approval and bury our heads in the bar codes of these neo-colonials.

While our former nemesis, the romance of the nation states, now plays fund raiser for a new brand of power-concentrate.

Try again but now we're confused: "What is class war? Is this class war?" Yes, this is class war... ...and I'm just a kid, I can't believe I have to worry bout this kinda s#*t...

From: And We Thought the Nation States Were a Bad Idea... by Propagandhi

Kallie

I really think it is how you are raised NOT the level of income.

I think you hit on it Kallie. I have some inlaws who are wealthy....the husband worked his fingers to the bone to start his own business and ended up selling it for a huge profit and now works for the people who bought it. He's earned every penny he has and would give you the shirt off his back no questions asked. He's my brother in law....and I know the family was NOT in the least bit wealthy. My husband was one of 6 kids that shared a 3 bedroom house growing up. Now my brother in law's wife....is another story. She married into his money (second wife...the first wife passed away) and it doesn't sound like she's done an honest days work in her life. She was basically raised to be a "princess" that the man takes care of...and her job is to spend his money. I grew up an only child, middle to lower class, and I was taught to never depend on anyone else and to work hard for every cent I make. My husband and I are far from well off but we're not living paycheck to paycheck either. We're the somewhere in the middle....saving up for the what if's in life. During a conversation with with wealthy inlaws I said "I wish we could win the lottery so I could work at a job doing something I loved to do, rather than work a job just to pay the bills. I'd love to be able to volunteer at a zoo or aquarium or anything to do with helping critters." My brother in law said how much fun he thought that would be.....my sister in law's response....."No way would I volunteer....I get paid for any work I do!" I saw then and there the difference between earning what you have and having it handed to you in regards of attitude. I would love to be in her position and use that free time to do something fun that would benefit others.......she uses it to shop.

Becoming rich via corporate America is all about selling your soul. I was on that path but decided that insider trading, working in finance, and selling out fellow employees was not a good path. To become rich you need to do these things unless you happen to start a company like Google or Facebook.

Are there ethical rich people that are self made? They are few and far between.

Class warfare!? Are you people retarded? So you're saying 98% of the country being f@#$ed by 2% of the country is class warfare? How about "class defense"? And all you people talk about Obama, Pelosi, and all the other tool Democrats like liberals worship them. I'm not very impressed with the way the Dems are running the country. I want our politicians to govern based on my beliefs. When I read conservative posts on here, it seems like their beliefs are based on how their politicians govern.

HMM -

You do realize that you are talking about people that made their millions BEFORE the income tax was reinstated in 1913? That's why they gave back so much. The government wasn't taking it from them back then!

B-1768549 I want our politicians to govern based on my beliefs...

Really? I was thinking more along the lines of Constitution since not everyone is going to agree with your beliefs...

I agree, the median income for a household family of four in the United states is $35,000. If you can't make ends meet on $200,000 a year then you need to sell your second home and trade in you Jag for a Kia, then you can take lots of vacations and put money away for college. (by the way- do you count weekends on the lake with your expensive boat as vacations? probably not huh.)

John-

Being CEO of a Fortune 500 company today is the easiest job in the world. I garuntee you I could teach a janitor to do it because there is a very simple formula.

1st) before getting hired negotiate a salary for $100's of millions of dollars regardless of how the company performs. also make sure you include huge bonuses for increased profits and a huge golden parachute incase the decide to let you go before your contract is up, lets say $300 million.

2nd) on your first day on the job fire 50% of the workforce. The will decrease your expenses and make it look like you are awesome at your job... at least for a little while.

3rd) sell your stock options while they are artifically high and make a boat load more money

4th) when the board realizes that the cuts you made were unsustainable to grow the company and things are now headed south in a very bad way and quickly, they will buy out your contract- collect your golden paratute and laugh all the way to the bank!

5th) find some other sucker fortune 500 company and do it all over again.

5 easy steps- I think I could teach that to a janitor or just about anyone really

Kallie, the breakdown of the social classes used by the social scientists is:

Rich, upper middle class or affluent, middle class, lower middle class, and poor.

As far as the actual numbers, my opinion is that affluent=$200,000/year for atleast a family of three. But who knows more? The government? But the government's figures are still based in the 1960's!

Retardican - yeah, except, its not that simple. There are a lot of things that constitution does not cover. Good try though.

Joe-755363 You misunderstood what the writer meant by " in other words, rich people are more likely to think about themselves. “They think that economic success and political outcomes, and personal outcomes, have to do with individual behavior, a good work ethic,” said Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.".

The article is not condemning personal work ethic and behavior, but stating that the rich think that is the only determining factor in one's success or failure financially. They overlook things that have helped them personally become rich and think it is their own sole ability that made them wealthy.

This point was pretty obvious in the article Joe.

If I had a dollar for every "I" "me" and "my" in Kallie's response, then I could become part of the elite top 2%.

I totally agree with LeeBb -

Becoming rich via corporate America is all about selling your soul. I was on that path but decided that insider trading, working in finance, and selling out fellow employees was not a good path. To become rich you need to do these things unless you happen to start a company like Google or Facebook.

Are there ethical rich people that are self made? They are few and far between.

John:

"It would be easier for a CEO to learn how to do most lower paying jobs than it would be for a custodian to learn how to do a CEO's job."

Give that custodian all the bennies that CEO got to get to the CEO position and he too would be a CEO. The rich family, the private school and most important, time. CEO's don't step into those positions right after college, they are 40, 50, 60 years old. So, in essence 40 years worth of on the job training to that janitor's job and you have everything it takes to be a CEO.

the problem is, that janitor didn't have anyone patient enough to pull for him, and colly doddle him for the 40 years it took for him to learn his trade.

That's as maybe, our household income is somewhat less than $200K, but I do employ (albeit on a part time basis) a gardener, a pool guy, a maid. Monies that they may not have if I didn't re-distribute a little

.

John, mighty white of you.

Also, how much intellect does it take to lay off workers when times are bad, attend some meetings, yell at someone when they screw up and work long hours to make sure the money is still coming in?

My old boss, the CEO and owner, hired all his family members (who never showed up for work), funded their retirement and health care, had the company buy them company cars, had the company buy a 45 ft yacht, got the staff to clean and fix his house (and yacht), and had "business lunches" almost every day, and, just reemed his employees if they made a mistake. He was somewhat extreme, but other CEO's I've worked for are pretty much like the article states. It's sorry but true as a general rule (meaning there are exceptions).

Why would it be that the wealthy (and the Teabaggers who are clueless) are always saying "don't tax the rich" (and now attempt to say it would mean jobs to tax them), and want a "fair tax" (that would let them pay less)? I cannot believe the Republican Drones on these forums who buy this stuff, thinking the rich really care about the middle class. Do you really think the people making huge money during the housing bubble really cared about their company or anyone else?

"Their life experience makes them less empathetic, less altruistic, and generally more selfish."

The simple reality is that it is the SITUATION of being independent and well-off not the actual person themselves. People who need help from others or who who know that they are very close to needing the help of others will generally be more humble and "nice". Take the same person and give them $20 million so that they no longer need to rely on others and that is when you will hear former friends say "oh, the money changed him he used to be a good guy" and that is also when you will hear the newly rich person say "I thought they were real friends but they just wanted my money".

It's not the "life experience" or the person, it is the current situation of complete independence.

Where is the study that measures the traits of people who used to be rich but are now poor? or the study of poor who are now rich? As the situation changes so does the person - in BOTH directions.

P.S.

MSNBC, super job of preaching more class warfare while also throwing in some jabs at the Tea Party. The Dem Caucus must be ecstatic with your obedience.

The problem with the perspective of many of the comments on this stream is; the tax brackets that are effected most by the Bush tax reform are those making above $1 Million.
If people in the $200 K range are acting like elitists they are EXPECTING to fall into the higher brackets eventually...that's the part that bothers me...
In regard to those who have been commenting on "supporting lazy people", there are lazy people out there who take advantage of the programs designed to assist those who have fallen on hard times...like those who have lost their homes during the housing crunch, or lost their jobs to Bangladesh or China...those are the ones most of the elitist have the most contempt for, and I have absolutely NO patience for those WITH money who look down on those of us trying to make a living, or keep our homes because of their greed!

skelmcb - Apparently, you don't read very well. I was referring to the early 1900's. I specifically wrote...

predominantly in the first half of the last century when people created wealth within the industrial era

Here's a great link to the history of taxing the rich that people might want to look at for more understanding of this issue:

Taxing The Wealthy: A Historian's Perspective

Even those people who do "take advantage" of programs still aren't getting sh#@. It's not like they are living like kings. In fact they are probably pretty miserable people who live in their own prison of depression. There are things we can do besides send them to the streets.

Seems like you are minimizing those responsibilities. Running a company comes with a great deal of responsibility. If something goes wrong and investors are not happy guess who gets the axe?...the CEO

YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME. The CEO gets the ax? Really?? You believe that? Bahahahahaha!

More often than not, there are massive layoffs of the poor unwashed masses slaving away in the factories / offices of said company while the CEO rakes in the bonuses!

If they do let him go - it's with the ol' GOLDEN PARACHUTE! No unemployment line for him!

Wowsa. You really do live in a dream world buddy.

Recently, there was study at U.Michigan, which proved that most people are governed by ideology, and not facts. Most will not change ideology, even when given facts to the contrary.

There was a guy in my circle of acquintances who, up until 2008, was doing very well - 200+K salary. At that time, he used to talk the usual right-wing mumbo-jumbo, about people getting off their asses, etc. We tolerated him because his brother is a dear friend. And then the company he was working for closed down. Took him a long time to find work (50+ years of age), and he now makes about 20% of what he used to make. Gone are the fancy house, fancy life-style, etc. Now, he don't talk that way no more!!! Heck, he even drinks Miller with us.

One of the posters on this thread noted that the Tea Party stood for less governemnt, less spending, etc. How-ever, it is public knowledge that the TP is funded by the Kochs, Murdochs, etc, and is just a rent-a-crowd organization to keep taxes low, and try and abolish taxes on the rich. Given this knowledge, why do people still adhere to the TP?

Drew-3888441 HUMMMM,,200K a year...and how much on a baby sitter? I must be in the wrong field....Living in NY is your problem....200 K is more than most make in any neighbor hood...and you are complaining

Am I missing something here? I'm a firm believer that the guy who cleans the CEO's toilets works just as hard as that CEO who probably doesn't even know how to unwrap toilet paper

Yes, you are missing the fact that many people can clean toilets, while few people can run a fortune 500 company and make a profit for shareholders. So that person gets paid in multiples of people who clean toilets. It's supply and demand.

StoptheCannibals

John, mighty white of you.

Was that really necessary? You may have had good points in your post but I tend to stop reading when I come across pointless racist remarks right off the bat. I hope that made you feel better about yourself.

So, completing an education, working hard, and getting ahead are now evil; and everyone who has accumulated some wealth necessarily stepped on some poor little people to do it. What a crock. MSNBC is just fanning the flames of Obama's redistribution of wealth dream, and pandering to the envious fringe who aren't willing to do what it takes to succeed.

You can argue back and forth all you like, rich people think differently than the average middle class or lower class person. They don't worry about where their next meal is coming from; how their bills are going to get paid; where their kids will go to school and how it'll get paid for; and many other things that most of us stress over on a day-to-day basis. Their outlook on things around them is considerably different, and they really DON'T understand what we are going through because they've generally never been through it themselves. As I said, "generally" because I'm sure there are some there that grew up from the ditches and made their way up the ladder on their own hard work and merits, but most of the people who are considered REALLY rich have NO concept of what's going on in the world around them! They have other things to worry about; i.e., the next sale at Bloomies, where they can get the latest Monolo heels or that expensive bag! Their brains are just wired differently.

Interesting article, indeed. Pretty much disconnected from the reality - but from the standpoint of someone who has probably never worked with the extremely wealthy on a day to day basis, and pretty much just regurgitates all the clever talking points about 'the wealthy' I'd guess in that case it would be considered spot on.

I totally agree with "TheOverlord", I have achieved where I am through hard work, but I do realize that I was more privileged in that my working class parents sacrificed for my education. I also empathize with the folks that are struggling as not everyone is lazy, sometimes the fact they were brought up in broken homes, where education was never a priority has shaped their present and future and it is our duty as folks who have made it to help build institutions and facilities which provides hope and opportunity so that the cycle does not continue repeating. Having said that I do see the poor and the uneducated clinging to their "guns and religion", like the jobless Joe the plumber, and essentially voting against their own interest. I don't think I am a minority amongst the haves (I wouldn't call myself rich by any means, though it is all relative) and I know quite a few in a similar economic situation who show their empathy by their vote at the polls.

I believe we need to roll back the Bush tax cuts even though it is going to cost me more than to folks making less than 6 figures and I will endorse it with my vote at the polls? How many of you out there making less than 100k are willing to vote for the same?

skelmcb - another footnote to your ignorant comment...

If you look at the philanthropic history of the wealthy families that I listed you would know that the greatest philanthropic contributions that those families made to this country were made during the early - mid 1900's when they were being taxed far more than the wealthy are now.

spider-

your funny. 90% of the population is the "fringe."

On top of that, repubs and teabaggers want to take away pale grants, scholarships, reduce funding for public schools all while tution increases every year... If you truely believe that education and working hard are what get people ahead then vote that way so the poor people have a fighting chance... or keep spitting your rethoric while "stepping on some more little people."

Jess-1177200 - that 51% who are not paying taxes are doing so by using the standard tax deduction - which is also available to you. It just so happens that their income is so low that doing so eliminates their tax liability.

Your idea of mandating military service based on income is absolutely reprehensible and has echoes of the Civil War draft where one could buy their way out of service.

As a Vietnam-era veteran (another war where privilege could help you avoid service) I would insist that future conscription plans have NO deferments. Why would you want to deprive the children of the rich & powerful the honor of dying for their country?

I'm not sure why Newsvine deleted the link I provided...I put it in twice. Apparently, Newsvine is biased regarding sharing educational material on this subject. What could be wrong with sharing a link to an article by National Public Radio (NPR)? I see other people sharing links to Wikipedia, which is a far less credible source and I'd never consider it a viable resource for information. I'll try again...

Taxing The Wealthy: A Historian's Perspective

As usual, people see what they want to see in a study like this and don't bother to ask any astute or intelligent questions regarding its validity.

The simple fact that they used an Ayn Rand quote to try and prove their point just proves they have an agenda. I can say this for the simple reason that they didn't bother to understand the quote to begin with. Or, if they did, they twisted it to try and prove how wrong it is...which it isn't.

I have known rich people and I have known poor people. Some of them were good, decent folks and some of them weren't. Their economic status did not determine whether they were kind and compassionate or not.

This so-called study is neither scientific nor truthful. It is merely an attempt at making people think about rich people in a negative light and poor people in a positive light, instead of the rational approach of taking them as individuals.

Until you learn to judge people on an individual basis, you will always be easily swayed by people with an agenda.

Jeff - you have an awful lot of faith in the ability of those who are appointed CEO's in this country.

Problem is, there's no educational requirement or even ability requirement for them to attain those positions.

Most are simply well-connected - they don't work their way up from the bottom to those positions.

There is also a lot of inbreeding among the ruling corporate class - many directors sit on multiple boards, and the CEO of one company can integrate themselves into the boards of many others.  They tend to appoint from within their own class, not from the best-qualified workers at the company.

Here's a look at a few of the directors with multiple board appointments:

List of people on multiple governing boards

Not much different from the old system of rule by royal families - we just pretend it's available to everyone.

B-1768549

Retardican - yeah, except, its not that simple. There are a lot of things that constitution does not cover. Good try though.

So your point is that those areas that the constitution does not govern (for a reason) should be based upon your beliefs? You're missing the point of the constitution. While individual comprehensive doctrines converge to create a social consensus on many topics, the constitution exists to ensure that even the minority opinion, belief or doctrine is protected. Political leaders who look to enforce/inject personal beliefs into their decision making, when that process crosses a line that infringes in another free citizen's liberties, are guilty of perverting the very basic concept of freedom. What's more, they're ignorantly jeopardizing their own long term freedoms. It is only a matter time until members of any majority find themselves in the minority. The most arrogant thing a person can do is assume his/her beliefs are right for anyone else. Thus, our country is failing because people would rather be "right" than free and prosperous.

How was that for a "good try"?

While I think this article definitely has truth to it, it also has a lot of generalizations and projections. I am not wealthy myself, but I know many who are, and some fit this bill while others don't. It doesn't help anyone to pust out generalizations like this. It just feeds more of this "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality that is completely overwhelming in this country. There are also poor people who are greedy and selfish and poor people who are compassionate.

That's as maybe, our household income is somewhat less than $200K, but I do employ (albeit on a part time basis) a gardener, a pool guy, a maid. Monies that they may not have if I didn't re-distribute a little.

Loved this one. sigh

And they should be ever grateful to you for giving them PART TIME employment so they have time to work 3 more jobs to feed themselves and their family. Do you pay them a living wage? Or have you figured out a way to pay them the bare minimum with no benefits? I know if I worked for you I'd be kissing your feet evertime you gave me my pittance for my manual labor.

Jeez.....really?

delherren,

Anytime someone is willing to pay you money to do a job, you damned well better be grateful. It's money in your pocket that you wouldn't otherwise have.

You might also want to consider a few other potential factors. Where does this person live? $200K is a lot in some places, but not a lot in others. How much discretionary income does this person have after paying their bills, taxes, mortgage, etc.?

You might also want to consider one last detail. This person doesn't HAVE to hire these people at all.

Learn some manners and learn how to do a little critical thinking before you get up on that high horse. It just might buck you off otherwise.

You talk about people being on their high horse after you go on a three paragraph lecture. Yes. We should all kiss your ass because you are willing to pay a gardener fifteen dollars a week for an hour of work in the blazing sun. Or the fifty a month you give the maid to clean up your filth and be your slave. You are right in one regard though. They do not HAVE to hire them. But it sure is a damn shame we live in a country where citizens HAVE to accept jobs like that.

HMM

My point was that their wealth was obtained PRIOR to the income tax reinstatement of 1913. Had there been high taxes in place at the time they began making their money, there would have been a lot less money to dole out.

If I make $200,000.00 a year and can keep all $200,000.00 of it, then I'm going to increase the amount that I give to charity. Most people think that way. (please exclude Nancy Pelosi who doesn't give to charity at all)

Josh -

I take exception to your comments. One of the finest people I ever knew was a man that basically catered to my mother's boss. It was his job to drive the car, clean the office, pick up the dry cleaning. I rarely recall meeting anyone in my almost 50 years of life that took such pride in the work that he did. He raised 5 children on his salary. He always had a smile on his face and a kind word.

Not everyone can be rocket scientists. There will always be a need for maids, janitors, fast food workers. Thinking that an honest job is lowly and beneath you is what has caused the decline in this country much more so than greedy rich people.

This is as much "news" as reporting that Mt. Everest is tall, the Nile River is long, and the Great Wall of China is old. This goes into the "duh!" category, like someone reporting..."NEWS FLASH! People have now got noses"!

Josh,

Fine, don't be grateful when someone offers to pay you to do something. Show your lack of simple thanks and courtesy. Guess that's your right to be a jerk if you really want to be. Personally, if somebody offers me money to do some work for them, I'm glad for the offer.

And by the way genius, if you offer someone money to do a job, they aren't your slave. They can just as easily say no if they don't want to do the work. Get a clue.

Go whine somewhere else.

One last thing. $15 bucks to work 1 hour outside in the sun is a pretty damn good deal. There are a lot of people who would be happy to make that.

That's as maybe, our household income is somewhat less than $200K, but I do employ (albeit on a part time basis) a gardener, a pool guy, a maid. Monies that they may not have if I didn't re-distribute a little

.

John, mighty white of you.

Also, how much intellect does it take to lay off workers when times are bad, attend some meetings, yell at someone when they screw up and work long hours to make sure the money is still coming in?

My old boss, the CEO and owner, hired all his family members (who never showed up for work), funded their retirement and health care, had the company buy them company cars, had the company buy a 45 ft yacht, got the staff to clean and fix his house (and yacht), and had "business lunches" almost every day, and, just reemed his employees if they made a mistake. He was somewhat extreme, but other CEO's I've worked for are pretty much like the article states. It's sorry but true as a general rule (meaning there are exceptions).

Why would it be that the wealthy (and the Teabaggers who are clueless) are always saying "don't tax the rich" (and now attempt to say it would mean jobs to tax them), and want a "fair tax" (that would let them pay less)? I cannot believe the Republican Drones on these forums who buy this stuff, thinking the rich really care about the middle class. Do you really think the people making huge money during the housing bubble really cared about their company or anyone else?"

LOL...So I am not sure if the comment regarding "being white" was directed towards me, but just in case it was...I DID NOT POST THAT!!!!

So before you make an attempt to denigrate anyone you might want to ensure you are correctly attributing a post to the correct person

Stopthecannibals,

Lol...when I read your post my blood boiled. I skimmed this page in an attempt to find the original poster (since I did not post that garbage) in an attempt to point out exactly who posted that; however, I not successful.

I am a young black male who is far from EVER thinking I am white. I love who I am, my (amazing...sorry but I had to say that...lol) skin color, and where I come from. I am well aware of my aspirations and the hard work I must put in for my dreams to come to fruition!

And why attribute success and providing jobs to others as being a "white" characteristic. Are you one of those idiots who would rather feed the typical social stereotype of blacks as being great athletes, gang members, rappers, welfare recipients, servants of the majority, or simply non-contributory towards the development and maintenance of our society? If anything your post (especially if directed towards me) demonstrates your tawdry ideology and desire to limit your intellectual capacity according to social parameters established by the media. Why allow yourself to be governed by such stereotypes?

"Dude...you've got it completely twisted"

Lastly, since the focus of this forum is to discuss the article at hand I might as well point out that anecdotal evidence hold little weight in an argument.

Seems like you are minimizing those responsibilities. Running a company comes with a great deal of responsibility. If something goes wrong and investors are not happy guess who gets the axe?...the CEO

YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME. The CEO gets the ax? Really?? You believe that? Bahahahahaha!

More often than not, there are massive layoffs of the poor unwashed masses slaving away in the factories / offices of said company while the CEO rakes in the bonuses!

If they do let him go - it's with the ol' GOLDEN PARACHUTE! No unemployment line for him!

Wowsa. You really do live in a dream world buddy."

LOL BJs65,

If I lived in a dream world I would not be accruing massive debt from being in school.

I think you missed my point. You are comparing apples to oranges. The fact that the CEO has to make the decision to make lay off workers does not minimize his responsibility. It sucks that that is the algorithm followed by practically all companies attempting to stay profitable and appease investors. In the end the CEO loses his/her job (albeit often with a golden parachute like you and others have mentioned) if profitability is lost.

Stopthecannibals,

I will state that it was in bad taste for the poster to make that comment considering it seemed arrogant; however, that does not justify to your statement towards me (you know...the one who did not post that)

“I will quote from the Tea Party hero Ayn Rand: “‘It is the morality of altruism that men have to reject,’” he said.

---------------------------------------------

In the course of my mobile career as a telecom engineer on contract, I've come across a lot of people -- including more than a few very wealthy individuals in positions of upper management -- that believe they are, "self-made men" (even though they won't admit to anyone that they were born into financially secure families that maintained a network of close connections to powerful, wealthy people, that opened doors of upwardly-mobile opportunities to them). And they've said in idle conversation that they hate the poor, they despise the poor, because they assume they are all lazy, and thus, have no sympathy, empathy or apathy for their plight. Thus, they verbally said that if they or anyone else has to share their wealth to help others in need, they are promoting some kind of, "immoral, socialist welfare state."

I've also noticed that some people aspiring to become wealthy (such as true believers of the Tea Party's messages) chose to adopt this rationalization as their own, in the hopes it would help guide them to become richer in money, while giving them the "freedom" -- freedom away from all public sector rules, regulations, laws and taxes, that basically told them that they had to share a small portion of their wealth to help their country and their fellow man.

So this should come to us as no surprise that one of the Tea Party's messages is, "Don't share you wealth, let people work responsibly hard to help themselves out of their own problems; thus, government assistance is immoral."

Ayn Rand is the Tea Party's ideological hero that believed that helping others was wrong. Well, believers in Ayn Rand didn't know certain facts about her life that would put her sainted ideology into question.

-----------------------------------

Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same

An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did, and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.

boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html

------------------------------------

The Truth About GOP Hero Ayn Rand

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7zwO88nRH8

------------------------------------

Tea Party Patron Saint Ayn Rand Applied for Social Security, Medicare Benefits

Critics of Social Security and Medicare frequently invoke the words and ideals of author and philosopher Ayn Rand, one of the fiercest critics of federal insurance programs. But a little-known fact is that Ayn Rand herself collected Social Security. She may also have received Medicare benefits.

An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the Ayn Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her husband, Frank O’Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in 1974.

Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits.

firedoglake.com/2011/01/27/tea-party-patron-saint-ayn-rand-applied-for-social-security-medicare-benefits/

I really hate to be censored because people disagree with substance rather than civil disagreement.....

It will be more interesting when and if they actually publish the study or the credentials of the author or the entity that financed the study. Without that this amounts to nothing more than junk science and gratuitous, junk journalism.

Wow, the class warfare being pushed is thick. The media wing of the DNC, which is MSNBC, is all on board. Ever ask how much a talking head for the media makes?

Funny how the ones crying "class warfare" are the ones who have the most to loose...isn't it! By the way, the class war is over...the middle class lost.

rradiko - Ayn Rand was one of the most prominent misogynists in this country.

Too bad there are so many warped personalities who find her cult fascinating. Especially powerful ones like Alan Greenspan, who got us into the economic fix we're in today due to his obsession with her theories.

Go to keep stealing from the poor to give to the rich so they can keep that trickle coming.

It will be more interesting when and if they actually publish the study or the credentials of the author or the entity that financed the study. Without that this amounts to nothing more than junk science and gratuitous, junk journalism.

What has this to do with the price of tea in china, other than in your head?

I am getting really tired of these Conservative lies.

I would be considered "rich" by the majority of people on this site. But in addition to being very successful, I am also brutally honest. So let me clear things up for the people who say that the rich "work harder" and "pay the most in taxes".

First: Working harder is not an indication of becoming rich. I would never claim to have worked harder than a poor, or middle-class, person. There are two main concepts for success: "Work smarter, not harder" and "It's not what you know, it's who you know." If you simply believe that rich people have worked harder, than you are either a fool or an arrogant liar.

Second: There is no one in my tax bracket that pays their actual tax rate. With all the loopholes, write-offs and deductions available, I promise you that rich people are not paying their "fair share". Should I be? Yes. Will I? No, not until they change the current tax laws. If deductions and loopholes are available, I promise that every rich person will be using them. Just because those taxes amount to the majority of tax revenue does not mean we are paying our actual tax rates.

For the record, I have no problem with any tax increase or reform, as long as there is a balanced approached with spending and entitlements.

First of all, did we the poor people pay for thi study? All you had to do was watch Gilligan's Island! "Yes, Lovie, it sure takes people a while to figure things out!"

who is more greedy?

The person paid to do a job, and keeps it to himself.

Or the person that is paid to do a job, and looks at another and goes 'you owe me something'?

If you owned a company and put in 95% of its cash, would you be happy conceding 'power' to the 5% that didnt?

As a parent, would you be ok with your child at adult age demanding you pay for their house, car, food. And you have NO say?

Without going threw every post i will address some that i did read..

"ceo's dont work hard..." are you kidding me? Really? Dumbest statement ever.

"all ceo's were privliaged" reallly? So mr dell working out of his garage built a PC empire because it was handed to him? Or College Dropout Bill Gates? Or warren Buffet who sold stuff as a KID and CLAIMED TAXES AS A KID.

The list can go on and on and on.

Not every rich person was born wealthy, not every rich person had a silver spoon in their mouths etc.

I make what is considered below national average. My best friend of nearly 18yrs whos mom makes that 1% barrier as a dentist, not only makes alot but you know where she shops? goodwill, yardsales, discount stores etc...she was far from a wealthy child in fact she grew up more poor than nearly everyone here i bet.

I could never imagine getting up going to her house and telling her, you owe me money.

Im poor, and im sorry, but my own ilk all i ever hear is what they are owed, rarely do i hear what they are doing to 'fix' it.

Interesting poll out today from CNN regarding people's views on raising taxes and cutting spending.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/09/poll.aug10.pdf

If you want to see how far out of the mainstream the Tea Party's views are, scroll down to the breakdowns of percentage by group.

For example - in response to the question,

"Which of these statements comes closest to your view:
1) Taxes on wealthy people should be kept low because they invest their money in the private sector and that helps the economy and creates jobs
2) Taxes on wealthy people should be kept high so the government can use their money for programs to help lower-income people
3) No opinion

The results were:

1) 77% Tea Party supporters, 23% Tea Party neutral, 15% Tea Party opposed

2) 20% Tea Party supporters, 71% Tea party neutral, 80% Tea Party opposed

3) 3% Tea Party supporters, 5% Tea Party neutral, 5% Tea Party opposed

The results are the same on just about every question. So does the Tea Party really represent America? Or just 18% of the rabid right?

real america first...

I didnt know America ment lower-income...

If you cannot fund the 'lower' income by 51% paying ZERO taxes...

AND with 1.4TRILLION in funds...then no they dont deserve more...

And those rich do have a choice to live 'elsewhere'...

RealAmericansFirst,

Thanks for proving the point of many in the Tea Party.

Taxes on wealthy people should be kept high so the government can use their money for programs to help lower-income people

Yep, take money from all those evil rich people to give it to others. All of those in favor of that plan PROVE they just want other peoples' money.

How pathetic.

Try again Idaho Dragon you really meant to write.....

Taxes on wealthy people should be kept high so the government can use their money for programs to help the USA, not just the rich who dont want to pay anything.

skelmcb - your comments still don't make sense in light of the historical facts I was trying to point out. Please read your U.S. history. The greatest period of philanthropy was during the 1st half of the 1900's when wealthy people WERE being taxed far more than they are now. That was my point. It doesn't matter when they made their money and the families I listed weren't the only philanthropic people of that time. There were plenty of wealthy families that made their money in the 1900's that were equally as philanthropic. These wealthy families continued to give because they considered it patriotic and a source of great pride to give back to their country in the form of taxes to their government and philanthropy to help the people that helped make them wealthy. Our libraries, schools, museums, universities, music and art organizations, state and national parks...the list is endless regarding what these people did to give back to their country!

No one becomes wealthy in a vacuum. You have to have a government that supports free enterprise and hard-working people that are willing to work for you for lower wages.

It's called class...some people have it but most don't. Unfortunately, money can't buy a person class.

JohnQ,

The fact is that the economies of the world are opening up and now we are competing with others more directly than in previous generations. Obviously our standard of living is amazing compared to many places, and therefore people in distant lands will work for much less than we do. If there is good labor and favorable business conditions (i.e. stable enough country), then companies move.

We were lucky up to this point in history, in terms of keeping good manufacturing jobs here. We were simply insulated as other countries were until oceanic shipping took off. In last few decades you have heavy competition from Honda, Toyota, others. What do you expect? They can build good cars, SHIP them here, and still be competitive, and people like you are scratching your head and crying about jobs. You can't stop it. It is a force of nature.....human nature. We are all competing. If we drastically reduced our standard of living we could afford to work for $10 a day like they do in the countries where the jobs (manufacturing) are moving or have already moved. However don't be all sad. Once those countries' wealth begins to rise their citizens will demand more and more from their companies (global companies perhaps) and it will all even out.

Kaybeetoys,

If a CEO "essentially inherits" his company as you mentioned then it sounds to me like it is a private company. He owns it, or it is a family business. Other than a relatively small number of companies with tens or hundreds of thousands of employees, no company is going to "fire thousands of employees to give himself a bonus" without completely changing its ability to even do business. That said, it doesn't matter because it is still the CEO (owner's) right to sell the whole business if he wants, or break it up into pieces. That is the beauty of inheriting something...it is yours.

Consider this example that I have seen discussed on an old program done by an economist, Freidman. He was at a private school somewhere that is world renowned for music. And as he pointed out all the students there are gifted musically, often coming from very musical parents and of course growing up around it. Instead of inheriting money, they got talent. Some people, perhaps like you, would probably love to see the gov tax the crap out of someone who inherits a company. But it is no different than talent. One these days you will end up with people saying it isn't fair that so and so was born with a lot of musical talent and has a good job playing in a famous orchestra, and they will be demanding their gov to replace the guy who was born with talent with a guy who wasn't just so it is fair.

What an interesting thread! So many good points made, I can only thing of one thing to add: The wealthy pass on more than money itself to their children; they pass on Knowledge, about how to make it and how to spend it. The "middle"/lower classes, on the other hand, have been conditioned to Not talk about it (or even how much anyone is actually earning or spending), or even think about it at all until it isn't there. My parents didn't know squat about the principles of investing or compound interest (or credit card interest!), and that's what they handed down to me. I wish someone had explained to me how much just $10/mo in an IRA would ultimately add up to, and what that would really mean in terms of stress and future success.

As I scan down through these posts, I click on every single collapsed post to find that they are collapsed only because they are not pro-liberal. Why is that? Aren't liberals the ones who preach "tolerance for opposing points of view"? Aren't liberals the one's who coin phrases like "homophobic"? Don't they espouse to decry censorship? And yet, here on newsvine the liberals systematically collapse (censor) almost every post that disagrees with their political philosophy.

That is what we will have nation wide if liberals were to get even more power. Sen John Kerry railed on the media just 2-3 days ago for giving the tea party any press at all. Liberals profess a love of freedom but in reality they seek to oppress any viewpoint counter to their own. They seek the so-called "fairness doctrine" to limit conservative speech on the radio. They collapse posts on newsvine. They encourage the media to limit conservative views.... Tolerance? No way.

Conserva-phobic.....

I read all the above posts, I think it boils down to:

The rich won't give unless they have to, and since they make the laws, that won't be happening anytime soon.

The TP wrongfully thinks rich people are basically good people, and the rich will show them, if they just give them a chance. They said.

The Reps don't want to pee in the pool, because soon it will be their turn to swim. The rich promised this time it's for real. They have been working hard, and it has to be their turn soon.

The Dems remember what it was like back when they were young, and don't want to see people suffer. And know the rich don't care about anyone but themselves.

At this rate the future will consist of two classes: People with lots of nice things, and people that clean and serve those people with the nice things.

And because public schools will be underfunded so badly that most people will have the mental age of a 6th grader, and with no chance of them being able to afford college, the two groups will remain separate for a long time.

One plus is the lack of medical care for the poor, will work nicely as a population control method.

Don't worry though, the poor will always be able to increase their standard of living slightly, by joining the military, police force, or fire department (albeit by risking their life, and shortening it). So rest assured the rich will always make sure they are paid, because those are the people that are going to keep the hoards of angry poor at bay if the need arises.

Oh, don't forget about religion, it's motto is: "Keeping the poor from killing the rich for thousands of years." Expect the rich to push religion hard on their uneducated serfs. I can hear it now, "It's freedom of religion, not from it." That's right, your reward is after you die, so make sure you do as you're told now.

Regarding those that work hard but enjoy only modest success, be comforted in the fact that what you have, you acquired by your own labors. Accordingly, you are among the truly rich, as richness in not always determined by physical assets but by being capable and independent.

The fact that this persons comment was collapsed shows that people generally do not consider a reasonable evaluation of the situation is not what the majority of the posters here have an interest in.

I shouldn't collapse something because I don't find it reasonable. I don't find about 70% of the posts on here to be reasonable, but that is NOT grounds for collapsing them.

Liberals collapse posts primarily to silence them. Anything that disagrees with my point of view does not deserve to be heard. We heard that from John Kerry this week when he said the media should not even cover the tea party, even though polls show more Americans identify themselves with the principals espoused by the tea party than by those espoused by Mr Obama.

Chris....let me lead you through a logical train of thought...

What has this to do with the price of tea in china, other than in your head?

Columnists can write anything they wish. It sounds really good if they can dress it up as news. It is particularly good if the source they are citing is not published yet because their conclusions cannot be checked. They can pick and choose the bits that suit their own conclusion without concern that prudent people can verify....Junk journalism.

IT is also very easy for those who have nothing to generously offer the assets of others.

Taxed fairly?!? Suppose you and I go apple picking... I work reasonably hard and pick 100 apples in the day. However, you work your butt off and am able to pick 150 apples in the day. Now the government needs their cut from our apple picking. They decide they'll tax me 20 apples (20%) and you 60 apples (40%). That leaves me with 80 and you with 90. You get 10 extra apples for working 50% harder.

Does this seem fair?

Because how much money you make is only dependent on how hard you work, right?

hoosier-3171992

Fact: Due to various tax loopholes the tax on 150 apples ends up only being 17 apples.

Hoosier, do you even know how taxes in this country work? It doesn't sound like you have ever prepared your own taxes.

CSX,

There is a correlation between challenging work and pay grade. Challenging work requires a person to work harder/smarter. Not everyone can do that. Therefore the supply of labor is relatively lower than for less challenging jobs and higher pay/wages can be demanded.

JBradbury,

Yes, some fancy accounting can be applied to the 150 apples, but I feel you've missed my point of tax brackets. You've also over-exaggerated the effects of your Arthur Anderson accounting.

Thank you Hoosier for proving the study to be correct - for you did not claim the ten illegal immigrants you hired to help you pick the apples which you paid 1/4 apple each and did not offer health benefits.

Taxed fairly?!? Suppose you and I go apple picking... I work reasonably hard and pick 100 apples in the day. However, you work your butt off and am able to pick 150 apples in the day. Now the government needs their cut from our apple picking. They decide they'll tax me 20 apples (20%) and you 60 apples (40%). That leaves me with 80 and you with 90. You get 10 extra apples for working 50% harder.

If you really want an accurate analogy:

First, it wouldn't be the government taxing you, it would be the owner who owns the orchard.

Secondly, the tax difference between someone who makes 25,000 and 30,000 isn't much. You're still taxed pretty much the same way.

No, he picked 150 and you picked 1500. but you picked 1500 because you brought in heavy equipment and the owner is charging you extra for the greater wear and tear your heavy equipment put on his orchard.

Beyond that, the owner is guaranteeing that if you fell out of the tree and broke your leg, he's going to give you 50 apples anyway.

Yes. This is all fair. Don't like it? Go pick wild apples and see if you like their taste. No one is forcing you to pick apples in this orchard.

Hoosier:

Are you saying that poor people are lazy and/or stupid? That seems to be what you're saying.

Stupid and uneducated are two entirely different things.

I know plenty of so-called educated idiots hoosier.

Just sayin'...

Here's an experiment that has been done--take the top 100 kids in college that made all A's and tell them they need to share their grades with the less fortunate kids. It was done at Berkeley (liberal university) and guess what! They wouldn't share! They said they'd worked for the grades. Hmmm.

MAW - do you really believe that to be a good comparison?

Do you really believe those who don't make that much are lazy and don't work hard enough? Do you really?

Advice. Get head out of dark place fast. You disgust me.

I saw a fun and informative movie made by a very wealthy man whose father founded Texaco. It has very wealthy and powerful people in it, and you can hear from what they say that they believe totally in war, greed, selfishness, power, etc. It is called "The American Ruling Class," and it is very useful for your family and friends to get the inside story on the super-rich, and it's entertaining too!!

Hoosier, do you think Rupert Murdoch makes so much money because he's so educated? Or did he just come from a very wealthy family and inherit a business?

How about Rush Limbaugh? (Flunked out of Southeast Missouri State after one year.)

Or Glenn Beck? (Only a high school education.)

And do you really think all these CEO's work SO much harder than the other people in their companies that they've EARNED pay like this?:

From USA Today, 3/31/2011:

2010 CEO pay chart, sorted by total

Good Graph Friday: You're working harder, they're making money

That's nothing but propaganda from the "haves" to keep the "have-nots" from realizing they're being robbed.

We used to call these people "robber barons". But this time around people like you think phrases like "class warfare" will protect you. Good luck.

Here's how the apple analogy REALLY works.

YOU pick 150 apples, and the other guy comes along and says "I'll organize your apples for a share of the apples". Then he does the same thing for 50 other guys also in the orchard, taking a cut from each. He then uses the cut of apples to under cut your price but still makes a good deal of money because he has more apples than any of the rest of you, without actually picking a SINGLE APPLE. He then use the money to buy out the farmer and lowers your share of the reward for thapples picked, while using his control of the apples to raise the price of those apples that you need to buy, further lowering you share of the production of those apples. Finally, he has the bulk of the apples, you are picking 100 aples but only getting the equivalent of 10 apples back for your production and he pockets the rest as his "earned" income.

That's the analogy to REALITY.

You picked 150 apples not by working harder, or smarter, but by getting lucky and picking the right tree to be born under. Taxes on the rich are a tax on luck, just like we tax gamblers who win at the casino. Nothing unfair about it.

MAW - I wonder how those same students would respond to follow-up questions, such as: Now that you have A's, do you think you should now lobby to change the rules of the university to make it harder for others to get A's? Like, make it so A students no longer have to pay for their textbooks (those costs can be absorbed by the B,C and D students), get access to the professors to get course materials ahead of time, get lower tuition and make it tax-free (because they'll be the job creators). Then, allow them to take over most of the classes, and teach them, but allow their students to earn only Ds no matter how hard they work (just enough to barely pass) while they earn even more A's from the professors for this service. That way, those students can get through school guaranteeing themselves ever more A's while holding the rest of the student body down to C's and D's.

If you can find a way to pick 100,000 apples you won't be taxed any apples!

Not to mention, that students have been known to pay others to do their course work in classes that they do not like, or even pay others to attend the sessions. Afew have even pursued whole degrees this way.

I hate to bust the liberal petards on here but many of the unemployed are unemployed regardless of whether or not they can find work. There is a huge difference between underemployed by circumstance and unemployed by choice. It is a HUGE myth that the poor are poor only because of circumstances. Many are poor and on the dole by choice. That is true in the USA and it is true in liberal European countries the left like to point out as examples of how the USA should operate. Just what is fair taxation? Someone making $100,000 per annum pays 30% in income tax and someone else in a lower bracket pays nothing. The lowest group of taxpayers not only don't pay taxes but get refunds on taxes they never paid. It is called the earned income credit and isn't anything but welfare. People like acumen apparently won't be happy until taxes leave every person in America earning the same amount of money regardless of their income. I actually had a guy tell me that millionaires should be taxed on their wealth regardless of when they earned it. He apparently thought you should pay taxes until your money is gone. The facts is some of the have-nots want to have regardless of their effort....

If you can find a way to pick 100,000 apples you won't be taxed any apples!

How that works is once you have 100,000 apples, you give 100 of them to the elected Apple Orchard Representative's election fund. Then once elected a special deal gets slid into the Apple Orchard Appropriations bill that no one seems to know where it came from.

After it gets passed by all the the Apple Orchard Representatives, so they can read it and find out what it says, you don't have to give any apples away.

Now the Apple Orchard representatives come from two different factions, the red delicious and the yellow delicious caucuses. There are a few Gala, Granny Smith etc representatives out there but they are far and few between.

They all claim to be different and point out the fallacy of the different factions. In reality they are all generally the same, they just want more apples for their Apple Orchard election funds so they can stay in the Apple Orchard Congress and will take them from any person who has apples..

chris - So it's your theory that 14.1 million Americans are unemployed by choice?

You know, karma is a funny thing. Let us know how you feel about that if your job gets outsourced.

And if you want to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit, you're going to have to raise the minimum wage sufficiently to support a family.

A full-time minimum wage worker takes home $15,080 a year GROSS. That's $13,926 a year after subtracting only SS/Medicare taxes.

There's no way a person can meet America's cost of living off that.

Are you willing to fix it?

God, reading these posts it is no wonder the supposed rich have no empathy, most of you are talking about CEO's and people making millions of dollars not the person making 90k/year living in NYC or a suburb of NYC. Speaking of 'apples' if you want to compare apples to apples, then cost-of-living needs to be considered...so the person making 100k in NYC where the cost of living is let's say 30% or 40% higher than living in some small town in anywhere USA should be taxed based on the HIGH cost-of-living in NYC. No one wants to consider that because you all think making 6-figures makes you rich regardless of WHERE YOU LIVE. NY has the highest taxes in just about every category, and if they are not #1 they are #2 or #3 as we split the envious role with NJ and CT.

So yes, once you strip out the cost-of-living, sorry 100k in the NY-metro area is not living large. Come visit someday and go shopping, buy gas, buy a drink, take a look at someone in the suburb paying 10-25k a year in PROPERTY taxes in a a normal 'middle-class' neighborhood then get back to us 100k being rich.

This is the problem, you all have no idea what 'rich' is, I'll give you CEO's making millions would be rich...but not all CEO's make millions. Not everyone that 'works on wallstreet' is rich either again since working on wall street could mean you are simply working in a marketing division, or IT or even cleaning staff. But continue to let class warfare dictate what you 'think' you know.

With that said, I am doing 'well' and have no complaints, I also came out of college making $5.50/hour and never took a handout. I also worked since the age of 15 doing manual labor, mopping floors, washing dishes and YES I prefer the money I make now but it did not come without hard work and I NEVER ONCE BLAMED someone making more than me for the times I made less money. So you can all get over yourselves because the defintion of 'rich' is relative to A LOT of things not simply a blind number.

With that said, I don't have a problem with millionaires paying some more taxes, however, I think the 47% of Americans paying NOTHING should pay something because if you have no skin in the game you have nothing to complain about.

Chris: you forgot something, someone making over 5 million pays 24% in income tax. That is less than the person you mentioned making 100k. Don't believe me? go to the IRS website and check for yourself. Also, the bottom 50% make 12.5% of all AGI, while the top 10% make over 60% of all AGI. Who do you think can afford to pay a small percentage more?

Of course there is abuse, the system is flawed, no system is perfect. We need enforcement and an incentive to work system. I understand someone of low income getting a tax credit when they have a kid; but if you have four then you're abusing. All programs really need to be reformed, so that it benefits the people that it is supposed to benefit, not the ones that are abusing them. However the call from the Right is to cut the programs, not to make them better and more efficient.

And you seem to think that 10% of America is happy to be unemployed and getting a reduced income, while corporations are sitting on piles of cash instead of hiring.

How about the family with 4 kids that pays $0 in taxes while the family with no kids pays their share.

hoosier.this article is saying you pick 100 apples and your buddy picks 150 apples.your rich employer takes 90 from you and 140 from your buddy he doesnt pick anything.now your pay is 10 apples a piece he got 230.your saying that he should pay the same percentage of tax as you.so your tax 2 you net 8 his tax is 46 he nets 184.how unfair for him maybe he should free trade/job export your job and hire jose that he can pay 2 apples a day to pick and you go hungry

free trade/job exporting is class warfare by the rich

So who wrote the tax code? Congress, right? And why did they write the code that way? Because it benefits themselves and their biggest campaign contributors the most.

Anyone else notice that the $90k threshold means every single one of our 536 so-called-representatives in DC are paid at nearly twice this threshold and that most of them took their seats in the House and Senate after amassing far greater personal wealth than they'll ever see while in office? Ever wonder why the policies coming out of DC do little to actually help any average Joe or Jane on Main Street?

It's interesting to see the usual "I worked hard for my money and I deserve to keep it!" arguments coming from people that very likely do not fall into the "rich" bracket the study was talking about anyway.

Most of the people in the higher ends of the "rich" spectrum are not "working class" people and never have been (see those inheritance statistics posted way up there).

The proper analogy would be: Person A picked 100 apples, person B picked 150 apples, and Person C was given 150,000 apples by their parents who happen to own the orchard, and hired Person D to make sure that they didn't have to give any of them back in "taxes" because they put their apples into their "apple shelters."

Jmacq1 -

Your forgot about Person E, the one that has been given apples by Person A and Person B for the past 50 years and never bothered to pick an apple for themselves.

These are the people that we are fed up with. As a middle class person working 2 jobs to make ends meet, I resent generational welfare recipients. I believe most people feel the same way. When push comes to shove, I'd rather cut off the generational welfare recipient than tax a wealthy person. My reasoning for this is because taxing the wealthy is a great thing, but the more we give to people, the more they will expect.

You speak of poor people. Well, there was a recent study done of "poor" people. The average "poor" person in America has a washing machine, dryer, air conditioning, cell phone, cable television, one game system (Wii, Playstation, etc), two televisions, one vehicle. If you can afford those things, you are NOT poor. The only necessity, imo, is air conditioning and a car, only if you live where there is no public transportation.

People seem to think that many conservatives are for the rich and against the poor. We're not. What we want is the waste and abuse to stop, because we know that after the rich are forced to pay more, we will be the next in line to ante up more of our money, while those that have abused the system for decades will continue to steal from us.

DRC makes perfect sense, but his/her post will be glossed over because it is spot on.

Whats up with people trying to make their point with TERRIBLE analogies?

“Lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”

Like we really needed a study to show us that. There is a reason that Jesus said that it was harder for a rich person to go through the eye of a needle than to get into heaven. Twice. If you're a rich "Christian," you'd better take a really, really hard look at the Gospels and see where you're really going to end up. Jesus showed us that God is a bleeding heart liberal, in word, deed, and then in black and white on the page. Get used to it.

As for the rich being deluded about things being equal, the idea that they are watching Fox and still think it's "fair and balanced" is a pretty good gauge of that.

Finally, to the poor and duped "rural republicans" that I can never wrap my head around, let me say this: The American dream is a lie. It's a pyramid scheme, and the top positions have been taken for a long time. You are not going to get rich "any time now" no matter how many republican candidates say you can. It's the same as working for AmWay. You're the grunts, and the top people who are sucking in all the money from your hard work are laughing all the way to the banks. If you aren't already rich, you're just cannon fodder. Sorry to be the one to tell you that, but if you look back at your life, you'll see it. You have slightly better odds of getting lucking than winning the lottery, but only slightly.

It's true that some educated positions can (not do, but can) get you a decent middle to upper middle class existence, but unless you are going to be a lawyer or a doctor, and be really really really good at it, you're just going to be down here with the rest of us, paying out your student loans for the rest of your life, trying to make your car payments. That's the American Way, circa 2000+.

AS the artice states: the rich are less empathetic than than poor. As I look at our borrowing deficits in Washington, the endless wars in Iraq and Afganistan, tax breaks for the " job creators" (lol), and healthcare for all plus entitlement spending, it's time to bring this to a screeching halt. Period. What I don't like is the Tea $hits pathetic view of destroying America for the good of the Republicans. That won't work. Period. If America wants to get back on track this is what needs to be done and if your out there, listen up:

1) In 2012, vote out the Republican incubents. If your voting Democrat, it should be a straight ticket and I hope it is. What is happening is that our government wants to go in 3 different directions here, Tea Party one way, Rep another, Dem another. I feel that the Democrats have the better plan for America. So lets give them the mandate in November to do that.

2) TAXES: Cut off loopholes for corporate America at once, if the Dems are voted in this can be done. But only IF their voted in. Rollback the Bush/Cheney tax breaks for the wealthy: aka ( job creators) lol, etc. Broaden the tax base so that every one pays taxes on their income, worth repeating. ummm. Beef up the IRS watchdogs on big wage earners to keep tax loopholes from forming and that large wage earners pay their fair share. Increase corporate income taxes, yet give tax incentives to those companies that invest in Amercan land labor and capital, NOT overseas land labor and capital.

3) Enact tarrifs on imports to balance our trade.

4) Find an alternate source of energy to drive down the cost of oil.

5) Cut defense spending as our military is overstrengthed.

In other words, lets go back to what made this country great again. It was innovation after the Great Depression, it was industrialization and new ideas to a better way of life. And I believe that this can be achieved if we can "nerve up" and do whats needed (steps 1-5) to make this country great again.

They want class warfare let them have it. This nation just continues to fall further and further down the toilet while you people argue over meaningless pennies. I love these people that pay a few thousand in taxes and feel like they pay for EVERYTHING. Most people complaining about the rich and taxes are complaining about the loopholes they get to abuse on a yearly basis. I have not heard ONE person come out and say "I do not want to work, I want the rich to pay for me." Are there people that abuse the system? Hell yes. Are there rich that abuse the system too? Hell yes. So why is one side given a pass while the other is called lazy? It is just funny how people compare their lives to others when they had supportive parents, stability, and love when they were growing up.

"I'm glad there was a study to clear all this up, because the fact that they won't allow themselves to be taxed fairly led me to believe they actually cared about other people."

Oh yea Count, the top 20% of earners paying 80% of income taxes. I say, NOT FAIR AT ALL. Tell you what, you work your butt off going to college majoring in say, engineering, taking high level math and science courses, paying for it all yourself, because financial aid only goes to "poor" kids (all the better poor "minority" kids), go out and get a job (with NO family connections to help), work your way up the ladder working 55+ hour weeks, and finally in your 40s, make it to $200,000. Not being a business owner, and with only a mortgage deduction, (no, all the deductions others get for making work pay, earned income credit, and other liberal BS giveaways are long phased out for you) 40 some % of that 200k goes to TAXES ! Then see how you like it. You'd say enough already too! Then the ultimate slap in the face - you get to pay even more that the tax man calculates, because you are subject to the ATM tax too. It's insane. To add insult to injury, we have to pay full retail for our kids' college. Live in a large metro area where the jobs are, and 200K does not go far AT ALL. So all of you that think otherwise, STFU. Oh, and by the way, economic success and personal outcomes have EVERYTHING to do with individual behavior and work ethic if you did not inherite money.

Oh, and by the way, I notice how most of the comments that call BS on this obviously biased stupid study get collapsed. Nice.

Actually, the proper analogy would be:
Person a picked 100 apples and pays farmer "bob" 10 apples for letting him pick them.
Person b picked 150 and gave farmer bob 15.
Person c hired 10 workers to pick apples for them, telling them they get 1 apple for every 10 picked, then gives another 1 for every 10 picked.
Then person d sees how person c does it, and hires 10 workers as well. A few months later, he decides to cut all his workers jobs and send them to China, where he can pay his workers 1 apple a day instead, and pay farmer "Lee" only 5 apples a day. Then he hires 100 workers in China, and doesnt pay any taxes for importing the apples, so he cuts the prices on them to undercut the competition, once they go out of business, he jacks the prices back up and, there we have it, the super-rich!

"And if you want to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit, you're going to have to raise the minimum wage sufficiently to support a family."

That's hilarious Real Americans First! How about this. Don't be so stupid to think that you're "entitled" to have 2 plus kids and a spouse and be able to support them on a min. wage job. Get a clue. And as far as your "income inequality" BS charts...yeah sure, a VP of Engineering with a Masters degree should be about the same as some dude who didn't finish high school and pushes a floor cleaner around at the grocery store as his profession. Sure, that would be FAIR, wouldn't it?

I love all this class war rhetoric. This part is the best:

The American dream is a lie. It's a pyramid scheme, and the top positions have been taken for a long time.

Someone must alert Oprah, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc., that they must return their riches immediately, for the positions they actually worked for and didn't wait for it to be handed to them, were already taken. Fail logic is fail. Go preach your "There's only one direction without the rich paying for everything, and that direction is down" sermon somewhere else. I notice how these studies always proclaim the shrinking of the middle class, yet fail to ever look into the FACT that we have more millionaires now then ever. The middle class is shrinking, but not all to going broke. Some actually decided to go back to school, or invent something, or to pursue a dream. While you might be content sitting on the couch, watching daytime soaps, collecting a government check, they weren't.

Stop blaming someone else for you not being worth a damn.

Yes because everyone who has an opinion that differs from yours on this subject is sitting at home all day collecting a government check. What a moronic thing to say. I am sorry not all people can be as enlightened as you. Where can I catch your seminar on motivation? Yes you can still get lucky in this country. Who ever said you could not? But that is not the argument here genius. What about the people that went to college and can not find work? What about the people who had their job shipped away or their business collapse and now they are trying to start anew in a job market that offers no hope? Stop thinking the answer is as simple as getting off one's butt and working hard.

And you must be ignorant:

yet fail to ever look into the FACT that we have more millionaires now then ever.

Maybe that's because we have a larger population than before, did that one occur to you? The fact still remains that those millionaires only represent a fraction of the top 1% wealthiest in our country, and they earn that wealth on the backs of the lower 90% of us. Actually let me correct that, on the backs of the lower 99% of us, because that 9% that are unemployed, are made that way so that those wealthy ones can ship the jobs we used to have to another country.

Just another bullsh*t article from the left trying to stoke the class envy fires.

I prefer Oranges!

The facts is some of the have-nots want to have regardless of their effort....

And some haves want to keep everything they have no matter who has nothing.

Just a liberal BS article

There are FACTS that people who want to redistrubute wealth(dems/libs) give 4 times less than REPs

DEMS/LIBS want to give other people's money away not thier own. Hell many hollywood types will put on a concert to help charity but don't give thier own money.

So the study says rich are @!$%#s and don't give but facts on who gives to charity does show the rich give.

This is not about envy this is about the rich jumping on the i am entitled ban wagon with our tax dollars and having enough money and power to screw over their own nation, take over all the goverment contracts without bids, moving for example Haliburton to Dubai. Evading US taxes and regulations. How much legislation is passed that sounds like it will benefit the Americans, but is tagged to go to the rich who don't even follow threw with the program SOME OUR CONGRESSMAN. Buy land, don't farm. Have convention rooms for the non-profit org. but collect the gov. money and never open it to one non profit free. Hiltons? Every taxpayer should be offended by the way the greed, foreign traveling, on our buck, doesn't effect the rich and THE PARTY is on us. THEY DON'T CARE AMERICA FINANCIALLY SOLID. AMERICAN TREASURY NOTES DEPLEAT THEY ARE DEALING IN GOLD IN DUBAI. IT IS A DISGRACE WHEN OUR HONORABLE SOLDIERS DIED. SENIORS ARE TARGETS. THIS IS THE USA. RICH IS GOOD. IF YOU EARNED IT. but the ones who got it by any other way have no souls. and the bible says give God what is Gods. pay you taxes and give ceaser what is ceasers.

If one of you picks 100 apples a day and the other picks 150, the other pickers will make fun of you. In Spanish. And you'll both get fired.

@jac-931625

Guess what - I did exactly what you say. Worked my butt off to get an engineering degree while supporting myself, worked up the ladder working 55+ hour weeks (more like 70+), and I'm now across the $200,000 level.

HOWEVER, I don't pay 40% in tax. I pay 25% (including ALL federal, sales, property, SS, Medicare etc.).

In fact, the more money I earn, the more the % drops. When I earned $100k, my total tax rate was over 30%. Sales, Property, SS & Medicare all stay about the same ($ amount), regardless of how money I earn - so the % actually goes down year over year. Federal tax is mildly progressive, but with huge exceptions.

The system is fundamentally skewed. I'd rather pay 5% or even 10% more in taxes and have 15 million more people in the workforce earning a salary and able to buy the products I create.

Trickle down economics break down for the super-rich. 1 person getting $10m per year does not create jobs. He's not going to buy 100 cars, or 100 computers, or 100 cellphones, or 100 microwaves.

However, 100 people each earning $100k per year will - that's where job creation comes from. This multiplier effect drops off rapidly after around $200k, and taxes should be the way to make sure the money keeps moving around the economy and doesn't just get stuck in a bank account.

Borlock-

Instead of complaining you don't pay enough taxes, please feel free to write the US Treasury a check for everything you earn. They will gladly accept it.

I on the otherhand, know the US gets more than plenty of tax dollars from us. They just haven't figured out how to live within their means while giving it all away to garner votes.

But hey, don't let their waste and fraud deter you from helping them tax you into oblivion.

Wonder how much money this study cost? I woulda taken half of that amount to say, "DUH!"

Let them eat CAKE!!!!

nmanx..The tax PAYERS paid for this study, Obama and his henchmen endorsed this study, and all for the purpose to drive a wedge between the "haves" and the parasites trying to start an insurection... Witness London.

So, MSN brings out Brian Alexander to fuel the fire, and presents this fraud study by Dacher Keltner...

What a crock!! I make $50,000+ a year and I"m the problem...bite me!

This problem is only going to get worse. With sooooooooooo many more people jobless soooooooooo many more people GOING to be jobless it will make it easy for people with jobs to feel superior as well. In fact the actuality of having a job will make fools believe that they are better then there neighbors. Literal neighbors.

It will perpetuate itself and make fodder out of the poor middle class and former middle class. Especially minorities. It is already happening. This is why middle class former middle class poor people elderly and disabled people vote against there own interests. Because of the "christian" thought of the word and speaking into being. Many folks want to be rich. They wish that they were well to do. But simply are not. But by thinking there fore they are is not quite the case. So voting against there own interest never occurs to them. It NEVER becomes self reflection. It remains stagnant that instead of listing to those who care about EVERYONE. They choose to ONLY listen to the rich who care about no one. Then for some reason they believe they are listening to themselves. But people who cannot self reflect often self indulge, dilute themselves and are incapable of afterthought or thereby for thought.

So they blame EVERYONE while refusing to HELP everyone. Then becoming there own center of universe.

Cheers

It is QUITE laughable that because you make 50,000 plus a year that you are the problem. YOU are the problem but not because of that. That's is NOT considered rich in this country. Thanks for proving this point though. Ive been great. Thanks.

You think you are wealthy. HA!

Cheers

By the standards of your buddies rioting in the streets of London and Milwaukee, I'm wealth....

It took numerous studies to demonstrate the earth was round when everyone knew it was flat. Turned out to be a pretty valuable investment.

You can't know in advance which results are going to be interesting, or you wouldn't need to do the studies.

Except in this case, they already knew what the results of this study were going to be before they ever did it.

This study is neither scientific nor helpful in any way. It is broadly generalized in nature and ignores many variables. It will be ignored by the intelligent and gleefully lauded by the ignorant and foolish.

Money does not create a lack of compassion and empathy any more than poverty creates them in a person.

We are individuals. It is our experiences in life, how we were raised and the attitudes of those who raised us that have far more impact on how we think, feel and react.

Unfortunately, most people would just rather have someone to blame or hate. Pitiful.

Idaho Dragon, as one who at one time had to wait on a busy city street for help after seriously falling, I can attest to what you state.

Aside from that experience, anyone that has not found that either respect; or hate; can come in any type of 'package' is one who has had a very sheltered life.

I have been jobless for the past 2 months - I took a risk by leaving a temporary assignment to try to find something more in line with what I went to school for. (Note - I won't be jobless very shortly here - finally found something - thank God.) Anyhow, on the assignment, I made close to $10/hr - close to $20k a year if you are counting it that way. I recently read a national Geographic article which stated that if you make over $12,000.00 a year, you are in the top 17% of income earners in the world. Now, that obviously isn't adjusted for C.O.L., but the point being, I am (and will be even more so) exceedingly rich! Rich I say! And by most people's standards from these threads, I'm dirt poor. BUT... I have a roof over my head, a bed to sleep in (though sometimes I choose the floor people it keeps cool better... haha), food to eat (maybe too much, admittedly, and from all the wrong sources; what can I say, I have an unfortunate tendency to spend way too much on food), a very old but properly functioning - most of the time - vehicle, and... a/c!! Not to mention a loving family who has supported me every step of the way, and friends as well.

Why is everybody so pissy at the "rich" - enough so to make judgments on rich peoples' characters, probably not even knowing them - that they miss the fact that they have so much? A question of logic: who cares what the rich do with their own money, whether earned or unearned? And if they earned it, whether through manual or intellectual labor, it was still labor. Sometimes 80 to 100 hours a week. And sitting at a computer and taking phone calls from 80 to 100 hours a week will cause arthritis, heart disease, generally high levels of stress. And CEOs take these on willingly to ensure that companies - job creating companies - operate smoothly. And they're the ones who provided me a $10/hr job and put me into the richest 17% in the world!! Thank you, very rich, for helping me to become "rich" myself.

I think you forget that those 10% own the government, churches, police, military, tax system and are the employers. No, the 90% will have no option but to knuckle under to the elite with the cash. Unfortunately, that's the American way.

There are the occasional riots from time to time (Just look at Great Britain the last couple of days). That being said, one could also make a comparison of the ratio of wealthy to working class and poor to the ratio of prison personnel to prisoners in most prison facilities.

Only taking into account the ratio of people to people is not looking at the whole picture. That smaller percentage of people actually controls the greatest percentage of resources. That's the crux of this research, it's about the mindset and intent of the persons in control of the "wealth" (better described as resources).

So if you didn't mean socialism did you mean communism?

Foof, you wouldn't know true communism if it slapped you in the face. Socialism either.

Now let's talk about Fascism. That's the real threat here.

Working just as hard, probably harder just to dole out money to others (share the wealth) certainly doesn't seem like capitalism. Should I write my check directly out to you comrade BJ?

Super rich pay a lot less in federal taxes than they did decades ago
Associated Press, Sunday, April 17, 2011, 1:27 PM

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

The top tax rate in the 1950's was 91% (except 1952 and 1953, when it was 92%). Was the United States "socialist" in the 1950's, Fool?

Foof, "pure" capitalism is Darwinism in action.The strong destroy the weak. Effective in nature, but doesn't a good basis for a society. Unless you're one of the strong. Then you don't care.

This is another way of saying that social welfare benefits derived from taxing the upper income groups is a payoff intended to keep the lower income groups from revolting and thus promote social stability. I agree, but it's only a temporary solution because, just like the upper income groups, they'll always yearn for more.

BTW, the top MARGINAL tax rate was 91%. But it was a rate than almost nobody paid because of way more generous income tax deductions.

Working just as hard, probably harder just to dole out money to others (share the wealth) certainly doesn't seem like capitalism. Should I write my check directly out to you comrade BJ?

Foof, are you saying then that the rich shouldn't have to pay their fair share for our infrastructure? That they should have the roads paved free for them, clean water supplied, airports built, schools funded? If people who can well afford it aren't willing to share anything with others for the common good, they should move somewhere else and provide everything for themselves.

allthumbs - do you have statistics to back that up?

And if you go back and read post #5.6, you'll see that the "generous income tax deductions" have only INCREASED over time.

Remember what a fit the right wing pitched over the wealthy having to pay a 39.6% tax rate (the pre-Bush rate) instead of 35%? Bunch of ridiculous cry-babies - you'd have thought they were being skinned alive.

I say we go back to the Eisenhower tax rates so we can all go back to an Eisenhower economy.

real American first, the top tax rate has never been 91st. You need to start out by learning what marginal means. I realize your education level is probably either very low or in something really handy like psych or history but a marginal rate means a marginal amount of a total. This means you may pay no taxes on one amount all the way to the top where you pay 91% on another partial amount. Michael Moore played his usual half truth game for the sheeple to swallow without knowing the facts, you gulped....

This is very smooth of MSNBC to print something like this on the day after democrats lost their recall vote in Wisconsin. They probably waited for such a time as this to spring this on the American public. Believe me, it did not go unnoticed!

You wanna go back to Ike? You must be kidding me. Let's go! No Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, aid for dependant children, etc., etc. Whole different world. You wouldn't need to raise taxes at all.

I think you forget that those 10% own the government, churches, police, military, tax system and are the employers. No, the 90% will have no option but to knuckle under to the elite with the cash. Unfortunately, that's the American way.

Um, no, that was the way of the American South, right up until Lincoln emancipated the slaves.

Actually common sense is an article written when Americans were fighting to get off from British tyranny. It was specifically about how people have a right to their own property. So I don't know why you think it's common sense to take from people who WORKED HARD to do so.

Do you judge working hard by how much money people make ???? You have plenty of people working for the minimum wage that work hard !

Now for your info people

The european union is made of countries that ARE capitalists, not socialist and even less communists! So stop the socialism bull@!$%# crap !

All capitalist democracies DO HAVE social programs and great one. Social programs are in fact what help average citizens to be part of middle class. ALL capitalist countries in europe are FREE countries but we have regulations on financial institutions and businesses, just like you have laws ! When you start having laws you are no longer free !

Now, many people in europe own their homes free of debts, many have second homes. We own our businesses too. What our social programs gives us is free college education which gives every body a chance to have a good job, affordable health care which allows our citizens to be healthy and more productive. These two are vital to lower crime rate and poverty rate. If you do not understand that, you are truely stupid. Yes, we pay more taxes, but they come back to us with free or affordable great programs. You, americans pay so much for your health care and education that in the end, it is like paying as much taxes as we do. Is this all clear ?

chienetchats. I think they prefer to be more akin to India where people defecate right on the street, there are curable deceases for everyone to suffer of equally, and you run into a dead body on the street every so often. As long as they get to keep their money.

chienetchats, not exactly. Most people, in the form of the third world, compose 90% poor/destitute + 10% rich.

chris-335678 - The top tax rate is the top marginal rate. They are one and the same. Funny to read your childish insults about my education and employment as well, since I spent a lot of my career explaining the tax code to financial planners.

Here's the chart of income inequality by country:

List of countries by income equality

Note that the United States is WAAAY down the list - right between Turkmenistan and Senegal by the UN's ranking, or Ivory Coast and Uruguay by the CIA's World Factbook ranking.

PS - Lower is not good.

Here's the top 25 countries ranked by income equality in the CIA's World Factbook:

Sweden

Norway

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Austria

Luxembourg

Malta

Serbia

Albania

Finland

Germany

Belarus

Hungary

Belgium

Iceland

Slovenia

Kazakhstan

Denmark

Croatia

Cyprus

Bulgaria

Ethiopia

Montenegro

Kyrgyzstan

Australia

Kind of sad that the U.S. is now ranked 72 countries below Ethiopa. Even China beats us by 12 spots.

Here is a fact of life, if income is "shared" or Redistributed like so many are suggesting, then tell me, who is actually going to do the work?? If someone can live off of me because I work hard and make a lot of money, then maybe I should stop working and live off of someone else who has a lot of money. This will go on and on and domino until no one has any money.

The "fact of life" is that workers used to get a bigger share of their productivity in America.

Today, it's almost all being siphoned off by the investor class, leaving working people scrounging just to put food on their table.

GDP in America is higher today than it was in 2007. But for the last 40 years, working people have gotten NONE of it.

 Good Graph Friday: You're working harder, they're making money

Yeah, the wealth is being "redistributed" all right. And now those who have been distributing it to themselves don't want to give ANY of it back.

nel1980.. Excellent question. I appears to be the same question Obamas' beginning to as himself. "Who's going to do the work?"

The problem is Obama IS supposedly are leader, yet he retains this community organizer mentality and as we can see the mantra of "take from those of means, and give to them with need" is not working well... you think? Meanwhile, London burns... Do you see the plan?

London is burning in part because Cameron's government followed the Tea Party's theory of cutting social services to improve the economy.

How well is that working out, do you think?

RealAmericansFirst - Really? "those who have been distributing it to themselves don't want to give ANY of it back."

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You talk big talk about your education, but where is the common sense?

Not only is the U.S. lower on the income equality scale, but also upon many indicators of standard of living.

Look at the chart. Then tell me how much of it they've "given back".

Productivity has surged, but income and wages have stagnated for most Americans. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000.

Obviously my comment was beyond your mental grasp. I will leave it at that.

Ah, the old "Tea Party sidestep". When facts fail, fall back on insults.

No, I just know a lost cause when I see one... Again though, I will help you out, if everyone is sponging off of everyone else, who is going to work????? That was my original question that you have succeeded in "sidestepping".

RealAmerikan...get a grip! Please, understand that the world economy requires all countries to now cut social services... That's where the world is now... face up to this reality, and begin to live with it...

Obama's "hope and change" is now in play... which is exactly why you voted for him.

Actually, a lot of the countries beating our butts economically are socialist democracies. Try Canada, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.

They need to wake up and smell the coffe, didn't Mama Bush state on the radio that the New Orleans survivors had it the best they had ever had it living in their texas astro dome. The survivors were on roofs with the National Guard taking a rescue on themselves. While the president didn't have a clue and was promising to get gas up north soon. This is the wealthy This article is referring to They don't see the middle or lower class as having a life that matters. They think we are nobodys who want look up to them So much that we want to suffer so they can Rise to more money and power. There is more productivity and work accomplished when the taxes are fair, jobs are available and shared, health care and child care is given to the people. Congressman make 150,000 a yr. they have spouses who lobby and make millions. And now a supreme court judge wife a lobbyist. SMELL THE COFFEE. WAKE UP.

RealAmerical..Come on out from under your bed... Europe is going down the Sh!t hole faster than the feds can print money...Italy, Spain, Ireland and Germany, all shaky. What planet are you residing?

Germany's economy is actually fine. And I notice you didn't mention any of the other countries on my list, R Johnson.

The German Example

New York Times, June 7, 2011

The brief story is that, despite its reputation for austerity, Germany has been far more willing than the United States to use the power of government to help its economy. Yet it has also been more ruthless about cutting wasteful parts of government.

The results are intriguing. After performing worse than the American economy for years, the German economy has grown faster since the middle of last decade. (It did better than our economy before the crisis and has endured the crisis about equally.) Just as important, most Germans have fared much better than most Americans, because the bounty of their growth has not been concentrated among a small slice of the affluent.

Inflation-adjusted average hourly pay has risen almost 30 percent since 1985 in Germany, the kind of gains American workers have not enjoyed since the ’50s and ’60s. In this country, hourly pay has risen a scant 6 percent since 1985.

Germany also managed to avoid a housing bubble, unlike the United States, Britain, Ireland, Spain and other countries. German children have stronger math and science skills than ours. Its medium-term budget deficit is smaller. Its unemployment rate is like a mirror image of ours: 6.1 percent, well below where it was when the financial crisis began in 2007. Our rate has risen to 9.1 percent.

The New York Times ,,,Credible, you believe?? Yes, As a propagandist outlet... sorry.

There is a difference between averages and individual cases. This is about trends in general population, not specifically what John Doe does.

It's like saying that african-americans are darker skinned than Caucasians. It is generally true, but it is not true for every single case.

and many who classify themselves as poor need only take a look at Somalia to see just how rich they really are

By the same token the top earners in the U.S. should look at how little those same people live on and stop bitching about paying an extra 3% in taxes, especially when those high income people use world resources in such a wasteful manner. How about being thankful to live in a country where ransom kidnappings are not the norm.

Whats ina Name

Awesome response!

Though I agree with your response (the generality part) Whats ina Name, "Common" Sense's point is that it is unwise to blanket an entire group of people. And that was just one of his several points. Take a walk in the shoes of a wealthy person. The wealthy are the most resented minority in the country, and for what? For working hard to provide for their family? Pahlease... The majority of the "rich" did not inherit their money either; they worked for it.

Pahlease...hoosier - Explain why corporations have the highest profits in history while they go and lay off their employees and hire overseas. They work sooo hard for their money, right?

Those who actually have created their wealth through 'hard work', by hiring employees and paying them fairly - I have no problem with.

However, do not try to tell me that the billionaire worked soooo much harder than the rest of us that he/she deserves to hoard all his/her money and keep it out of reach of taxes.

Somehow I doubt CEO's are working 300 times harder than the assembly line workers.

hoosier, most people don't actually work for the millions. They have an idea that is profitable (or lucky they are in the right place at the right time) and they hire other people that turns it into the millions.

Common sense, the reason you do a qualitative study is to throw out the outliers. It amazes me in this day that people would rather believe an "urban legend" than a scientifically conducted study. Wake up people-Joe the plumber was a plant-not even a licensed plumber! I remember Mitch McConnell during the health care debate telling a story on the Senate floor about a friend of a friend who's mother knew someone in England who died waiting on a root canal or something. If the story begins with I know someone who........just nod and walk away.

Yeah,think of kindly Charles Wylie giving $300,000.00 to Rick Perry.

I think too, there is a difference between those who were born into wealthier circumstances and had the resources/connections/inheritance to help them succeed and those who worked from nothing.

If you've been poor and earned your way to rich I should think you would have more empathy, ability to read people, and more pro-social behavior.

The interesting point for me, was that the rich disregarded how much their more fortunate circumstances/connections contributed to their success - they tended to credit all their success to their individual skills and effort. We all know it takes money to make money - and inheriting money or having connections to money contribute greatly to financial success.

Hey Texas Born,

You don't have to have a license to be a plumber, just working for someone who does. As for him being a plant, please show proof. It is not a crime to want to keep the money you earn. (Well, it is if you don't pay taxes) And as for the NHS in England and thier horror stories, just read the British papers, and they are full of stories of people who'se treatment was delayed due to whatever reasons. Just recently, I read a story about a woman who was denied entrance into the emergency room because she didn't come by ambulance. There are good and bad people in all walks of life, so this study is pointless. Once again, good money being thrown away. But then, the researcher had to get paid for doing something.

Let's see now...5 CEOs I've worked for...none made it to the office before 9:30 AM. At least 2 were golf buffs who saw blue sky and paid for the clients to be out on the links with him..another one took 4 vacations a year - 2 weeks each...so...Do CEOs work hard? Of course, pointing with an index finger and then delegating his work to his subordinates is hard work. The index finger gets a workout and sweats for him.

Then, there's those REALLY hard workers Madoff, Kozlowski, Ken Lay, Jeff "let's look for dangerous fun" Skilling ...yep...all of them awoke before dawn, opened the corporation's vault and helped themselve to everyone else's money but their own.

Common sense....I think the article refers to the general attitudes across the board of wealthy people. There are plenty who aren't selfish and narcissistic...Bill Gates, Warren Buffet...these are guys who give with NO expectation of any return. The rest only give so they get something in return...like tax breaks that reduce their taxes. I have a feeling that isn't what charity is about.

And, so, how does George Soros play into this category of philanthropy...vs. Bill Gates for example...?

I know he pumped a lot of money into the failed re-call of Repubs in Wisconsin...But, what has he done to ease the suffering of the "poor"?

Soros is Chairman of the Soros Fund Management. In July 2011, Soros announced that he was returning outside investment money (valued at $1 billion) and will only invest his own $24.5 billion family fortune because of new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules.^[7] Soros is also the chairman of the Open Society Institute and a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. He played a significant role in the peaceful transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary (1984–89)^[5] and provided Europe's largest-ever higher education endowment to Central European University in Budapest.^[8] Later, the Open Society Institute's programs in Georgia were considered by Russian and Western observers to have been crucial in the success of the Rose Revolution. In the United States, he is known for donating large sums of money in an effort to defeat President George W. Bush's bid for re-election in 2004. In 2010, he donated $1 million in support of Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana in the state of California. He was an initial donor to the Center for American Progress, and he continues to support the organization through the Open Society Foundations. The Open Society Institute has active programs in more than 60 countries around the world with total expenditures currently averaging approximately $600 million a year.^[9]

In 2003, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker wrote in the foreword of Soros' book The Alchemy of Finance:

"George Soros has made his mark as an enormously successful speculator, wise enough to largely withdraw when still way ahead of the game. The bulk of his enormous winnings is now devoted to encouraging transitional and emerging nations to become 'open societies,' open not only in the sense of freedom of commerce but – more important – tolerant of new ideas and different modes of thinking and behavior.^[10]"

As I suspected,,,and you confirmed above, Soros is pulling the strings to destroy Captitalism as we know it.....Perhaps you might want to check out the motives of the "Open Society Foundations" ....need i say more...

The only people I ever hear talking about George Soros are Republicans.

If he's supposedly running the Democratic Party, he must be talking to the wrong people.

Why do you suppose Conservatives, those who want to get out from under the yoke of Big Brother, are focused on Soros?? It's because he's financing opposition groups, Union Thugs, and other anti-American organizations to eventually collapse the Union...It's funny how you play coy in the way you prase your response above...

Unemployment also leads to lower revenues at these businesses owned by the "evil rich". So I doubt they're loving this down economy.

Also when the rich see the government taking over large chunks of the economy- Health Care, Automakers, I don't blame them for trying to protect what's theirs.

A poor person has never offered me a job.

I wonder if the rich are any better at spelling?

bmwdtd said...

A poor person has never offered me a job.

Perhaps you missed an important part of this article...

From the article...

“Lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”

A poor person may have never offered you a job, but they'd be more likely to share what they have with you and do with less for themselves and their family if you came to them in need.

bmwdtd - As the article mentioned, the richest few percent of the population have sufficient money to buy the things they like, even in this economy.

A couple of years ago, a study came out showing that one's sense of well-being increases with relative, rather than absolute wealth. This would tend to indicate that, as the divide between rich and poor has grown, the rich have to some extent, been made better off simply by that widening gap.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't think that any measurable number of people in this class actively want to impose poverty on anybody to make themselves feel better, but rather that the increase in their sense of well-being may well operate counter to their sense of empathy. Whether it would completely negate their identification with the lower classes, or perhaps simply moderate it would require more research than I've seen done.. I can see how it might make it easier to convince yourself that times weren't too bad and look the other way, though.

In a nutshell, Johnny B.

How do you know so much about the Rich? Are you one of them, walking in their shoes Johnny B? Even if everything you mentioned was true, who cares. They don't need to care about you...their not obligated to help you. Put your hand down, no one owes you anything. If you took everything from the house to the lexus, from the rich, you wouldn't even move the needle on the economy. That's the scale we are looking at on the macro level. If you would like a better inside look at what the rich look like and think like, read the Millionaire Next Door. Envy will never get you anywhere.

freethinker...No one owes YOU anything either. So..you want to explain why rich people go all control freak with everyone else? Don't tell me that the Big Business employers don't lord it over their employees as if they employees were dirt. That's a given with the rich.

Now for some real news for you. The rich don't get that way by working up a sweat. They have taxpayers who bail them out when their "chief decisions" don't pan out. They have employees who work with 17 year stagnated salaries so Mr. Rich Ass can live large. They have consumers they rip off with 6 or more price increases on housing, groceries and other necessities...You got a defense for that?

It will be so nice watching the rich lose it all...Money always runs out. Yours will too. Unless you plan on doing a Madoff that is.

ewent... been following you...I'm convinced beyound the shadow of a doubt, you are bent on anarchy, and can't wait for "London" to show up in your neighborhood...am I right? Wow!...Mr. "Rich Ass".....

Ayh, Obama, is on track to bring us, the U.S. right on down to the third world status you lefties have always wanted...ready for this? Are YOU?

ewent,

Really? It's a given huh? Spoken like a true hater who would rather lump all of the rich into the same group than take the time to judge people as individuals on individual merit or lack of it.

You're as clueless as most of the other haters in the world. Guess it takes more maturity and intelligence to think with reason and logic than you have huh?

Don't choke on all that hate now. It's unhealthy.

There are times when I truly wish I was rich. I would gladly help individuals who ASK for help. For those who DEMAND my help, I'd gladly tell them to drop dead.

You are owed nothing in this life. Nobody owes you anything. Life isn't fair. Grow up, get a clue and learn to judge people on an individual basis instead of this "group hate" bs.

BUSH/CHANEY lets not forget Chaney beloved Haliburton getting 25.7 billion in non-bid goverment contracts in Iraq. Haliburton moved to Dubai. Evade US taxes and regulations. Haliburton a oil rig cementing co. cemented the oil rig in The Gulf hours before the spill. This is the rich this article is referring to they not only don't see the middle or lower class as having a life. They don't respect the resources we depend on to make a living.

I felt the same way reading the article. And the folks calling the results "obvious" may as well written the article without any studies.

DAV...You just proved the article is correct. Congratulations.

ewent ...the article is a fraud, and designed to race bait... part of the BHO plan, as sold by his news outlet, MSNBC.

No. You miss the point. The one with ten apples got it not because THEY are better but because they had rich parents, an exceptional education and contacts.

This is ANOTHER good reason to make the estate tax - or, as I prefer, the WHINING LITTLE RICH KID TAX, 100% about ONE MILLION dollars. These rich jerks that were born on third base and think they hit a triple (The BUSH FAMILY - I am looking at YOU!!!). Make these little rich twerps make their OWN D@MN MONEY! Give back the money YOUR PARENTS STOLE!

Thanks, bmwtd.

SRS,

The 100% estate tax would be very ineffective. In theory, it might apply in unexpected or sudden death cases. However, someone can gift their wealth on their deathbed (still alive) and that money will get taxed at a non-estate rate (with $13,000 being tax free, of course), which will be less than 100%.

Not only that, many persons in senior leadership roles tend to work a few extra months/years specifically to be able to provide to their children or grandchildren. With a 100% estate tax, the incentive for highly experienced people to continue to work is diminished. However, on the Vine, I'm guessing most people think getting rid of the experienced workers is a good thing...

Please clarify how does inhering money make you a highly experienced worker.

I suggest you re-read. The relationship that I mentioned was that 55+ year olds in senior leadership positions often times work a few more years than they would need to so that they are able to provide money to their children or grandchildren. But, no matter what I say, you'll read it how you want to. Just like how some researchers will read data how they want to.

Ah, yeah, I see what you mean now.

You are correct, a 100% state tax would be just terrible. The state tax is indeed double taxation, for the taxes should have been paid already when income was originally received.

However, the purpose of the state tax is indeed redistribution of wealth. Which is not always a bad thing. Lack of redistribution leads to large wealth gaps. Too high a wealth gap leads to uprisings by the "less fortunate", and that is what really takes you down the path of the feared socialism, and communism (which is just a disguise for totalitarian regimes anyway, as true socialism and communism are utopian).

Too much money in the hands of few leads to instability and abuse of power. The trick is finding the balance. The problem, is nobody likes the balance when it affects them personally.

Just a question, hoosier. How many of those "55+ year olds in senior leadership positions" used the GI Bill to get their educations?

The same opportunity you want to deny to young people today.

Deal cuts financial aid to graduate students

While undergraduate student aid concerns were somewhat heeded by President Barack Obama’s signature on the debt ceiling bill Tuesday, it comes at the cost of extra strain on graduate students.

The bill provides $17 billion over the next two years for the Federal Pell Grant program, which is currently running at a multi-billion dollar deficit in its funds to qualifying undergraduate students, but eliminates federally subsidized graduate student loans, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported.

Starting July 2012, graduate students who once qualified for the Federal Direct Student Loan will have to start paying 6.8 percent interest on the loans once they receive the first loan check.

Previously, a portion of Federal Direct Student Loan for graduate students was interest-free while the student was enrolled in his or her program, which will include law school, medical school and other graduate programs, Assistant Vice President for Undergraduate Education and Executive Director of the Office of Student Aid Anna Griswold wrote in an email.

“For most, it will likely take longer to repay their loans, which also adds to the student’s debt since interest accrues over a longer period of time,” she wrote.

And then the Tea Party says to people, "Unemployed? It's all your fault. Get an education!"

Not true.

I am an Independent with liberal leanings. I inherited nothing and what I have I earned.

However, I do resent all the tax loopholes allowing the wealthy to pay a lower percentage of income for taxes than do I.

That is the real issue. How about some fairness and equity?

Well, from what I understand, the senate is now looking at those loopholes. Gotta make the money somewhere. Now as someone who does not have children, I think they should look at that one first. Why should you get paid for having children? For example, I work sith someone who has 3 kids. He has deductions from his paycheck reflect that fact, so he has less money taken from his paycheck percentage wise than I do. Now look at his tax returns. Before his child deductions, he owed $700 in federal taxes, but once he added those on, he got $2,300 back. So he is a negative tax payer. I am so TIRED of people griping about how the rich (I'm not talkin millionaires) don't pay thier fair share. The rich don't get those deductions. You can pop out the kids on a minimum wage job and get a refund on money you didn't pay.

Joe Biden is famous for saying that "Eveyone needs to get some skin in the game". Well, If your not paying FEDERAL INCOME taxes, or are getting money back that you didn't first put in, then you need to STFU!!!

Real,

Getting rid of the Pell grant is not denying that opportunity...The opportunity to get education funded by the GI Bill still exists. All you have to do is serve honorably in the military. So what is the issue? Only difference I can see, the GI Bill is earned and the Pell grant is a gift...or actually a theft from me to give to others.

Regards,

Mike

Getting rid of the Pell grant is denying the opportunity to go to college to those who qualify, yet can't afford college.

This is bad for America. We should be wanting to utilize to the fullest all of the potential we have. If a person is otherwise qualified to go to college, the lack of money should not be a reason to prevent them from going.

Since a college educated person is likely to earn $1milllion more during their working life and, even if taxed at the lowest level (10%) isn't spending $22,200 for a 4 year degree worth getting the additional $100,000 or more ?

The Pell grant program is one program which does work. While the GI bill offers an opportunity for some, not everyone wants to be put in a position where they have to make a decision to kill someone or die just to get an education. Many may also not qualify for physical reasons. Would you deny that Steven Hawking would not qualify for the military, yet certainly you would want someone of his brilliance to be able to attend college ?

While many Republicans prefer to have an electorate which is stupid, it is much better for America to have an educated working class.

The author didn't infer causality, just correlation. As an educated media consumer, you should look up the research if you're interested in the methods - you can't seriously expect a news outlet to take the time to explain detailed sampling characteristics, correlation coefficients, or scientific methods in an editorial piece. Few people would care to understand.

Jason- Thank you for pointing that out. IMHO, I find it disheartening the way the media can twist a scientific study into something flashy and/or panic-inducing. I guess everyone has a product to sell. If the general public would take the time to actually read the primary literature, they might glean a little more about the content of the research.

My dear Hoosier, you have blown your cover: you are obviously one of "them"! The rich, that is. That's the only reason you would ask such a question!

It was about rich people who came from affluent backgrounds, for instance the Koch Brothers. Their father was the real self made man who made a ton of money assisting the soviet union's oil industry. When he died the brothers went to war over the estate in a me first frenzy.

JasonBC, you really made me smile. I was thinking along the same lines while reading through these posts!

Also, why is it that NO ONE has yet mentioned the wonders of compounding of interest? That's a way for anyone, from the knuckleheads all the way to the elect, to increase their net worth!

Perhaps it really does come down to education, since by looking at my personal background I belong in the knucklhead end of the spectrum...college is what has made the difference for me, personally!

Although I may very well wind up starving to death before I find a job after graduating! Gotta have a J-O-B before I can start investing!

I thought the phrase was "Backstabbing Rich B@stards", but I could be wrong and of course I am jealous.

Relatively few of the affluent (less than 10%) were "born into money". ()

I agree comrade.

I agree comrade.

Same old John Birch Society leftover BS from the 1960's.

You do know we all figured out that J. Edgar Hoover was just an insane pervert, right?

You might want to at least make up some new epithets.

You mean the nouveau riche? Please, they're as bad as the proles. Now excuse me while I drive my diamond encrusted solid gold Bentley around my personal golf course which has had the grass replaced with shredded $100 bills. I've got some yelling to do at our servants.

PS - Inherited wealth is taxed at the estate rates, which is ~35% for all monies in excess of $5 million, and some states add an additional tax on top of the federal estate tax.

Hardly anyone actually pays estate taxes any more, Matt. They use charitable trusts as a loophole and pay nothing.

"thank god for charitable trusts,,," as my great uncle, on the Koch side of the family, once said...

He was a very generous man.

Try re-reading the apple post. You obviously didn't read it very closely. The analogy was that one guy HARVESTED more apples than the other guy, and the government took so many that the net gain for his harder work was only a few extra apples. The point being that taxing achievement is not a sustainable long term strategy.

Yeah, that's real smart enjoying an afternoon of leisure in the orchard, until eveyone stops working - expecting someone else to do it. Eventually there are no apples at all and everyone starves. This is why collectivism will never be successfull , there's no incentive to work. Much like modern unions.

Yes, you missed the rest of the idea trying to be conveyed, I think that sentence is constructed badly where it should have included the word "only" (or the paragraph structure is poor). What you missed is that they tend to ignore the "it's who you know" part of the equation, which has to do a lot with wealth. That was in the next paragraph.

Because the rich gloss over the ways family connections, money and education helped,

I bet she had impeccable work ethic while making THAT video.

What that sentence says is that people confuse wealth with a good work ethic.

Which is not the case, but seems to be a common misconception.

While I do agree, we're all just one or two bad investments, major illness, etc away from losing it all. Being philanthropic is not the same as giving it all away. I'm sure you busted your butt to get where you are, but at some point along the way someone with more fortune than you helped pave the way to make it possible. Many of us (I'm rich too, at least by Obama standards) got where we are through the generosity of others; maybe not directly with cash infusions, but opportunities, etc etc.

That's funny. You are the personification of the finding in this research. All of you people doubting this, you have the prime example right there.

John, I hope you don't call yourself a Christian. Because I believe you might just be disappointed in the outcome.

And he we have a perfect example of the findings from the research that this article discusses. Wow.

I will always take offense when somebody like you says that people don't make it because they didn't work hard enough... because it is simply not true. So many people work their tale off to be successful, but not everyone has the same opportunities as others, or knows the right people. We don't all start from the same starting line, and we don't all take the same path....

I don't count myself as poor, but my husband and I are at the lower end of the middle class. Does this mean we don't work hard for the 25k-30k we get a year working full time? You've got to start somewhere.

Someday, when my husband and I have worked our way up the income totem pole, I can honestly say it won't be that big of a deal for me to pay more in taxes so that a single mother can try to take care of her kids and put herself through school, and maybe find her own way up the totem pole.

This isn't an example I've just pulled out of a hat, this is an actual person I know personally who received government help, made her way through school, and now is extremely close to her goal with a degree in Psychology and no longer needing to keep her family on food stamps. BTW, even on food stamps, she was still doing her best to work full time, go to school, and raise two little kids in between.

Here Here, I graduated college making $5.50 an hour taking any job I could get, eating pasta EVERY night and still managed to live and pay my rent. I never took a handout and fast-forward I have worked had, made some good choices in life and yes, I make a GOOD salary relative to living in the NY-metro area. I also never bought a house I could not afford, I also don't expect a handout and regardless of my income would expect to always pay SOME % to Federal taxes because SORRY nothing in life is free.

I'm tired of people painting with broad strokes that just because you make over 100k a year or more you are 'rich'. Nothing was handed to me, I paid back my college loans, I paid all my credit card debt when I had to have credit card debt, I have never so much as been late with ANY payment and that goes back to the time I made $5.50/hour.

So sorry, I don't have much empathy if you made poor decisions and choices in life, I don't have much empathy if you thought you should keep spending wrecklessly for decades and making minimum credit card payments, I don't have much empathy if you decided to have kids you could not afford or buy a house you never should have bought.

DRC... I'm sorry but you are just not getting it. You are assuming that those are the factors as to why a person is not successful, or might need a little help. Very faulty reasoning there.

And I work at a company with tons of people making 6 and 7 figures, I am not one of them. Those making those huge salaries generally came from wealth, were handed a spot (free to them) in an Ivy League school, did the minimum to pass, made some connections and now work probably 15 or so hours, mostly in conference calls, then spend the rest of there time sailing or golfing. The rest of us put in 50+ hours a week making mid 5 figures only because of overtime, paid our own way (most still paying) through lesser collages (The Legacies take a large chuck of the Ivy League). We then are passed over for promotions because we were not in this fraternity, or are not members of this social club.

Stop the working harder lie, it's in most cases blatantly false and completely disrespectful. You wonder why you're hated as much. A large part is the Arrogance.

The funny thing is that they are complaining about the study being biased and liberal while voicing the exact same things the research found, and in their blabber confirming the results of the study. This whole discussion is hilarious.

hey john, got a moment? let me remind you of something there, While it might be safe to say to those who are classified as the working poor, "get off your butts and get to work, Remember one little thing. Back in 1991 we were in a Recession followed by the greatest expansion 1993-1999. Tax rates during the Bill Clinton era, or the " John getting rich era" was 39% for the richest Americans. And I'm sure as hell you were rich during that peroid. The economy during 1993-1999 was stellar for anyone to make it big. Hard work meant increased wealth. Let's talk about TODAY shall we, upward mobility is virtually impossible for anyone. For a graduating senior in high school today with $50 in his pocket has only a snow balls chance in hell of making it big. So you want to talk about those who don't work and have nothing, pay closer attention to those who work hard, want more and still have very little because of few opportunities availale today as compared to 1993-1999.

So if we support the findings, it validates them. If we don't support the findings, it further validates them. It's like arguing when someone calls you stubborn. If you don't concede, you're stubborn. If you concede, you admit you're stubborn.

And DRC is getting it. His idea of a poor person is no more inaccurate than these other people's idea of a rich person. Villifying a person for having a differing opinion is ignorant. There is clearly some classism going on in the world.

I don't think many "rich" persons honestly feel they should owe substantially less taxes. But the fact of the matter is that most "poor" people could not do the jobs of the "rich" people. And without the rich people, employment would drop off significantly. You cannot have one class without the other. Crucify me all you want but the statements are true.

@MattinSeattle - you make such a broad generalization about the rich. Lets take my father for instance. He has literally worked his butt off. He started with nothing, not a penny to his name, but he found a bus driving job, then was able to get a loan for a farm. He and my mom farmed and ranched. Arguably one of the most physically demanding jobs. He is now by some people's standards "rich". But to pay for all of the had work he did, he has many ailments that you will probably not ever have. So when you make sweeping generalizations like that, you insult a lot of people who really have worked hard their entire lives. But you still want my father to pay for someone who has been living on welfare for 5-10 years? Now you tell me, is that really fair?

So if we support the findings, it validates them. If we don't support the findings, it further validates them. It's like arguing when someone calls you stubborn. If you don't concede, you're stubborn. If you concede, you admit you're stubborn.

Well yes in a way. A few people have posted things saying that they do not support the findings as they consider themselves in the upper income but do not see themselves as less empathic, and those are the outliers (or lower percentage of cases in the study if you will). But a whole bunch of others are confirming it just by typing a few key words. Sometimes it is better to remain silent, than to get yourself mixed up in a catch 22 situation. Then again, it is really funny when they are falling for it (at least to me).

Then there is the ones that complain about generalizations in the article and then generalize all the poor as lazy or a leeches, or something to that extent. Or complaining about the igniting of class warfare and then saying something like "don't you dare tax my income cause I am rich and better than you". It's just poetic.

And without the rich people, employment would drop off significantly.

Without the working class and the poor there would be no rich people either, who are they going to make money from? Everything is relative. Without social security the demand for jobs will go up 10% at least and we would have an unemployment of 20% or more. Without medicare a bunch of people would be unable to afford medical costs and die in the process, which will also leave some medical professionals unemployed. Not only that but productivity will decrease as more people will need to take time off or be distracted by the economic hardships brought on by illness.

All these conditions will affect the rich as well, as the lower classes have less spending power, there will be less money to be made and some of the rich will stop being rich. It's all cyclical, it's all related. The trick is in the balance, but like I said before, the balance sometimes hurts and people refuse to compromise.

TANF (or welfare, as you call it) was limited to a maximum of 60 months in a person's lifetime during the Clinton administration. And the income limit to receive it is as low as $700 a month for a family of four in some states.

You have no idea what you're talking about, nel.

FYI, 60 months is 5 years, and yes there are cases of people getting an extension for another 60 months (or 5 years). And I have no idea what I am talking about... sheesh...

sorry, another 24 months (or 2years) my bad. So 5-7years. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!

How many of those people would it take to equal the $46 MILLION tax refund working Americans gave to Exxon/Mobil last year?

nel1980 - I said generally. I am aware there are people who pulled themselves up and through hard work built everything they have. I personally am somewhat of an example. My parents were both drug addicts and alcoholics, they generally were able to get by and only had to make occasional trips to food banks to feed me and my siblings, and aside from some decent psychological abuse, they were okay by those standards. I am hugely better off than they are through my own hard work and I never was handed a dime of help in the process, I wouldn't take it. But there are TONS of people that I have met and know personally who just plain CANNOT function correctly through no fault of there own except genes and some hard luck. So yes, your dad owes them a certain standard of living, it's called society, it only works right when people help people, and if a couple sociopaths have to be forced to partake, then so be it.

If those were the only people using it I would have no problem with it, but you know as well as I do, there are a lot of people who abuse the system.

Sure, as do the rich, Worldcom, Enron, the list is close to endless. Corruption happens at all levels, generally speaking, the poor do less financial damage.

So because they do less financial damage it is okay? I see... what a convenient double standard you have worked out for yourself.

That's a nice spin... I'm saying you can't do away with corruption. I don't know if you consider yourself a Christian or not but you at least understand the whole Garden of Eden, apple thing... people sin, it's in our nature. A poor mans financial sin is a whole lot less damaging then a rich mans financial sins. So yes, it is more okay for someone to steal $20,000 a year from taxpayers then it is for someone else to steal $20,000,000,000 from there employees and investors. It's simple math.

Yes I am a Christian, and being a Christian, I know that a sin is a sin. Both are wrong. I am not spinning anything, I don't think it is okay for big businesses to be corrupt and steal but I also do not think it is okay to take advantage of a system that is there to help people who truly need it. You see, that thought process snowballs and eventually as a group they are stealing as much as the big businesses. They aren't now, but if we don't get a handle on it, it is a very real posibility. I have seen it first hand. I have a Sociology degree with an emphasis in Social Welfare. I have never went into the field, because I didn't like what I saw once I got there. Like I said, I think it is there for a reason. A single mom who is trying to get back on her feet, a disabled individual who just can't work, etc. Those are the people the system is there for. If they were the only ones that used it, I would have no problem with it.

I completely agree that you can't just let them steal from the taxpayers, but don't shoot the patient to spite the cancer. Lets see some actual enforcement. The republicans talk a good game of law and order, but when it comes to paying for Investigators, they generally want to cut and slash. The office of the inspector general is slashed by republicans constantly, and they enforce most of the fraud against the government. The problem is they enforce it for business as well individuals. If they had an office just for enforcing it against people making less then $200,000 a year, it would see a massive spike of Republican support.

As I said before, I just believe it needs reform, that is all. I don't think it should be completely shut down, and yes I agree with you, it would see a massive spike in Republican support.

MattinSeattle, thanks for the stimulating conversation, I may not agree with you, but you make good points and I sincerely respect you for sticking to your guns.

Here is the fault in your reasoning. You are taking the results of this research as a personal attack. Research can only point to trends and has nothing to do with a particular individual. It's all about percentages, not about absolute truths.

Don't let them get to you. This is another attempt from the drive by media to make "rich" people feel bad about themselves. Class warfare is their ultimate goal.

Too true as there certainly are some who are pretty wealthy who are great philanthropists and certainly could not be considered lacking in empathy for others. It is definitely generalizing to say that the "rich" are more selfish. The problem is that those few who are selfish and ruthless (like the Koch brothers) have such a big impact because of all the power their greater wealth provides them.

This is just a bunch of partisan drivel to keep the class warfare going. Gotta make those "rich" people look evil so we can take more of their money and restribute it to the have-nots. I'm sure they're basing this whole study on how much rich people don't want to give to the government. I love how they threw the Tea Party in with the rich which is a joke. I've been to a rally and most of the people there are the average folks of America, with all races and all genders present.

Dr. F... I am in a similar situation as you... What really makes the difference is your upbringing, your peers, environment and education. Coming from a background of poverty, I am really thankful for anything I have. A lot of wealthy individuals cannot make a comparison, and the same goes for the individuals stuck on welfare. Neither side can have any appreciation because they have never known anything else.

When I was in grammar and middle school, it ate me up that my family was poor. But I was lucky enough to have a parent who knew the value of education. And my husband was lucky enough also. But I do have friends with inherited wealth (homes, trust funds, etc) who have claimed they worked for everything they have. It seems the most empathetic are those who have come up from a poor or lower middle class background and can see both sides.

If you are rich and not selfish than good for you for bucking the trend. You should now go and denounce all the selfish rich people who take their wealth for granted. They are the ones making you look bad - not this research that points out their malfeasance.

As I said to someone else here.... just because a person isn't "rich", it does not mean that they didn't work hard to try to get there. That is the real fault in your reasoning. We are not all the same. Someone who may be less intelligent may have worked twice as hard as you to get through school, yet they make half as much as you. Get that through your head. Congrats on becoming successful, for some people it will always be out of reach though, no matter how hard they work.

It's called capitalism. Everyone is given equal opportunity to succeed, no one promises equal outcomes. If you want equal outcomes, we welcome you to check out some of the lovely communist nations around the world.