A bias against wealth?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

I was not suggesting a 90% hike happen today. I was pointing out that at one time, it did. And the wealthy accepted that as their social responsibility. And times were more prosperous for everyone. And that is why baby boomers had good opportunities to be as wealthy as they are, on the whole, now. Maybe a substantially higher rate on the top 1% and if it were the agreed upon trend across countries so that those people couldn't wiggle out of it by moving elsewhere. But that will not happen anytime soon.

I apologize if I offend anyone...but what I wonder is.., do those who are living quite comfortably in the middle and upper middle class think they are really suffering from this perceived bias? Because considering how the very poorest live, I'd say the bias they have to suffer, and the real daily hardship, is much greater...so the bias against the wealthy claim is irksome because it is disingenuous. It sounds to me more like "in this really difficult period we've entered, how can we justify our lifestyle and not change anything and not feel bad about it?"... That's what it sounds more like. And I guess that bothers me.

I asked the question as it seemed that people presumed that people who are in the upper or middle class
a) begrudge paying taxes. period.
b) do not add to the common good, doing less than their fair share of work as volunteers or through donations
c) are materialistic, money grubbing folks only after their own best interests
d) did nothing to get where they are. Did not make choices and did not work hard. It was simply luck.
e) do not feel that they have a responsibility to the other, including using their strengths to help others.
f) are just evil, no good folks, who really should just quit their jobs, and give all their money away, and follow Jesus by living on the street or in basic housing while they volunteer,
 
Well, I never said that.

I think we've all been affected by the mindset though - that if you have money and social status, you deserve it and must preserve it - and if you don't...you also deserve your fate and must pull yourself up by the bootstraps. But the truth is that being really wealthy is more about luck - where you were born, when, what inate strengths and weaknesses you have and whether the strengths coincide with expectations of the times - than it is labour. And in some cases we're seeing how the wealthy really can live by a different set of rules than the poor. My bias against the wealthy is when they think they are better, smarter, or more deserving than someone who is poor. That is a strong bias I perceive coming from the other direction - no concept of the things that needed to be in place for them to succeed as they have - my bias is they seem to take that for granted. The injustice in the world today is not that the wealthy are so hard done by - that I'm certain of.
 
I asked the question as it seemed that people presumed that people who are in the upper or middle class
a) begrudge paying taxes. period.
b) do not add to the common good, doing less than their fair share of work as volunteers or through donations
c) are materialistic, money grubbing folks only after their own best interests
d) did nothing to get where they are. Did not make choices and did not work hard. It was simply luck.
e) do not feel that they have a responsibility to the other, including using their strengths to help others.
f) are just evil, no good folks, who really should just quit their jobs, and give all their money away, and follow Jesus by living on the street or in basic housing while they volunteer,

It is not about how much money you have but how you get that money ...


Bankers' Depression of the 1930's.


In 1930 America did not lack industrial capacity, fertile farmlands, skilled and willing workers or industrious families. It had an extensive and efficient transportation system in railroads, road networks, and inland and ocean waterways. Communications between regions and localities were the best in the world, utilizing telephone, teletype, radio, and a well operated government mail system.

No war had ravaged the cities or the countryside, no pestilence weakened the population, nor had famine stalked the land. The United States of America in 1930 lacked only one thing: an adequate supply of money to carry on trade and commerce.

In the early 1930s, bankers, the only source of new money and credit, deliberately refused loans to industries, stores and farms. Payments on existing loans were required however, and money rapidly disappeared from circulation. Goods were available to be purchased, jobs waiting to be done, but the lack of money brought the nation to a standstill.

By this simple ploy America was put in a "depression" and bankers took possession of hundreds of thousands of farms, homes, and business properties. The people were told, "times are hard" and "money is short." Not understanding the system, they were cruelly robbed of their earnings, their savings, and their property.

No Money for Peace, but Plenty for War.

World War II ended the "depression." The same Bankers who in the early 1930's had no loans for peacetime houses, food and clothing, suddenly had unlimited billions to lend for army barracks, K-rations and uniforms.

A nation that in 1934 could not produce food for sale, suddenly could produce bombs to send free to Germany and Japan! (More on this riddle later).

With the sudden increase in money, people were hired, farms sold their produce, factories went to two shifts, mines reopened, and "The Great Depression" was over!

Some politicians were blamed for it and others took credit for ending it. The truth is the lack of money (caused by Bankers) brought on the depression, and adequate money ended it. The people were never told that simple truth and in this article we will endeavor to show how these same bankers who control our money and credit have used their control to plunder America and place us in bondage.

Every Citizen Can Be A Stock Holder in America

Under the Constitutional system, no private banks would exist to rob the people. Government banks under the control of the people's representatives would issue and control all money and credit. They would issue not only actual currency, but could lend limited credit at no interest for the purchase of capital goods, such as homes.

A $100,000 loan would require only $100,000 repayment, not $270,456.00 as it is now. Everyone who supplied materials and labor for the home would get paid just as they do today, but the bankers would not get $170,456.00 in interest.

That is why they ridicule and destroy anyone suggesting or proposing an alternative system.

Source: http://www.bigeye.com/bankers.htm
 
umm, what rate and period are you using?

I don't see how a loan of $100k would cost you 170k given the current interest rates. Do you know where those numbers came from?
 
The above video is about 4 yrs old by the way. Sigh. Hindsight is 20/20. Interesting how he mentions that Obama wanted to raise the issue of income inequality without raising the spectre of people, Republican people mostly, deeming that a "class war on the rich". Which, incidentally...sounds quite a bit like "bias against wealth" (which is just more polite, less hyperbolic - but this doublespeak idea has weaviled its way into the collective consciousness - long before this thread - it's the poor who are losing steadily, however, and have far more biases and stereotypes to contend with).

I don't think all the problems in the world are all the fault of the wealthy - they didn't cause every problem - but they sure could do more to help if living so extravagantly wasn't a priority.
 
Last edited:
umm, what rate and period are you using?

I don't see how a loan of $100k would cost you 170k given the current interest rates. Do you know where those numbers came from?

I am not using any rate and period ... I believe the source was an article from '98 ... it is not about the rates it is about the financial usury system that you worship at the alter of ... that is the point ... I have no idea what you do for a 'living' because you are very evasive ... this is not personal ... you believe in money and the power of money to do good ... I do not. Money does not do good - people do.

In the early 1930s, bankers, the only source of new money and credit, deliberately refused loans to industries, stores and farms. Payments on existing loans were required however, and money rapidly disappeared from circulation. Goods were available to be purchased, jobs waiting to be done, but the lack of money brought the nation to a standstill.

By this simple ploy America was put in a "depression" and bankers took possession of hundreds of thousands of farms, homes, and business properties. The people were told, "times are hard" and "money is short."

Not understanding the system, they were cruelly robbed of their earnings, their savings, and their property. - and it sounds like you approve - since you know so well how the financial systems work - and you keep advocating for it to continue and cursing Jesus for not buying into it.

 
I am not using any rate and period ... I believe the source was an article from '98 ... it is not about the rates it is about the financial usury system that you worship at the alter of ... that is the point ... I have no idea what you do for a 'living' because you are very evasive ... this is not personal ... you believe in money and the power of money to do good ... I do not. Money does not do good - people do.

In the early 1930s, bankers, the only source of new money and credit, deliberately refused loans to industries, stores and farms. Payments on existing loans were required however, and money rapidly disappeared from circulation. Goods were available to be purchased, jobs waiting to be done, but the lack of money brought the nation to a standstill.

By this simple ploy America was put in a "depression" and bankers took possession of hundreds of thousands of farms, homes, and business properties. The people were told, "times are hard" and "money is short."

Not understanding the system, they were cruelly robbed of their earnings, their savings, and their property. - and it sounds like you approve - since you know so well how the financial systems work - and you keep advocating for it to continue and cursing Jesus for not buying into it.
Monk. Seriously.
You give numbers which are designed to cause people to react. Yet, they are totally inaccurate. Not even close to reality, unless you are going to one of those same day cash chequing places....which are the lowest of the low, and should be outlawed.

I am not sure what I do for a living is relevant; however, if you are implying that I work in the financial industry, I do not. I have shared here and elsewhere that I work as an IT professional. I am retired from a company and now working independently.

Of course, people do good. Money is a tool, as are my hands, and my brain, and my feet.

Now, re banks, you don't have to go that far back to look at the misuse of people in the US banking industry. Check out the housing crisis that occurred in the US. Canadian banks pulled out ahead n that one, in part due to the different banking structure here. So, if you are asking what I support -- I do not support the US banking structure. I appreciate the controls placed on Canadian banking industry and in some areas, I would appreciate more. I support the eradication of those same-day cheque cashing locations, or massive controls placed on them due to their usury fees on the most vulnerable amongst us.

ps, where have I ever cursed Jesus, let alone cursing Jesus for not buying into it.
 
Well, I never said that.

I think we've all been affected by the mindset though - that if you have money and social status, you deserve it and must preserve it - and if you don't...you also deserve your fate and must pull yourself up by the bootstraps. But the truth is that being really wealthy is more about luck - where you were born, when, what inate strengths and weaknesses you have and whether the strengths coincide with expectations of the times - than it is labour. And in some cases we're seeing how the wealthy really can live by a different set of rules than the poor. My bias against the wealthy is when they think they are better, smarter, or more deserving than someone who is poor. That is a strong bias I perceive coming from the other direction - no concept of the things that needed to be in place for them to succeed as they have - my bias is they seem to take that for granted. The injustice in the world today is not that the wealthy are so hard done by - that I'm certain of.

Actually, Kimmio, I can probably find posts from wondercafe & wondercafe2 where I stated that the circumstances of my success are due to tons of luck: my mother didnt' drink when she was pregnant, I was born in Canada, I had good food, no health issues at birth, and so on. I have advocated here, and in person, and through my votes for increases in benefits and the minimum wage recognizing that luck in my success and that not everyone has the same luck.

I also know that success can be a matter of choices and risk tolerance: I took some chances, I didn't take others. They were conscious decisions at the time. They had impact. I am good with that. I continue to make choices which impact my success. Some of the choices that I made restricted my income (ie, chose to stay locally). Some of them helped my income: chose to join projects that increased my skillset, though the pressures and impact on my life in other ways, were high. I was lucky enough to have those choices.

I have worked 60hrs/week, and up to 100hrs/week , so I disagree with your comment regarding it isn't about labour. It can be. I am known for beign a hard worker and that is partially what opened the doors. I also have led people some who did the bare minimum, and others who worked and when things went bad, they stepped up their game to solve problems. Guess who was more successful. Guess who got the references for their next contract or job.

Choices and working hard does make a difference, but, to your point, you have to be able to get your foot in the door to work hard, so, it is a combination of luck, choices and hard work.

Note: I have never said that someone has to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, nor can I ever recollect anyone in my circles doing so. I am sure there are those who feel that way, but, they aren't the folks that I associate with. I also attempt to level the playing field.

My question for you is, why do you have a bias against the wealthy , uber wealthy or middle class as a group? If you apply that bias to everyone in that group, then aren't you doing the same thing as someone who says "those darn lazy no good welfare bums" who cannot get pass their own biases to see the individual?
 
@Graeme Decarie -- you keep bringing up the "very wealthy".
I, and @Lastpointe have been referring to the middle to upper class, which is what i was asking about.

Now, the reason I say they can't win, even the very wealthy, is if they give away all or most of their wealth anonymously, truly anonymously, then you have no knowledge of what they have given. If they say "ok, I will tell people what I give" , then there are those on this thread who will say they are bragging.

Here is one example of a family that has given away a lot of money. Tell me your thoughts regarding the Juravinski's. http://www.jcc.hhsc.ca/body.cfm?id=257
Are they good or bad people? Have they had an impact on society in a good way? What are your thoughts (bias) regarding the remaining wealth and how they will use it.

Pinga, I think Graeme is looking at roots and history of the imbalance in wealth distribution, while you are looking at single people. There is no doubt that there is millionairs who are giving away their wealth. Equally there are poor people who are making it out of the streets. That doesn't change the overall picture of wealth distribution and economic dependencies.
 
Please. Most of the wealthy who give to charities do not give nearly so much as they would be if they were paying their taxes. They also just love the PR they get. Here in New Brunswick they even have philanthropist halls of fame.
Use common sense. The income gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us has been getting bigger for some thirty years. The wealthy are getting far wealthier. They are not breaking their necks to give to charities.

There are a few who pay taxes and who give. But, of the very wealthy, these are very, very few indeed. What you're going to see - and is already advanced in the U.S., is declining social services. Public education in the U.S., for example, has suffered terribly.

And the reason we need so many charities is because the wealthy use their political power to break social services, to pay the lowest salaries possible, to provide a few benefits as possible. The whole pattern of jobs has been changing with the lifetime job becoming a thing of the past. pensions going out the window.....

If you want to see what our wealthy are like, take a look at Canadian and American companies in South America and Africa where they pay salaries below a living wage, offer no benefits. destroy the environment, and murder ( yes, they do) anybody who criticizes them. You won't see this in our news media - but there are good news media in this world that do carry the story. I believe that it was in today's countercurrents (on the web) that there is a history of Canadian capitalists in this respect.

Our wealthy also have a long, long history of brutal treatment of employees. Check out a book by Terry Copp called The Anatomy of Poverty. In Toronto, a teen age worker operating a machine with no safety measures on it lost his arm. He was immediately fired, pay stopped, and he was sent home on his own. Even more in the U.S. is a history of killings, extremely dangerous working conditions. The latter are still found in American owned clothing factories in Asia (Joe Fresh springs to mind). in Canada and the U.S., women workers have burned to death in locked buildings.

Check out the Rockefeller family. When miners went on strike, the Rockefellers forced them out of their company homes to survive, somehow, through a winter. They sheltered in tents, under the eyes of troops and company guards. one day, the guards went on a rampage among the tents, killing men, women and children. The man who helped them cover it up (who would some day be PM of Canada) was Mackenzie King. Or get a Cape Breton miner to tell you about the 'good' ol' days in the mines.

The wealthy have been destructive, murderous and greedy all over the world. It still happens in most of the world - and it's a rising force in North America. And this goes way back. The Eaton's stores used the depression to reduce employee pay, increase hours, take away paid holiday, cancel pensions, employ women in the Schmata trade (clothing) to sew shirts by hand at 25 cents a shirt.

There is nothing exceptional in this. it's always been a standard practice of capitalism. The US killed a million and a half people in Iraq to protect profits for oil capitalists. It stirred up a rebellion in Syria for the same reason. the wealthy of the U.S. are furious that Trump wants to talk to Putin. Why? They want a war to destroy Russia as an economic competitor. Trump is a little bit saner. He wants a war with China to destroy it as an economic competitor.

Forget this drivel about "nice people who work hard and give to charity". There are some, but not many. in the 1930s, even multi-millionaire PM RB Bennett was appalled by the behaviour of the very wealthy. There's a book about it called, I think, The Wretched of Canada.

This has nothing to do with bias. It's all on the record. In 1900, when the wealthy British were rolling in money, the poor lived in some of the most wretched conditions in the world. Glasgow was notorious for the worst and most violent slum in Europe. It was called the Gorbals where the only water supply was on the street, and few people had toilets of any sort. (My grandmother grew up there.). For recent years, the British wealthy have been battering the public schools and the health services, and allowing homelessness to rise almost to Victorian levels.

The very wealthy are commonly driven by a sense of entitlement that amounts to a form of racism, by greed, and by contempt for those who aren't as wealthy as they are. And they are bringing us close to a crisis. The reason we have government budget overruns is because the very wealthy usually don't pay taxes. They have over half of the wealth in the whole country. But they don't pay taxes. Of course government run over budget.

When I was a child, I watched people die at home because they could not afford medical care. The wealthy are now putting on pressure to privatize medicare - and go back to those good old days.

The reality is that billionaires are your enemies. They know it. And if you don't, you are setting yourself up.

If we are blinded to history by faith that it didn't happen do we become Go*thic of thick-skinned ? Solvation of the enigma of why the gods don't wish us to know ... what's going on all round us ... some don't ... too contained by the system as second or as it "B"!
 
@Graeme Decarie -- you keep bringing up the "very wealthy".
I, and @Lastpointe have been referring to the middle to upper class, which is what i was asking about.

Now, the reason I say they can't win, even the very wealthy, is if they give away all or most of their wealth anonymously, truly anonymously, then you have no knowledge of what they have given. If they say "ok, I will tell people what I give" , then there are those on this thread who will say they are bragging.

Here is one example of a family that has given away a lot of money. Tell me your thoughts regarding the Juravinski's. http://www.jcc.hhsc.ca/body.cfm?id=257
Are they good or bad people? Have they had an impact on society in a good way? What are your thoughts (bias) regarding the remaining wealth and how they will use it.

The medium income is said to be approximately $50k and yet it is spoken of here as $150-200k ... an enigma over the void as it spreads?
 
The above video is about 4 yrs old by the way. Sigh. Hindsight is 20/20. Interesting how he mentions that Obama wanted to raise the issue of income inequality without raising the spectre of people, Republican people mostly, deeming that a "class war on the rich". Which, incidentally...sounds quite a bit like "bias against wealth" (which is just more polite, less hyperbolic - but this doublespeak idea has weaviled its way into the collective consciousness - long before this thread - it's the poor who are losing steadily, however, and have far more biases and stereotypes to contend with).

I don't think all the problems in the world are all the fault of the wealthy - they didn't cause every problem - but they sure could do more to help if living so extravagantly wasn't a priority.


Should one understand satyrs as alien satire? Thing s the powers would sooner the people on the other side of the gap, not know about as well rounded observation ...
 
Jae Zues is a rogue icon ... one who jumped the gap of time right into the dirt of living on the margins ...

Then the loving Lords dispatched heh ... sort of like denial, elimination and rejection of lesser power ... thus they became partisan and subtle ... supple and form-ID-able when dissonant as a hoard?

Sort of like the potential civil war that approached in the dirty 30's ... FDR had a vision ... could see it coming and made adequate suggestions ... in history is there something feint about Fair and equities' or is that the Dark Horse theory? The Shadow of the beauty of unseen conscience!

Does the bible speak of unseen icons ...
 
Pinga, I think Graeme is looking at roots and history of the imbalance in wealth distribution, while you are looking at single people. There is no doubt that there is millionairs who are giving away their wealth. Equally there are poor people who are making it out of the streets. That doesn't change the overall picture of wealth distribution and economic dependencies.
I think is looking at user wealthy, when i am referring to middle class
 
But the title of the thread is "bias against wealthy"?

If there's a clear bias against the poor, which I think we'd all agree there is, why wouldn't there be an equal and opposite bias against the other end of the scale?
 
Aah. But if someone names the bias when it slips out regarding poor, there is a backlash

Yet, the bias against the wealthy turns into attacks on those who fit into that class, rather than dialogue.

Witness this thread as an example.
 
Back
Top