Hate the Rich/Successful Folks

[mikesdca]

Hi, I haven't posted much, but I cannot process what seems to be a very strong sentiment against the wealthy or successful class in the US.  I am 51 --so use that for reference.  

When I grew up (70's & 80's) we LOVED the wealthy class.  That was what we aspired to be, that was our dream.  We were told that those that risked, were rewarded. Anyone could be rich if they worked hard.  Back then (and now), I never was envious or had a hatred to wealthy folks like I see today?  What is up with that?

At 51, I am earning more that I ever have.  Don't let my age fool you.  My income has increase almost 3X over the past three years and I think I would be in the classification of being "wealthy".  My net worth is good and improves all the time, I have several rentals that bring income, I have a high value DGI portfolio that brings revenue --and I have my job, with an income that is very high. 

It seems to me, to the American public---- I am seen as the enemy?  I am the problem. They don't have what I have-- and they want some cut of what I have worked so hard to achieve. When did that become a reality? What kind of thinking is this?  No one, not even the government is entitled to what I have worked so hard to achieve. 

Where do people come off advocating this crap? 

I look at Bernie Sanders campaign and I laugh--but others (mostly young folks) are treating it as serious.  What the hell is this?  I am sorry young folks.  I don't want to support your free college while you live at home and build a nice portfolio. 

So many new DGI bloggers want to retire at age 30-35!  Good for you. You can do that by living at home and paying no rent.  I want you to get out of the house and make your own way--be an asset to society rather than a sucker of benefits.  Be independent and stand on your own like we have all had to do. That is the AMERICAN WAY.  What you are doing is not the American Way. 

Rant - I agree.  Sorry.  I am frustrated with our culture at the moment.

[crimsonghost747]

I'm not going to write a long rant but I do think it's more than a bit hypocritical of you to stand there and tell other people what to do with their lives. What exactly earned you the right to tell people what to do, especially when you seem to be so critical of other people commenting on your life or your lifestyle?

mikesdca Wrote:So many new DGI bloggers want to retire at age 30-35!  Good for you. You can do that by living at home and paying no rent.  I want you to get out of the house and make your own way...

I guess the main point here is: show me a single investor who plans to reach their goal of financial independence in 15 years by using unemployment checks?

If someone prefers to live frugally, save what they earn from work and spend the last 40-50 years of their lives doing things they love instead of things that they need to in order to get money... then why can't they do that? What does it take away from you if someone works 10-15 years, saves everything, invests it and then retires on some island paradise somewhere?

Now if you are talking about those who stay at home, cash in unemployment checks and love to live their life with tax payers money... then yeah I get your point.

[Kerim]

This is a tough topic. I hope to be in the same boat as you someday, mike, with a lot of income and assets keeping me any my family safe and comfortable. (And I think that I am on the way!)

I think that the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with a fair amount of wealth inequality. It is in our DNA as Americans, and that inequality is fundamental to the entrepreneurial spirit of the country and the ideas you note -- that anyone can work hard to get ahead. Indeed, for the past fifty years or so there seems to have been very little discontent on this front.

But even I -- as an aspiring rich person -- have to concede that wealth inequality has gotten really out of hand in recent decades. (Watch this video!) The people who are motivated to bash the rich are not necessarily lazy. I completely understand the frustration of working hard and seeing no forward movement in your life. It does feel more and more like the common folk are just commodities to further enrich the holders of capital. Improving the distribution of wealth and improving personal incomes throughout all levels of society would (I think) go a really long way towards improving the economy. Is that inconsistent with my own interests as an aspiring rich person? I'm not sure. But I suspect not.

I don't think people upset about these issues see you as the enemy. I think their ire is more directed at the uber-wealthy, at Wall Street, at big corporations, and especially financial firms.

[crimsonghost747]

(04-07-2016, 10:57 AM)Kerim Wrote: I completely understand the frustration of working hard and seeing no forward movement in your life. It does feel more and more like the common folk are just commodities to further enrich the holders of capital.

I think this is a thing that will just keep getting worse as automation kicks in even further. Robots will take jobs away from people, leaving more people to do fewer jobs. Corporations and shareholders profit but meanwhile unemployment goes up and salaries come down. This is actually one of the main reasons why I invest... not really for myself but for my future children or maybe their children. It could very well be that in 50 or 100 years a minimum wage job is considered a blessing.

[mikesdca]

(04-07-2016, 06:59 AM)crimsonghost747 Wrote: I'm not going to write a long rant but I do think it's more than a bit hypocritical of you to stand there and tell other people what to do with their lives. What exactly earned you the right to tell people what to do, especially when you seem to be so critical of other people commenting on your life or your lifestyle?

mikesdca Wrote:So many new DGI bloggers want to retire at age 30-35!  Good for you. You can do that by living at home and paying no rent.  I want you to get out of the house and make your own way...

I guess the main point here is: show me a single investor who plans to reach their goal of financial independence in 15 years by using unemployment checks?

If someone prefers to live frugally, save what they earn from work and spend the last 40-50 years of their lives doing things they love instead of things that they need to in order to get money... then why can't they do that? What does it take away from you if someone works 10-15 years, saves everything, invests it and then retires on some island paradise somewhere?

Now if you are talking about those who stay at home, cash in unemployment checks and love to live their life with tax payers money... then yeah I get your point.

Well, I will say the rant was a bit over the top. I was reading some of the newer DGI blogs last night seeing if there was anyone even remotely worthy of following.  The answer is no.  Anyway, after reading about 10 or so I came across one that just struck me as being wrong.  I tried to find the website again today but could not. 

The guy was 27 years old and he had a $100K portfolio, but he was showing his monthly income from it at it was only a little over $200.  That got me curious so I looked at the About page (nothing really), just a 27 year old guy. 

Then I found his income and expense page.  He listed his income which was mostly salary of a little over $4,000 (usual--hated his job) and then he listed his expenses.  Normal stuff, car payment, student loan, phone, food, dining out, etc.  No listing of rent or mortgage? On some page he mentions Bernie as if a supporter.  I looked at some other pages but nothing else about him--which just led me to believe he was a 27 year old, living with his parents and not really taking on any responsibility. Just a no account. not contributing anything, not even liking what he is doing for a living.  

I pulled my SS statement just last month and counted the years I had income from work.  36, out of 51.  That's right.  I was 15 and a half when I started working my first job and I still remember it. I had to get permission from my parents as I recall.  Different time. We were hungry to work back then.  We wanted the experience and any income we could get.  Parents did not expect you to be living with them 10 years out of high school.

I don't think it is hypocritical to call someone out who seems to be living the opposite way that our culture was when the country was strong.  That is self-reliance, patriotism, strong work ethic, sacrifice, etc.  What I think the problem is being 27, this kid has never known or lived in a country that still has those values.  Sad.  Makes me sad.

[mikesdca]

(04-07-2016, 10:57 AM)Kerim Wrote: This is a tough topic. I hope to be in the same boat as you someday, mike, with a lot of income and assets keeping me any my family safe and comfortable. (And I think that I am on the way!)

I think that the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with a fair amount of wealth inequality. It is in our DNA as Americans, and that inequality is fundamental to the entrepreneurial spirit of the country and the ideas you note -- that anyone can work hard to get ahead. Indeed, for the past fifty years or so there seems to have been very little discontent on this front.

But even I -- as an aspiring rich person -- have to concede that wealth inequality has gotten really out of hand in recent decades. (Watch this video!) The people who are motivated to bash the rich are not necessarily lazy. I completely understand the frustration of working hard and seeing no forward movement in your life. It does feel more and more like the common folk are just commodities to further enrich the holders of capital. Improving the distribution of wealth and improving personal incomes throughout all levels of society would (I think) go a really long way towards improving the economy. Is that inconsistent with my own interests as an aspiring rich person? I'm not sure. But I suspect not.

I don't think people upset about these issues see you as the enemy. I think their ire is more directed at the uber-wealthy, at Wall Street, at big corporations, and especially financial firms.

I watched the video, Oh brother---Mother Jones---Kerim, Mother Jones as a source!  LOL, I recall that rag from the 70's.  Pure crap, not to mention anything, any study a Harvard Professor would conduct would be worthless.  College today is where freedom, personal liberty, sacrifice, freedom and EDUCATION goes to die, especially at the elite school like Harvard.

The biggest problem is big government.  Their taxation, their regulations, their hatred for anyone who can rise above and be successful despite their control.   There is a whole lot more as to why the middle class disappeared but most of it has to do with our own government policies from Clinton on up.   Even Regan destroyed the farms in this country.  Our government then destroyed manufacturing and is now destroying health care.  The IT field is being stripped of American workers in favor of a cheaper foreign visa holder.  It goes on and on and on. 

I am not uber wealthy, not even close.  However, I don't have my eye on their money.  I already know THEY pay for most of our welfare programs.  Look at the USA disability logs and food stamp increases just in the last 8 years!  Research it.  Who do you think pays for that. Who do you think is promoting that  Try to research how many immigrates use some sort of public assistance when most legal ones have sworn an oath not to? Illegal, another matter.  We all pay for that.  I have two legal immigrates in my family that just immigrated over the last two years.  I know this topic. 

This big government we have had over the past 20 years has NOT served America well.

[Kerim]

(04-07-2016, 09:59 PM)mikesdca Wrote: I watched the video, Oh brother---Mother Jones---Kerim, Mother Jones as a source!  LOL, I recall that rag from the 70's.  Pure crap, not to mention anything, any study a Harvard Professor would conduct would be worthless.  College today is where freedom, personal liberty, sacrifice, freedom and EDUCATION goes to die, especially at the elite school like Harvard.

Do you think they have the facts wrong in the video? Do you think it misrepresents the situation? If so, how?

[mikesdca]

(04-07-2016, 10:02 PM)Kerim Wrote:

(04-07-2016, 09:59 PM)mikesdca Wrote: I watched the video, Oh brother---Mother Jones---Kerim, Mother Jones as a source!  LOL, I recall that rag from the 70's.  Pure crap, not to mention anything, any study a Harvard Professor would conduct would be worthless.  College today is where freedom, personal liberty, sacrifice, freedom and EDUCATION goes to die, especially at the elite school like Harvard.

Do you think they have the facts wrong in the video? Do you think it misrepresents the situation? If so, how?

Because Mother Jone is a sponsor, I could not trust the facts.  You must know what kind of a reputation Mother Jones has? Their history? Their ultra-liberal, bordering on socialistic spins?  If you do not, do some research. 

I will do my own research on the income inequality, but to the extent it exists--and I think it does, it is because of folks like Mother Jones and their fanatical view that government must regulate and control everything. Mother Jones and that ilk WANT income inequality. So does Obama. It works to their favor. They have spent 20 years destroying the middle class and creating this income inequality, but you don't want their solution. The solution is less of the big government.

[navyasw02]

So I can understand the hatred for the rich on an economic and social level because it's emotionally tied to the haves/have nots. If you take a step back and think about how it is politicized you have to take into account a few fundamental facts:

1. Hating the rich doesnt make poor people any less poor
2. Removing assets from the rich doesnt make poor people less poor
3. Raising taxes on the rich doesnt make rich people less rich or poor people less poor
3a. Raising taxes on rich just gives the government more money to waste
3b. The rich will find tax loopholes or shelters because they have the means and resources to do so
4. Hatred towards the rich/taxation/etc could potentially reduce the amount the rich give to charity, research, educational endowments, etc
5. The definition of rich will decrease until the wrong people are defined as "rich", making more people poor

[mikesdca]

(04-07-2016, 10:17 PM)navyasw02 Wrote: So I can understand the hatred for the rich on an economic and social level because it's emotionally tied to the haves/have nots.  If you take a step back and think about how it is politicized you have to take into account a few fundamental facts:

1.  Hating the rich doesnt make poor people any less poor
2.  Removing assets from the rich doesnt make poor people less poor
3.  Raising taxes on the rich doesnt make rich people less rich or poor people less poor
3a.   Raising taxes on rich just gives the government more money to waste
3b.  The rich will find tax loopholes or shelters because they have the means and resources to do so
4.  Hatred towards the rich/taxation/etc could potentially reduce the amount the rich give to charity, research, educational endowments, etc
5.  The definition of rich will decrease until the wrong people are defined as "rich", making more people poor

Well, you are really onto something Navy when you mention about how this issue has been "politicized".  The politicalization of this issue has been perfected by Obama/Sanders.  They are the ultimate political operators when it comes to "divide and conquer" strategy which is what this issue is about.  Do not unite, divide.  Have & have nots.  Rich & Poor.  Wall Street & Main Street. That has been the theme of his entire administration.  They have it---you don't--they are to blame, lets take it from them. 

Agree with #1
Agree with #2
Disagree with #2
Agree with #3a
Disagree with #3b is a rational tax policy is put in place by a rational government
Agree with #4
Not sure I understand #5

BTW: Can you articulate a bit more why you "understand" the hatred toward the rich? What is your understanding?

[crimsonghost747]

(04-07-2016, 09:24 PM)mikesdca Wrote: Anyway, after reading about 10 or so I came across one that just struck me as being wrong.  I tried to find the website again today but could not. 

The guy was 27 years old and he had a $100K portfolio, but he was showing his monthly income from it at it was only a little over $200.  That got me curious so I looked at the About page (nothing really), just a 27 year old guy. 

Then I found his income and expense page.  He listed his income which was mostly salary of a little over $4,000 (usual--hated his job) and then he listed his expenses.  Normal stuff, car payment, student loan, phone, food, dining out, etc.  No listing of rent or mortgage? On some page he mentions Bernie as if a supporter.  I looked at some other pages but nothing else about him--which just led me to believe he was a 27 year old, living with his parents and not really taking on any responsibility. Just a no account. not contributing anything, not even liking what he is doing for a living.  

I pulled my SS statement just last month and counted the years I had income from work.  36, out of 51.  That's right.  I was 15 and a half when I started working my first job and I still remember it. I had to get permission from my parents as I recall.  Different time. We were hungry to work back then.  We wanted the experience and any income we could get.  Parents did not expect you to be living with them 10 years out of high school.

I don't think it is hypocritical to call someone out who seems to be living the opposite way that our culture was when the country was strong.  That is self-reliance, patriotism, strong work ethic, sacrifice, etc.  What I think the problem is being 27, this kid has never known or lived in a country that still has those values.  Sad.  Makes me sad.

Well this guy is working and preparing for his future. He might not enjoy his job but you can hardly hold that against a person... he is working because of the income, not because he loves it. If that is a crime then I'd say at least half of the people in the world are guilty. I too have had jobs that I didn't particularly enjoy but I did them anyway since I needed the income. And I'm fairly certain that you too have had times during those 51 years where you weren't exactly thrilled to go to work in the morning.

The way I see it, the only thing that makes you hate this guy is the fact that he doesn't pay rent or mortgage. If he lives with his parents (which might not even be the case) I do think it's a bit odd that with such income he doesn't chip in, then again we know almost nothing about the situation. Maybe he lives with his wife/girlfriend and she takes care of the rent and he pays the rest of the stuff like groceries? Maybe his parents are old and through smart tax planning figured that it's better to pay his rent over several years rather than leave the money as inheritance which will of course be taxed? Maybe his employer is paying for his rent?

I just don't see what you have against people like him, who will probably become financially independent by 40. They have worked for it, they have planned it and quite frankly I'm very happy for them if they can truly do what they want for 40-50 years instead of being in the rat race until they turn 65.

[Kerim]

During my first few years out of law school, I was making good money, and saving a lot because I had few expenses (though I was paying rent!). And back then you could get 6 percent interest on a savings account! I was doing projections showing me completely financially independent by 45. (And that was before I even discovered DGI.) Then I got married. And bought a house. And had a kid. And then my kid got sick. Now I'm 46 and although I still save and invest, I wonder if I'll ever be able to retire. I applaud anyone who is considering and planning their financial future from a young age, but at 27, you have no f***ing idea what life has in store for you.