Current Events > You/me/us are not entitled to rich people's money

(+) Yeah! (+)

LightningAce11 posted...

You're closer to being homeless than being rich. Stop defending people who don't give a shit about you.

This is always an impotent comeback. It means nothing and doesnt counter the OP. You are not entitled to other peoples money no matter what.

---

darkprince45 posted...

Is there anybody in the US actually starving? Even homeless I interact with have tons of a food and they flat out refuse it

1 in 7 kids in the US live in food insecure households.

Poor people aren't poor because rich people exist.

I feel like this is such a basic fact that everyone ignores

CasualGuy posted...

You've said nothing to argue. "Gross" is all you've contributed to this topic

I've said plenty; you've just chose not to read it.

Continue to defend the rich elites. I'm sure it'll help you way more than them paying their fair share in taxes.

Where did all these tankies come from

---

Entitled seems like a bad word to use. I don't know, if people's lives are better due to various social benefits, funded publicly or privately, it should be a goal. Obviously the private/public part is where a lot of arguments stem from, but ya.
---

_Rinku_ posted...

I've said plenty

Lmao you're delusional

"You just don't know"
"Gross"
"Gross"

That was every post of yours before I came in.

Such immaculate argumentation

---

CasualGuy posted...

Lmao you're delusional

Every post you made before I came in was an ad hom or "gross".

I've said nothing but the truth.

It is gross to be so selfish and callous.

LightningAce11 posted...

You're closer to being homeless than being rich. Stop defending people who don't give a shit about you.

I think TC is wrong, but I do dislike this argument. Like, people really can believe, wrongly in my opinion, in what TC is trying to say, without it being about defending the rich.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Your entire job exists for the purpose of maintaining the status quo, which is held up by laws enacted by the rich and powerful on behalf of the the rich and powerful that benefit the rich and powerful, so that these same rich and powerful people can remain rich and powerful. Your profession at best is made up well meaning bootlickers and at the worst alcoholic wife beating pet shooting murderers. You stfu.

WizardPowers posted...

Where did all these tankies come from

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Your entire job exists for the purpose of maintaining the status quo, which is held up by laws enacted by the rich and powerful on behalf of the the rich and powerful that benefit the rich and powerful, so that these same rich and powerful people can remain rich and powerful. Your profession at best is made up well meaning bootlickers and at the worst alcoholic wife beating pet shooting murderers. You stfu.

lmaooo. Dude, go back to your basement Reddit shit posting with your white privilege


---

darkprince45 posted...

As opposed to what, being poor and demanding money. Call me a boot locker all you want

If you continue to exhibit the actions of one, I probably will


---

BeantownHero posted...

If you continue to exhibit the actions of one, I probably will

Yes the actions being successful and taking care of my family

---

emblem boy posted...

I think TC is wrong, but I do dislike this argument. Like, people really can believe, wrongly in my opinion, in what TC is trying to say, without it being about defending the rich.

I think the idea behind the argument is that, because our safety nets/societal institutions aren't properly funded (due to the rich abusing loopholes to not pay their fair share), that everyone below them financially is in greater danger than they realize.

Say that a guy loses his job through no fault of his own. He can't pay his mortgage now. His family no longer has health insurance. Within a few months, they're on the streets, ill, and hungry. Heaven forbid if any of them have chronic conditions. Some will turn to crime just to eat. Some will die from the elements.

This is how the rich can cause hunger and violence.

darkprince45 posted...

Yes the actions being successful and taking care of my family

*while being a boot licker for the rich, who often enriched themselves to the detriment to the 9-5er trying to make ends meet

---

Poor people need to quit being a burden

---

People are interconnected and are responsible for each other. Society inevitably has rich and poor people, and needs CEO's, janitors, and everybody inbetween. This would be true even if everybody had the exact same qualifications. There are no rich people without the efforts of poor people. Not taking responsibility for each other is immoral, plain and simple. If people don't contribute to a common pot, most people won't have options to get an education and even have a chance to contribute to society to the best of their abilities. Infrastructures will crumble and the economy will suffer. People will suffer from physical and mental illnesses that would otherwise be treated. Avoidable deaths will occur. Infant mortality rates will increase. People will starve, including children who don't even have the means to make money, and will do worse in school because they are hungry. God knows there are more benefits that a society reaps from taxes including police and sewer systems. The fact is taxes are necessary for a first world society to exist. A common pot is good for everybody. It is not just a moral obligation but a necessity. It has nothing to do with being entitled to rich people's money. Rich people just happen to possess most of the wealth and can afford to contribute the most. If the wealth distribution curve was different, that would also be different.

rich people should not be coerced to give their money, and people are not entitled to that which belongs to others, however a healthy society hinges on some degree of charitableness with respect to those involved

this inclination has eroded tremendously over the years, in part due to government action, in part due to cultural shifts spurring government action

the legal legitimacy of this gradual expansion of wealth redistribution, of course, has given rise to a sense of unaccountable entitlement with respect to those who are the beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of this redistribution, a sense of resentment for the underprivileged rather than compassion, and enduring antagonism between different revenue sources and their corresponding beneficiaries

---

_Rinku_ posted...

I think the idea behind the argument is that, because our safety nets/societal institutions aren't properly funded (due to the rich abusing loopholes to not pay their fair share), that everyone below them financially is in greater danger than they realize.

Say that a guy loses his job through no fault of his own. He can't pay his mortgage now. His family no longer has health insurance. Within a few months, they're on the streets, ill, and hungry. Heaven forbid if any of them have chronic conditions. Some will turn to crime just to eat. Some will die from the elements.

This is how the rich can cause hunger and violence.

Why did he lose his job then? Was it because like all businesses, there's a possibility of failure and the rich guy who owns the company might need to make cutbacks? Or did the rich guy just say "Hey fuck you pleb I'm gonna fire you just because I want to be a dick"?


---

Why not go all the way and make this a free market nation? See where that gets you when you get blown up by mcdonalds for breathing too much air

---

The system is rigged in favor of the rich, because the people who get there spend a lot of money making sure the system works that way.

fuck them and fuck anyone who defends them

---

"Fuck you, got mine" is not how a successful society operates

---

_Rinku_ posted...

emblem boy posted...

I think TC is wrong, but I do dislike this argument. Like, people really can believe, wrongly in my opinion, in what TC is trying to say, without it being about defending the rich.

I think the idea behind the argument is that, because our safety nets/societal institutions aren't properly funded (due to the rich abusing loopholes to not pay their fair share), that everyone below them financially is in greater danger than they realize.

Say that a guy loses his job through no fault of his own. He can't pay his mortgage now. His family no longer has health insurance. Within a few months, they're on the streets, ill, and hungry. Heaven forbid if any of them have chronic conditions. Some will turn to crime just to eat. Some will die from the elements.

This is how the rich can cause hunger and violence.

I pretty much agree.

You know, the whole thing is interesting to me. Like, I think some conservatives will at least state that they support these things as well, but just want it to be more voluntary and privately done through charity or whatever. Which is a distinction I don't personally care too much about. Just do it in what ever method works the best.

At the end of the day, if both are set up well, I don't see why either method wouldn't work.
People just want to feel like their purposely giving the money, rather than it being "stolen" from them.
---

monkeysRfunny posted...

Why did he lose his job then? Was it because like all businesses, there's a possibility of failure and the rich guy who owns the company might need to make cutbacks? Or did the rich guy just say "Hey fuck you pleb I'm gonna fire you just because I want to be a dick"?

Maybe his job was eliminated because the company he was working for was bought out by another company and his department was either deemed "redundant" or not something the acquiring company did and thus they let everyone in it go.

People do legitimately lose their jobs unrelated to something they did or were doing all the time, not really sure what you're trying to do with this post.
---

Like seriously if you guys wanna boot lick the rich so much, tell me why we shouldnt give them full control? I mean they know whats best after all since they are rich and smart and the rest are poor and dumb

---

TheMikh posted...

rich people should not be coerced to give their money, and people are not entitled to that which belongs to others, however a healthy society hinges on some degree of charitableness with respect to those involved

this inclination has eroded tremendously over the years, in part due to government action, in part due to cultural shifts spurring government action

the legal legitimacy of this gradual expansion of wealth redistribution, of course, has given rise to a sense of unaccountable entitlement with respect to those who are the beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of this redistribution, a sense of resentment for the underprivileged rather than compassion, and enduring antagonism between different revenue sources and their corresponding beneficiaries

Ehh, I can't help but feel that that wouldn't change even in charities. People will still have the issue where they'll see the beneficiary acting "irresponsible" with their money and feel like people are acting entitled to their money.
---

Yeah taxes are a punishment. Imagine how big a billionaire's car collection could be if we didn't keep brutally punishing them for being successful and job creators.

---

So then you're blaming the company for getting rid of someone who was doing something useless and/or unnecessary for what the new owner wanted? And you think that this happens overnight, and that the person getting let go just has the rug pulled out from under him in an instant?


---

ScazarMeltex posted...

https://tinyurl.com/Police-and-Addiction
https://tinyurl.com/police-and-domestic-abuse

And not specific to my previous statements but still important to note
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement

Less than 1 of the American percent is a cop. Every stat is going to be inflated. Still way smaller than normal peoples stats. Normal people are domestically beating the shit out of each other at an alarmingly increasing rate each year. Which is a number way higher than cops do. Like, compare the number relative to normal people and its not even close

---

It's not a matter of scarcity, it's how much the elites let commoners have

darkprince45 posted...

Less than 1 of the American percent is a cop. Every stat is going to be inflated. Still way smaller than normal peoples stats

Scazar is very anti-government. I think he said he was a communist? Not sure, but yeah, his posts will always be extremely skewed.

---

KobeSystem posted...

Why not go all the way and make this a free market nation? See where that gets you when you get blown up by mcdonalds for breathing too much air

rogue-like behavior emerges in (1) the absence of being held accountable by viable competition and/or (2) the excess of debt-incurring potential

take that how you will

---

monkeysRfunny posted...

So then you're blaming the company for getting rid of someone who was doing something useless and/or unnecessary for what the new owner wanted? And you think that this happens overnight, and that the person getting let go just has the rug pulled out from under him in an instant?

Are you like, 16 or something?

Because the answer to your question is literally "Yes, this happens all the time".
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

That's not it works.
From the first link "Addiction within the law enforcement community across America is a widespread and serious problem. One out of four police officers on the street has an alcohol or drug abuse issue, and substance use disorders among police officers are estimated to range between 20% and 30% (1,2) as compared to under 10% in the general population."
From the second link
"Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general."

That 10 percent number per people is probably higher than the 40 percent that police families experience.

while its not an excuse, does society expect any different? Its a job where youre exposed NON(you) cops doing violent shit every day. This week alone, I had one guy bleed it out from being shot. Responded to gang members shooting each other at a shopping center. Multiple suicide attempts. Responded to over 15 domestic violence calls on Monday alone.

so a job where people are exposed to regular people doing violent and fucked up shit daily. And youre surprised these people are fucked up in the head

---

My answer is literally why are you blaming the owner and acting like he literally kicked the worker out of their house in an instant. Try reading instead of resorting childish insults.

---

nuge posted...

Where did you get your numbers? A new cop in Chicago makes around 43k a year without ot.
The highest is 89k
The average is only 65k.
These are all without ot.

Glassdoor numbers are never accurate. My buddy started at over that. As soon as he got out of probation after the first year he got bumped to 75.

I cap off at 44 an hour but I keep getting cost of living raises every 6 months until I quit or retire

---

Just got the accurate number its like 72.5 k after probation

---

And Chicago is not considered a department where you get paid well either

---

https://twitter.com/twetchapp/status/1219686207610814464?s=21'

If America's supreme overlord was being straightforward instead of beating around the bush, he'd say that the 4th Industrial Revolution is coming where Smart contracts are going into mainstream adoption.

But they won't. Worst yet, this is going to be the biggest wealth transfer of all time. Knowing that I'm going to profit immensely at the cost of people's livelihoods, I'm not keen on the idea of "we poor people owe the rich nothing!".

---

120k starting here
https://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/police-department/recruitment

---

3 12.5 hour days sounds interesting lol

---

emblem boy posted...

Ehh, I can't help but feel that that wouldn't change even in charities. People will still have the issue where they'll see the beneficiary acting "irresponsible" with their money and feel like people are acting entitled to their money.

all money comes with expectations

from politicians, it's votes (by means of policy of course, as spoils are taboo, if not forbidden); from governments, it's compliance with and participation in the legal-economic matrix; from charities, it's some combination of behavioral standards, or some outcome metrics

government payouts, however consistent and larger these days than private payouts, are less responsive and less outcome-based

---

emblem boy posted...

Entitled seems like a bad word to use. I don't know, if people's lives are better due to various social benefits, funded publicly or privately, it should be a goal. Obviously the private/public part is where a lot of arguments stem from, but ya.

Yeah, thinking in terms of deserving/worthiness is highly pointless tbh, everyone has different ideas of fairness and who has a right to what. The bottom line with legislation and policy has to always be "What helps the most people". Idealogues have no place in politics, only utilitarians

---

That's why the key is to have a fair society so either they don't accumulate it in the first place or we all accumulate it. No need for confiscation in an equitable society, it only happens as an effect of injustice.

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

If you replace 'rich' with 'black' for each instance, this topic is interesting

Lmao

I cant stop laughing

legendary_zell posted...

That's why the key is to have a fair society so either they don't accumulate it in the first place or we all accumulate it. No need for confiscation in an equitable society, it only happens as an effect of injustice.

This. And only took 97 responses.

---