Are we being brainwashed by the cult of the super-rich?

[Pixilated]

True enough about sports big names and many entertainment big names (regardless of what one might think of their actual level of talent) ... but it's also true that some currently famous people -- well, it's hard to see what exactly they do for all that cash (*koff* Kardashians *koff*).

But I agree with Andara: they do spend their money, and they don't have any control over the economy in general, unlike the sociopaths currently running Wall Street -- which is probably why Occupy targeted Wall Street.

[draco664]

Suggest something. That's my issue with this article or viewpoint. That goes with a lot of causes actually. Don't bitch about things you don't like, suggest a workable resolution. Generally, it can't be done which is why people don't do anything.

Oh, it can be done. It's been done in the past many times. But the end result if generally a worse situation that keeps getting even more catastrophic because those who championed the change refuse to consider that they might be wrong. Zimbabwe is a relatively recent example.

The problem is that in order to take the assets of the super wealthy, the right to property needs to be... modified. Once made, those modifications make it super easy for the ruling class to take the assets of the moderately wealthy. Then the somewhat wealthy. Then the middle class. And so on.

As trite as it sounds, the 1%ers do create the backbone of the economy. Actually, that's not quite true. I should say that it's the first (and occasionally second) generation 1%ers who do most of the innovation. The ones who worked to create their empires from comparatively nothing, or built upon a relatively small platform they inherited. It's the subsequent generations of super-wealthy and the parasitic paper-pushers that tend to be the abusers of the system.

There are two big issues with the Superwealthy.
1) how they act. In times past, the aristocracy had the concept of Noblesse Oblige- that nobles have responsibilities as well as privileges. ( In the feudal era, the Lords protected the peasents, for example) A big issue is that a lot fo the superwealthy these days have no real concept of Noblesse Oblige, they seem to believe that their wealth actually reduces their responsibilities.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have tried to change that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

2) how they got their wealth. A lot of the superwealthy are bankers.

I sort of disagree. It's true that there are a lot of bankers (collective noun - wunch) who are multi-millionaires, but the "superwealthy" are generally owners of corporations. You are correct that the wankers - excuse me, bankers - who do nothing but move money around to get wealthy are parasites on the economy. I saw a link on Reddit that claimed, in the past decade, around 20 times more money was siphoned off from investment funds as management fees than paid as returns to the actual investors. I didn't get a chance to validate the claim, but it's believable. So yeah, there's a lot of negative-worth people out there getting rich off everyone else.

But look! Miley Cyrus is doing something slutty! And check out Kim Lookatme-dishan's new wardrobe!

Right, they're distracted. Keep sucking at their bank accounts!

A lot of conservatives complain that liberals want to "redistribute" wealth ala collectivization in the early Soviet era. The reality is two things:

1) that wealth redistribution already exists to direct wealth to the top disproportionally.
2) what liberals really want is fairness

"Fairness" is subjective. Someone who worked themselves to exhaustion for decades to amass the same amount of wealth as a trust-fund baby would probably have a significant difference of opinion if told that their assets were being seized to be redistributed. To those receiving the wealth, not so much.

[s_stabeler]

it depends on what, exactly, you mean by fairness. If you are talking about seizing the assets of the super-rich, then no, it isn't fair. If you are talking about making sure they pay taxes properly, for example, then it is fair. Some of the richest people pay taxes at effective rates of less than 10% due to using tax dodges. Make them pay an actually appropriate rate of tax, and it would help the budget deficit dramatically. Yes, there is an argument that rich people will leave. Guess what? it's NEVER happened in any appreciable quantity. In the UK, when they introduced a 50% tax band, something like two companies left, and ONE individual. Now, the individual has returned, and one of the companies is considering it.

[mikoyan29]

Some of them are on Wall Street. But, quite a few are actors/actresses, singers, sports stars, and other high-buck jobs. What I'd like to know, is why the Occupy assholes put so much effort going after Wall Street...while they don't seem to have a problem with the other categories I listed. I guess I'm one of those people who don't consider playing basketball (or football, or baseball) to be "work," nor do I understand why someone should get millions for a 30-second commercial.

Since actors/actresses, sports stars, etc. actually draw a paycheck, they get taxed at the rate that the rest of us slobs get taxed at. Of course, I'm sure there are few financial tricks where they can shelter some of their money but they don't get the same tax rate that someone like Mitt Romney gets. There is also the perception that they are actually doing something to earn their money rather than shuffling it around and leaving a path of destruction in their wake.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Since actors/actresses, sports stars, etc. actually draw a paycheck, they get taxed at the rate that the rest of us slobs get taxed at. Of course, I'm sure there are few financial tricks where they can shelter some of their money but they don't get the same tax rate that someone like Mitt Romney gets. There is also the perception that they are actually doing something to earn their money rather than shuffling it around and leaving a path of destruction in their wake.

That's nice. It's false, but it's nice.

Re: shelters - Not really. Heck, take Jimmy Carr who had to apologize publicly in the UK for paying 1% in taxes due to a legal tax dodge. People like Romney tend to have more sources in the law for loopholes because their income is diversified and they have better accounting contacts, but frankly if a guy like Jim Carrey can't get a smokin' real tax rate, he needs to fire some people. It doesn't take that much creativity and a movie doesn't care whether they send your check to you or your LLC.

Where we get to the perception issue is the meat of it. There are absolutely coddled trust fund kiddos that went from nursing in a mansion to being spoonfed these jobs, but Wall Street in general is a bloody crucible. Lewis Reineri might very well be thought of as helping create the mortgage backed securities (and made a mint off of them) we now blame Wall Street for was some schmuck working part time in a mail room. If you don't have the chops, someone else gets your job. That is NOT different than most other jobs except getting in the door is really damn hard and a majority of people that don't work in finance can't even describe what you do to make money in anything other than a laughable fashion. Seriously. Just ask 10 people to describe how mortgage back securities work and it becomes painfully obvious why the public is crap when it comes to regulating.

[Andara Bledin]

It doesn't take that much creativity and a movie doesn't care whether they send your check to you or your LLC.

Except that this utterly fails to account for the fact that until very recently (read: after the recent collapse), non-wage compensation wasn't accounted for in anything even remotely on a par with wage compensation.

So, no, Jim Carrey would absolutely not be able to take advantage of the same sorts of tax dodges that financiers and CEOs had and sometimes still have available to them as long-term employees of financial institutions and corporations that give out stock and other perks in lieu of a paycheck.

[Panacea]

But look! Miley Cyrus is doing something slutty! And check out Kim Lookatme-dishan's new wardrobe!

Right, they're distracted. Keep sucking at their bank accounts!

I can understand the apathy of most people towards financial issues. They are mind numbingly dull and difficult to understand because they can be very complex.

I found money matters to be a complete bore until I was ripped off and cheated out of my retirement funds by a money manager. It was the incentive I needed to learn how the system works. Since most people never save even the modest amount of money I had at the time, I can understand why they don't care.

"Fairness" is subjective. Someone who worked themselves to exhaustion for decades to amass the same amount of wealth as a trust-fund baby would probably have a significant difference of opinion if told that their assets were being seized to be redistributed. To those receiving the wealth, not so much.

The guys who work and sweat for what they have pay their full share of payroll and income taxes on what they earn.

The trust fund babies pay a paltry 15% on their dividend and capital gains earnings. The hedge fund managers don't even pay that on their earnings; the "carried interest rules" mean they pay very little on their earnings when you and I would have to pay a third of our total income.

The game is rigged in their favor.

It's that income that the GOP and the money men are trying to protect.

[Hyena Dandy]

The thing I think that has to be understood is, I have no problem with someone making a million or a hundred million or even a billion dollars. I wouldn't mind if they made a billion a week. I mean, might be less than great for the economy, but you know what I mean. I'm fine with them succeeding. I just care if they succeed in a way that causes other people to suffer. You work 80 hours a week and get ten million for it? I see no problem with this. My problem is with people working 80 hours a week and still barely getting by.

[TheHuckster]

The thing I think that has to be understood is, I have no problem with someone making a million or a hundred million or even a billion dollars. I wouldn't mind if they made a billion a week. I mean, might be less than great for the economy, but you know what I mean. I'm fine with them succeeding. I just care if they succeed in a way that causes other people to suffer. You work 80 hours a week and get ten million for it? I see no problem with this. My problem is with people working 80 hours a week and still barely getting by.

That's my sentiment as well. I feel as though when people think of "rich" they automatically think of bank CEOs and wall street traders who either cheat their way up or are otherwise really undeserving of their salary and bonuses, plus are responsible for a lot of the hardships that people are experiencing now.

However, there are many business owners of varying sizes that actually work hard for their dole and can still be making a lot of money but treat their employees reasonably well and are benefits to their community. They might not make as much as the CEO of Wells Fargo, but they still make enough for most to consider them wealthy.

I do have some concerns that this class of business owners and entrepreneurs could be discouraged by whatever tax reforms may be put in place. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, since I haven't really studied the plans in great detail, but if you are going to add tax burdens to the wealthy, you have to do it in such a way that you aren't discouraging small and medium-sized business growth. To add to the complexity of this issue, remember that a lot of businesses grow by equity firms who may benefit from capital gains. Increase the capital gains tax and now new business owners who are supported by investors need to make a greater profit to offset this increase.

If you play it right, this greater profit will come from a strengthened economy that results from the tax reforms, everyone will benefit, and perhaps we can regain the middle-class. If congress or whomever implement the reforms poorly, though, the economy could tank.

[s_stabeler]

Just ask 10 people to describe how mortgage back securities work and it becomes painfully obvious why the public is crap when it comes to regulating.

frankly, that isn't a particularly encouraging argument - EVERY time that something is too complicated to explain, somebody is being scammed. The actual reason why some regulators are crap is that several industries have succeeded at "regulatory capture"- that is, the regulators tend to be controlled by former CEOs of companies regulated. They have no teeth, or worse, deliberately refuse to use the teeth they have. Look, for example, at the Deepwater Horizons well. Now, I don't actually care who'se fault it was, but it's certainly true that safety procedures were ignored. So why was this not picked up on earlier?

[draco664]

I just care if they succeed in a way that causes other people to suffer.

QFT. Pratchett has his Patrician of Anhk-Morpork describe it best. Stop fighting for a larger slice of the pie and work for a smaller piece of a much larger pie.

[Signmaker]

People want equal accountability of the wealthy, while maintaining equal oppurtinity to attain that level of wealth. This equilibrium will not be attained, because the people who enforce the accountability of the wealthy, are influenced by the wealthy, while having no direct accountability enforced on them by the non-wealthy.

People try to mention that the people who first set up our whole national system had placed certain systems to prevent this kind of thing...but they usually get told they dont understand the nuances of modern global economies...by someone who's gained wealth due to the nuances of the modern global economy.

Are we being brainwashed? Probably, since millions of people in this country seem to think the solution to wealthy people collaberating against us is to have more wealthy people get involved in restraining wealthy people...and pay them well to do it.