Misery loves company. People don’t mind if they are poor, as long as everyone else is poor as well. That explains the attraction of Communism.
You should have asked how much she makes and how much the Dean of the college makes. And how much they both made 5 years ago.
The whole “rich get richer” argument is spurious. It’s not as if we split the population into 3 parts—rich, middle class, and poor, and then keep track of the original people in the groups. People move easily from one group to the next. I was very poor when I was young, was moderately middle class in my twenties, and probably made it into what the statisticians call “rich” by my late thirties. Now I am old and retired, my daughter wants a big wedding, and pretty soon I will be back to being poor. :)
Tell your teacher, "A high tide raises all ships."
As "the rich (whoever on earth those are) get richer" so do the rest of us. Among a free people, as a previous poster pointed out, the (economic) pie is not finite.
You’re right on target.
You did GOOD! You could also ask her.....who pays the MOST in taxes...ta dum....THE RICH....who does she think is funding programs.
Also...consider the following which was posted on FR a while back....
Who Pays America’s Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?
Tax Foundation ^ | March 23, 2007 | Andrew Chamberlain, Gerald Prante and Scott A. Hodge
Posted on 03/25/2007 1:35:33 PM PDT by RKV
While many studies answer the ques¬tion of who pays taxes in America, the question of who gets the most government spending is often overlooked. Just as some Americans bear a larger portion of the nation’s tax burden than others, some Americans also receive a larger share of the nation’s government spending.
This report summarizes the key findings of a comprehensive 2007 Tax Foundation study of federal, state and local taxes and government spending. The results show that when we consider the distribution of government spending as well as taxes, it provides a dramatically altered view of how U.S. fiscal policy affects Americans at different income levels than is apparent from the distribution of tax burdens alone.
Overall, we find that America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America’s highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.
The rich get richer under socialism. It is why the Kennedys, Rockefellers and Soros's and Buffets all support big government. They get to keep their wealth while government steals from the income earners to subsidize golf course haciendas in Sun City.
Ask your teacher how many homeless or poor people are providing jobs and hiring people?
I was just in a meeting with a family and got to deliver the news that they are facing a $600,000+ estate tax hit on their inheritance. In the case of this “rich” family, their wealth shrank by over 20% thanks to our confiscatory tax system.
The rich repeat the behavior that made them rich. The poor repeat the behavior that made them poor.
Buy Low, Sell High.
"Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more..."
Thomas Sowell, “Basic Economics” and “Applied Economics.” Live it, learn it, love it!
(p.s., Your comments reflect an accurate understanding of our economy.)
Blaming the rich for achievement is ludicrous. The teacher should be blaming the poor for underacgievemrnt and in many cases plain ol’ every day laziness. Laziness is harmful to the GNP.
It’s not so much the poor that are screwed as the stupid, lazy and uneducated.
Their pay has dropped in real terms (they have to compete with illegals for the worst jobs).
If someone planned to have a middle class life knowing that @#$% flows downhill, payday is Friday and to keep his fingers out of his mouth he’s SOL.
Times change. Life is rough.
What Should We Do About the Income Gap?
Written By: John Semmens
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: February 19, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
One expects the political left to point to income inequality as a defect of our capitalist system. But when President George W. Bush expresses alarm over a “growing income inequality gap” and urges corporations to rethink the compensation packages they offer to top executives, we would be wise to pay attention.
In the past 15 years, incomes in each of the five quintiles (i.e., 20 percent shares of the population) tracked by the government rose in real, inflation-adjusted dollars. Incomes in the top quintile rose by slightly more than 20 percent. Incomes in the bottom quintile rose by 21 percent. Incomes in the middle quintiles rose between 13 percent and 20 percent. So, in terms of purchasing power, every income grouping gained ground.
Of course, a 20 percent gain on a million-dollar income is a gain of $200,000. A 20 percent gain on a $10,000 income is a gain of $2,000. As a result, the gap between these two income levels has widened by $198,000. This mathematical calculation feeds the indignation of those whose political ideal is focused on equality. For them it is not enough that all are better off if the result is greater inequality.
America has already taken substantial measures to boost the chances of those not born to wealth. A free education is provided to all through grade 12. Scholarships based on need are available for those able to handle a college education. Student loans are available at favorable rates for those who don’t land a scholarship. A poor person with talent can make use of this education to improve his lot in life.
Education, though, cannot overcome all inequalities. Talent is unequally distributed. A person may inherit a low IQ through no fault of his own. He may lack the motor skills or good looks essential to success in other fields. He may, in fact, turn out to be an average person who ends up in an average job at an average rate of pay. This is the fate of the vast majority of us.
America also has a social safety net providing basic necessities for those unable to earn their own way. Persons incapable of performing an average job do not starve to death, dressed in rags, and shivering in the cold unless they refuse the help offered by government and charities. Nevertheless, they are still going to be in the lowest income quintile.
What more could be done to reduce inequalities? Those railing against income inequality often suggest penalties and regulations to keep the upper echelons down. Caps on incomes and taxes on “excessive” earnings are frequently advocated. The problem with this punitive approach, though, is it will likely slow the rate of economic growth.
The carrot of profit and financial return is what motivates the talented to undertake the efforts and bear the risks that lead to economic growth. The fabulous standard of living we enjoy today isn’t because average people are devotedly putting in a full day’s work. It’s because extraordinarily talented individuals have invented better products and more efficient ways of producing them.
Does this mean there are never errors resulting in undeserved rewards for corporate executives? Of course not. However, while it may be easy to spot the errors in hindsight, it is not so easy to spot them ahead of time.
It is implausible in the extreme to place our faith in government’s foresight in this matter. Government has no special expertise along these lines. If it did, societies like Cuba that rely heavily upon government to make economic decisions would be models of prosperity instead of the impoverished prisons they are.
The vast majority of us are the beneficiaries of the genius of a talented minority. We ought not allow envy of their rewards lead us to tie down the golden geese with taxes and regulations and thereby reduce their incentives to continue laying golden eggs. Doing so will hurt us more than it will hurt them.
John Semmens (jsemmens@cox.net) is an economist and policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.
You'll have to do your homework, but IIRC you will find that over two decades, about half of "the rich" wind up being new people, some coming from the lowest quintile.
Also, any comparison of rich and poor is a waste of paper if it does not allow for the ages of people. Those who are at the very beginnings of their careers are almost always "poor" compared to those at the end of their careers, when they own their houses, have put aside something for retirement, have their cars paid off, and no longer have any children in college.
This is the Duh! factor, that your professor probably has not paid any attention to.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "To Raise the Edifice (Geo. Washington on the Constitution)"
"Imagine that a genie magically appeared and offered to grant you one wish -- and, being a decent sort, you wished that everyone's income would be doubled. That could bring down on you the wrath of the political left, because it would mean that the gap between the rich and the poor had widened. That is basically their complaint against the American economy."