In 1729, after Oliver Cromwell gave most of Ireland’s land to wealthy Englishmen, leaving the Irish people disastrously impoverished, the Irish satirist Jonathan Swift offered a solution to the burden common people had become.
In “A Modest Proposal,” Swift suggested that the Irish sell their children to the wealthy overlords for food. He insists it’s a reasonable proposition and one in good taste. He wrote that an acquaintance in London had told him that a one-year-old child makes “a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome Food; whether Stewed, Roasted, Baked, or Boiled.”
In an ironic style, much like Stephen Colbert’s TV rants today, Swift argues that the English have already eaten up most of the Irish people’s vital resources; they might as well finish the job by consuming the people, too.
Is it fair to equate starving Irish peasants with the 99 percent of Americans today and the devouring English overlords with the 1 percent of Americans who have stocked their larders with more and more of the nation’s wealth, leaving less and less for the 99 percent? At first glance it might seem a bit extreme, but perhaps not.
The Occupy movement, in Bangor, Augusta, Portland, Wall Street and elsewhere has served up myriad stories of ordinary people wrung out by an economic system ruled by the wealthy and shielded from the people by politicians purchased by campaign contributions.
The Occupy movement calls for justice and redistribution of wealth. Much as I sympathize with those goals, 60 years of observing the materialistic drive of my fellow human beings leaves me with little confidence that the haves will respond to those pleas. It has always been a dog-eat-dog world; survival of the fittest. If I can manipulate the system, economically or politically to my advantage, so be it.
That’s what capitalism is all about. Ask Adam Smith, the great advocate of wealth.
Well, I did consult Adam Smith, and was surprised by some of what he had to say. In “The Wealth of Nations,” published in London the same year America declared its independence from the British monarchy, he wrote, “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.”
That doesn’t mean the wealthy should help the poor, does it? But Smith also wrote, “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
That doesn’t sound like the Adam Smith I thought I knew. And then there’s this: “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”
In olden times, when nobility generally meant wealth, those who amassed great fortunes were expected to live by the concept of “noblesse oblige.” Translated literally it means nobility obliges. With wealth and power (generally achieved through the grace of God) came the moral obligation to act with kindliness and generosity.
The American Revolution made royalty passe, but noblesse oblige stayed alive in the new nation. The wealthy taught it to their sons in exclusive prep schools and prestigious universities. Even John D. Rockefeller, Jr. understood it.
I don’t think they teach noblesse oblige in our elite schools these days. Maybe they should. And maybe the grownup 1 percent should take a refresher course. Since the Occupy movement began, I have frequently heard the uninvolved ask, “What do these people want?” If pleas for economic justice and redistribution of wealth are hard to swallow, maybe we could start with a little noblesse oblige.
Today, that might mean the 1 percent not buying favors from Congress so they can drain off even more of the wealth. Or supporting affordable health care and more funding for education so the 99 percent aren’t saddled with crushing debt for a lifetime. And bringing jobs back to America so people can support their families.
If Adam Smith were here today, I think he would chastise the 1 percent for their greed and insensitivity to the “poor and miserable.” If Jonathan Swift were here, he might say we’re back to eating babies again.
Mark Kelley lives in Orono. He is the author of the recent novel “Rain of Ruin” and serves as director of journalism at the New England School of Communications.
Do the 1 percent owe the 99 percent anything?
The 1 percent seem to think that the 99% owe them Cheap Wages!
I think some of the “job creators” feel they are doing more than enough for the 99% by offering us any employment at all, and are flummoxed that these days we don’t seem to feel we owe them a debt of gratitude for cheap wages. The quality or quantity of the employment they provide needn’t be their concern. After all, the taxes paid by the working and middle classes will pick up the slack to ensure that most of the 99% receive an education, are fed, clothed, and are able to enjoy a heated roof over our heads, complete with that epitome of an extravagance, a refrigerator.
Of course they owe the 99% something. We have to pick up their slack. Wages used to be able to cover necessities such as food, health care and shelter — now? It’s a bit more difficult to get by on the meager wages the widly successful 1% provide. We’re subsidising those deadbeat employers.
It is to their benefit to keep the majority impoverished to the extent that it’s economically productive. Mass impoverishment historically has kept wages down and most of the wealth circulating to maintain a healthy economy (most of us live on shoestring budgets and spend every dime we make). But we have passed the tipping point where the majority can be economically productive because for the most part we no longer produce what we consume and the poor have become a drain on the economy. Now your purchasing dollar goes straight into a CEO’s pocket with a few pennies going to overseas workers earning slave wages.
The irony seems to be that in the times when noblesse oblige were tought to the privileged wealthy. The wealthy also sent their children into battle to lead the troops in combat. I don’t see too many of the privilegeds children being casualties of war these days. It’s few and far between of our representatives in DC who have sent their children into combat..
Good point. Noblesse oblige is a major difference between today’s wealthy and the wealthy of recent past. The insulation from risk and the exploitation of resources should come with a commensurate cost in terms of a higher contribution to the commons that facilitates their continued fortunes. My grandfather did well for himself and never minded paying higher taxes. When he was paying 70% rates, he understood that the greater good of the country was worth the sacrifice. He felt fortunate to be in that bracket and fortunate to be American.
The funny, or maybe not, thing is the number of people who don’t make a lot of money that are being sucked into the delusion that the super wealthy deserve to keep all or most of their profits.
They just don’t get it that when their services are no longer needed they will be disgarded like yesterdays paper.
Did you ever ask him how much of his income he sheltered or used deductions to avoid paying tax on that income? What was the REAL tax rate he payed on his total income?
Or were these things never mentioned.
He had a few investments but paid much higher rates than millionaires do now. He was a small business owner and they used to get decent breaks. Now the big tax breaks are reserved for the people who can afford to buy a congressman.
For an interesting take on who should do military service, read Robert Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” (read the book don’t go by the entertaining but mocking movie version). In his future glimpse, true, voting citizenship is only obtained by performing military service.
Heilein must be dreaming if he believes that the wealthy and powerful will ever force their offspring to serve their country.
Actually the practice of buying out of serving their country dates at least back to the Civil War and probably pre-dates that. Not all the wealthy practiced ‘noblesse oblige’.
There was no “forced” military service in the book. Entirely voluntary.
I would advise you to read some history of the Civil War, or google the Draft Riots of New York. Conscription was used widely during the Civil War.
Excellent book and has a lot to think about in it. You do know that it was the first Si-Fi book put on the official reading list of our military.
And yes, the movie was horrible. And portrayed the military and society portrayed in the book as fascist Nazi like. A total misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the book.
Actually, the wealthy often paid the poor to go into battle for them in substitute. Read your history.
I have and I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Nope, I understood it perfectly well.
Since we have an all-volunteer military, members of Congress have no control over whether their children choose to join or not. That’s how being a grown-up works.
Owe them what? I make more than someone else,’
I am supposed to owe that person something? That’s
the problem, everyone wants someone else to “owe”
them what someone else has. The only thing anyone
is “owed” is the chance to earn what they get.
So what you’re saying implies that those who made their fortune in the US by manufacturing owe people in foriegn countries the opportunity to go to work for them when they move their plants to those countries.
And Wall St. didn’t feel like they were owed a bail out?
To all of the above…stop blaming Wall St, the Banks
and everyone who has made money. How about you
intelligent people blame the ones who gave the banks
their bail out. How about placing the blame on those
who made the laws that allowed for these things. Why
aren’t any of you smart people clammoring for the heads
of the ones who really took money from you and gave it
away? Why aren’t you screaming about the laws and garbage
that enables businesses to move overseas? If someone said
take 10K and move it overseas and you will make 2K on it
or keep it here and you will pay 2K…let me guess what you
would do. Yeah, exactly! So stop whining about business, wall
st and do something productive, go after the ones who make
this all happen. Your beloved politicians. And yes, no one is
owed a thing by anyone…period. Go earn it.
Blah, blah, blah. You’re not even operating in reality, so you don’t get to tell others what to gripe about.
Good post Homer.
One thing I have noticed. Those who complain the most about the rich seem to work the least. And they have bought into the entitlement and victim mentality.
We bail the banks with no to low interest loans and they turn around and charge the poor exuberant rates. Who owe’s who What?
Yeah, I hate it when I get exuberant rates. I’d rather my rates were much calmer.
The author assumes that the “poor” or the 99% as the leftists now call them, are “poor and miserable” which is at least partly an incorrect assumption. The average “poor” person in this county has some sort of lodging with running water, electricity, heat and of course a TV, access to health care (not FREE healthcare, but ACCESS to it) and some reasonable access to food. If the leftists with their “compassion” hadnt wound up putting the mentally ill out on the streets we really wouldnt have many actual “poor” people in this country. What we have are primarily low-income persons not the “poor” ones as described by Adam Smith.
Guilt the poor for their poverty. Walk a mile in those ill fitted shoes to the shelter where there is electricity, heat ,and of course a T.V. Instead of looking at the average poor why don’t you open your eyes to the growing numbers of poor who are falling through the holes. While you look through your gorrila glass, and only see those close to you; there is a growing number of people in this country who have not seen beyond the facade. The status symbols like Micheal Jordan sneakers. These status symbols being an illusion. The actuality consist of a third of the men in the neighborhood will be indoctrinated into a prison industrial complex. The reality before they reach adulthood they will have a prison record. This profile will keep them out of any job market that is left. Worse these will be the underemployed competeting for the few jobs left in our ever shrinking economy. When we pretend these conditions do not exits we are allowing the borders of these neighborhoods to expand to where we will be run over by this growing multitudes.
What’s a facard? Who’s Mickael Jordan?
facade is a deceptive outward appearance. Micheal Jordan sneakers are Nike sneakers that a basketball hero recieves great amounts of money for when his name is used for endorcement. Thank you so much for correcting my mistakes.
The 6 Walton heirs now have more wealth than the entire bottom 30% of the people in this great nation. My guess is that they do not feel that they owe anyone anything. Their average employee earns $13,600 a year, or half the federal poverty level. They certainly do not feel that they owe an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. They are but one of many examples of what the love of money does to one’s character and should be held up as examples to no one. I am sure that there are a couple of rubes on here who will defend their right to hoard all the money they can, but that kind of greed is truly indefensible. They are millionaires 93,000 times over and have never done an honest day’s work in their lives. Their under employees depend on the kindness of the U.S. taxpayer for their groceries, heat, and health care while their “owners” continue to accumulate insane wealth at an expense to the rest of us. Donald Trump, another trust fund baby, has a gold plated toilet. Do we really need to know more about the love of money and all it’s pitfalls? The 1% and 99% thing has been tried hundreds of time throughout recorded history and always ends up the same way, bloodshed. But hey, maybe this time will be different? lol.
Good for them.
Yes, they should have ALL the money in another ten years at this rate. Happy days.
——————————
Since I don’t hate capitalism, I don’t have a problem with people being successful.
What a coincidence, I do not hate capitalism either. I own a small business and do not have a problem with people being successful either. I have a problem with greed. The kind displayed by the Waltons. Don’t kid yourself, part of the reason they have been able to hoard $93 billion is that you and I pay for their employees groceries, health care, and heat. They now possess more wealth than 96 million Americans, or the bottom 30% of the population. They have never done an honest day’s work in their lives, they are the largest under employer in the U.S., and they give very little to charity. They made their money the old fashioned way, they picked the right name on the crib. They should be held up as an example to no one. In fact, we should make every effort to teach our kids to never be like these people.
I agree, taxpayer money shouldn’t go to pay for health care, heat, or groceries. “Honest day’s work” and “greed” are meaningless value judgements launched as personal attacks.
You are factually incorrect: the Waltons hand out hundreds of millions of dollars in philanthropy every year, locally and nationally. The Walton Family Foundation is second only to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in supporting overhaul of public schools, and has assets somewhere north of $2 billion. If you’re going to attack people for being successful, at least don’t lie about them. They might not tithe enough for your standards, but they give quite a lot.
I have no problem with people being wealthy, whether through inheritence or their own success. Then again, I don’t hate capitalism.
Huh?
Where do you get this figure of $13,600/year? It figures out to $6.54/hour. Well below minimum wage. I have worked at Wal-Mart for two summers and gotten $9.90/hr for working over nights and $8.90/hr for the day shift. Your figures and rant is way off.
I got the info from U.S. News and World report. You failed to take into account that they do not work full time. I am sure your calculations were based on a 40 hour week. Go back and punch it in at 35 hours a week. Remember, that is an average for the entire work force at ChinaMart. Another little gem for you. The CEO of ChinaMart makes more in 1 hour than the average employee does all year. The greedy little Walton brats make more in three hours than he does all year! lol. Keep supporting them and giving them money, it is a free country. I happen to feel that giving the Waltons even more money than they already have is akin to giving a junkie more heroin. They are equally addictive and people have been known to do some very rotten things to get their hands on more of either addiction. By the way, 9.90/8.90 is still far below the federal poverty level and not even remotely close to a living wage.
He repeats this rant ad-nauseam every chance he gets.
He carefully forgets that wealth has already been taxed once, and will be taxed again at death. Also forgets that most of this wealth is stock in WalMart and is nothing more than numbers on a piece of paper.
Rich people do not get taxed at death. The heirs get taxed on the income they just received from the estate. The heirs have not been previously taxed on that money.
Yes, but the person who died surely feels the insult of it from beyond the grave.
You better get a new accountant. The estate taxes are paid before the estate is distributed. Anything received as part of an inheritances is not taxable. same as with a gift. If any tax is due it is paid by the gift giver, not the receiver.
Occupy Brunswick meets at the band-stand at the city commons and the marches to Bank of America on Maine Street. Join us at 10:45 every Saturday.
Do you tell the people working there why you’d prefer their employer didn’t exist?
Mark go back to history class please. RE: Cromwell
Also you need to also read Brian Fagan’s “Little Ice Age” for more information including crop production in Ireland during that period. Though if you are too lazy PBS periodically runs a movie describing these events.
My point: Not all historical events should be seen completely through a political prism and sometimes history itself can be misrepresented to make convenient a current political argument.
Have you read A Modest Proposal? It’s absolutely political.
I have not read “A Modest Proposal” but do not doubt that it is a political document. But that does not mean the weather of the time had no effect. The advantage that Fagan has over Swift is one of hindsight and the knowledge of geographers, climatologists and archeologists and what they have learned since 1729.
Swift’s essay has nothing to do with “crop production.” It is about English Protestants owning 90% of Ireland’s land (thanks to Cromwell) and England’s political and religious stranglehold over the Irish people, which resulted in enormous wealth inequality similar to what we have in the U.S. today.
My understanding and I admit it isn’t that great, was that Cromwell retaliated against the Irish because they harbored English Royalty some 40 years before Swift wrote his treatise. Basically they exchanged Irish noble property owners for English ones. If I am incorrect I am sure you will correct me.
My understanding from reading Fagan that starvation was in large part caused by the Little Ice Age. At the same time people were beginning to have similar problems in France where wheat production was starting to decline. It turns out that later in the century when wheat production virtually stopped and resulting starvation helped give rise to the French Revolution. (“Let them eat cake” in response to “We have no bread”) The very same reason that people were starving in Ireland a few decades earlier. Not so much who owned the land but the environmental changes that were happening no matter who owned the land.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Ice-Age-Climate-1300-1850/dp/0465022723
Just read the essay.
What about the poor who suffer from obesity the type two diabetes an effect of poor diet. The poor diet a result of red lining in neighborhoods. These children raised in tenements where the middle class landlords can no longer provide adequate heat. The children fill their hunger needs with the only food available. Chips and other poor nourishment due to the inaccessibility to well stocked grocery stores. The healthy groceries that do not produce revenue inside the red lined neighborhood. We can pretend these are not issues in this country or perhaps we could feed these over stuffed kids to the wealthy.
How much LSD is in that Kool-Aid you drink?
“survival of the fittest. If I can manipulate the system, economically or politically to my advantage, so be it.”
But that’s not being fittest and that’s not capitalism. If the game is rigged and rules are tilted in your favor, you winning isn’t the mark of being the fittest, it’s just the obvious outcome. It’s like starting a game of monopoly already owning half the properties and having twice the money of other players, obviously you’re going to win, you’d have to be a moron to lose in a situation like that. Here we have guys on Wall St. driving companies into the ground and gambling away other peoples’ money and they’re still winning — that’s not fitness.
It’s telling that Wall St. is so against having regulations imposed on them, that they’re against making the rules fair for everyone. That’s because if the game was fair, they wouldn’t be the ones winning all the time. The top 1% isn’t that much smarter and harder working than the average American.
We agree that rules need to be fair for everyone. I suspect, however, that we have a different definition of what “fair” is.
Investment generally involves using other people’s money; however, that does not mean it is the same as gambling. To equate the two is pure socialist nonsense.
The way I see it, President Bush gave the wealthy a tax break that was not paid for. He made no adjustments to spending (in fact, he increased it dramatically). What that means is he borrowed $3.6T to give to the wealthiest americans and the wage earners are expected to pay that down with our tax payments in the future.
I wouls say that the wealthy americans owe the wage earning taxpayers somewhere around $3trillion that we floated them. They made a lot of money on that money and we need it back to repair the crumbling infrastructure and to get our education system back on track.
The way to do this is simple. restore the tax rates to the sane and pro-growth and pro-consumption levels they were in the 1960s. An international analysis of tax rates and economic growth revealed that the optimal top tax bracket for growth is around 80%.
As long as we force the hundreds of millions of wage earners to bare the burden of supporting our bloated military and domestic spending so that the investment class can have teh chance to double their worth every three or four years, America’s economic slide will continue. We became what we did through the creation of a thriving middle class. The protection racket that insulates the wealthy from any downside by buying congressmen must end. The rich should consider themselves fortunate that they had that many great years in a row. When has the middle class seen double digit increases in income and worth year on year?
I would suggest that your ” optimal top tax bracket for growth” of 80% is designed to grow exactly one segment of the economy.
More government.
That is really not the case. If you look at go back and look at government spending compared to GDP it was actually a lower spending level. The difference is that working class people pay less and the wealthy who have gotten nearly 100% of the gains, pay more. If you earn less than a million dollars a year, you would do much better under the 80% structure. We would have a balanced budget immediately and no deficit within a couple of years.
You nailed one critical fact. As a percentage of GDP government spending was actually lower in the 60’s. And the level of deficit spending as a percentage was FAR lower.
Government spending at the present levels is justified by progressives as helping people when in reality it is a giant drain on the overall economy leading to even fewer private sector jobs and more poverty.
Another unpleasant fact about the 60’s. Despite the higher tax rates on the wealthy at that time they actually paid a far lower percentage of total taxes collected than today and all but the poorest of the poor paid at least something.
Justified by progressive, huh? Do you realize the extent to which GW Bush built in structural deficits with his crazy uncontrolled spending? Do you realize that the Bush taxcuts alone make up more than a quarter of the deficits we are running? The medicare D prescription plan another hundred billion.
You can try that crap of blaming progressives but the track record for “conservatives” is clear, they spend and do not care to even try to pay for their programs.
I remember Bush telling us that the tax cuts would cost nothing because the economy would soar to such heights after they were in place…..Hows that working for ya?
All presidents in recent history, (going back to FDR at least), have contributed to the built in structural deficits. Each new president seems to be determined to outdo and outspend the previous one. Obama being the worst yet.
Yes, Bush spent too much and he thought he could work with congress. He should have used the veto, but did not.
Medicare part D should be repealed. I’m willing to do that. What about you?
Most of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class and the poor. I’m willing to repeal them all. NOTE, ALL, not just the part applying to the rich. Again, how about you?
Even repealing the tax cuts, how do you propose dealing with the other three quarters of the deficit spending?
Are you willing to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution? One with real teeth and no exceptions but a declared war?
I hear dogs are rather tasty with light cream sauce. And nothing beats sweet and sour kitten.
What makes you people feel entitled to confiscate my money, which is legally earned, and simply give it someone else?
What is stopping anyone from becoming a 1%er.
Never met a poor man who created a job.
Dreamer
You’re out of touch with reality. Upward mobility is becoming increasingly more difficult. If you think that anyone becomes part of the 1% purely through merit, you’re lying to yourself.
The reason upward mobility is difficult is because IT’S WORTH IT!
So when upward moblilty in the 1950’s and 1960’s was easier it was not worth it?
“You’re out of touch with reality.” Excellent logical rebuttal. Brilliant argument, as always.
Nonsense, its never been easier with all that is now at our finger tips. Loser attitudes lead to loser results. Look at the goals and not the obstacles
That’s factually untrue.
I agree it is becoming more difficult to get ahead. Mostly because of laws, rules, and regulations put in place by progressives to punish anyone who actually makes progress at moving up that ladder.
Read a study recently that said that is is effectively impossible to move up socially or economically in Europe because of progressive government policies.
And progressives advocate for the US to become Europe.
Read the study that shows that upward mobility in Europe is not only not possible in Europe but is in fact easier than in the US.
We are tied with Singapore in upward mobility. For your information, Singapore is a city-state run by a dictator.
Facts. Link.
Now a days, with the entitlement mentality, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to meet a poor man who has to work.
Never met a rich man who did not make that wealth off of a poor man’s effort
Poor, working and middle class people, and local, municipal, state, and the Federal governments create lots of jobs. Your “1% as job creator” argument doesn’t hold water anymore.
99% Work hard for 8 hours, stop at store, pick up 6 pack of Bud Yech, eat supper, watch tv. Wake up, rinse, repeat, except on Friday and Saturday pick up 12 pack of Bud Yech. 1% run your own business and exploit the opportunities but you will be working 80-100 hours a week…Seems like a dilemma to me.
Think about it this way though — put a sample of America’s workers on an island and see what happens. The carpenter has useful skills, the teacher has useful skills, the butcher has useful skills, etc. What would the guy from Wall St. do exactly? Have people trade shells back and forth and convince them that with each “transaction” the shells are becoming more and more valuable?
I don’t really agree with your narrative that the top 1% is harder worker or more useful to society.
Even if the teacher didn’t have useful skills, he’d rapidly form a union that took control of the island government and made sure he could never be fired.
You can quit fearing the scary union monster hiding under your bed now. Private union membership has shrunk to 7% here in America. It is no coincidence that the the decline in union membership and the decline in wages in general go hand in hand. We are the first generation of Americans to have a lower standard of living than our parents did. If you have ever cashed an actual paycheck that you actually worked for, not pretended to work for, and are against unions, you are a dim wit. They are the reason for safety laws, 40 hour weeks, vacations, pensions, and a whole host of other things that benefit workers. I do not see anyone else standing up for me? Do you?
I wasn’t talking about private unions, so your information is irrelevant; read more carefully next time.
Gotcha. Everybody who disagrees with you about unions is stupid. Must be great to know everything all the time.
You were talking about unions in general and you know it. I would say nice attempt at CYA, but we both know it was a pretty pathetic attempt! lol. Like I said, if you have ever actually worked for an actual paycheck and you are against unions, you are a dim wit. I never said that everyone who disagrees with me about unions is stupid, those are your words, not mine. If you own a business that has a large number of employees, I would expect you to be anti union. My point was the any dim wit would be sharp enough to know that collective bargaining is in the best interests of the working men and women of America, not the top 1%.
Your initial comment wasn’t even relevant though. We’re talking skills and contributions. A teacher doesn’t spend the majority of their time plotting nefarious deeds with their evil union buddies. Chill out with the hyperbole and maybe people won’t suggest that your opinions come from stupidity.
Got it, you didn’t want to hear it so it’s not relevant, and I disagree with you so I must be stupid.
Only in the mind of a liberal could teachers’ unions not be relevant when discussing teachers.
Actually, on an island the teacher, and anyone else who worked for government, has few if ANY useful skills related to their career. And the 1%, because he is willing to work 80 – 100 hours a week will again end up on top….
1% do not work 80-100 hours a week. They pay others to do that for them.
Oops meant that for GovernmentIStheproblem
Actually, on an island the teacher, and anyone else who worked for
government, has few if ANY useful skills related to their career. And
the 1%, because he is willing to work 80 – 100 hours a week will again
end up on top….
Actually — you make up a lot of garbage in order to substantiate your statements. Few useful skills? How so? A science teacher would have few useful skills on an island? What a ridiculous statement.
Your 80-100 work weeks for the top 1% is just made up. You have no facts to back that up. Besides, they’re going to spend 100 hours per week on the island trading shells back and forth? Yeah, that should be useful.
You’re pretty delusional if you think the top 1% gets all that wealth through simple hard work. What a joke.
Yep, he disagrees with you, so he must be delusional.
Most 1% couldn’t even make a sandwich by themselves
Actually — you make up a lot of garbage in order to substantiate your statements. Do you have any evidence of that? Studies or surveys proving it? Data to back up your statement? Because fwteagles will demand it of you. Oh wait, no he won’t – your hyperbole agrees with him. Different standards for his ideological comrades.
If you aren’t one of the 1%, I guess this is how you live?? Not me nor anyone I know (and we sure as heck aren’t in the 1%).
Funny according to the IRS I am not in the 1% but if I made another $25K a year , guess what my Badger avoiding gopher, I would be.
I wokr 8 to 10 hours a day, do not drink or smoke and do not have cable (I can only get 1 station with an antenna.
I know rich people that sit at a desk all day, have a drink for lunch and then go home have the wife make supper while theye drink and then watch TV all night.
So? Are you saying that it’s not working if it’s at a desk? You think everybody in all those offices are, what, playing Minesweeper all day? Being able to afford cable and drinks at night hardly makes one wealthy.
oh id say about 5 trillion dollars and a 10% tax increase and we will call it even
By noblesse oblige, do you mean things like the following: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Oprah’s, The Angel Network, and Richard Branson’s, Virgin Unite? Perhaps you don’t count these efforts because they serve to solve worldwide problems like HIV, homelessness, disease. According to the U.S. Census, 43% of American households classified as “poor” actually own their home, which on average consists of 3 bedrooms and 1 1/2 bathrooms. I propose that many of America’s 99% could also use a little noblesse oblige.
What most of these progressives do not think about is that most of our 99% are in the 1% when you include the whole world.
And progressives in the rest of the world want to redistribute the wealth of the world’s 1% to that 99% and use the UN to do it.
They don’t understand that a lot of us don’t want any benefits or wealth that we don’t earn.
“Do the 1 percent owe the 99 percent anything?”
Only their paycheck, if they employ them. Otherwise, nobody is OWED anything. Entitlement is entitlement, regardless of whether it’s coming from the rich or the poor.
I do believe there is an aristocratic class in America today, but it’s not private businessmen, it’s the politicians. Once you gain access to the world of American politics, you’re basically set for life financially. Yes, there is a problem with the working people not getting their fair share, but instead of pointing fingers at the producers and the private industry, why not look at the spenders, tax men, and regulators of Washington and Augusta instead?
The majority of people do not work for the so-called 1% . They work for small local businesses. I have worked for several of these small businesses over the years. Most offered no option for health insurance at all, very limited or no sick time, limited vacation, no retirement plans at all, etc.
But making the 1% villains does promote progressives and politicians agendas.