Um, I'll have a go at it!

1. Why? Because they went into a profession that provided them with opportunities for growth, promotion, and pay raises.
2. Um, because they can afford to? I don't know, charity is always nice, but compelled? I don't think so.
3. To me, rich means people who can afford a Rolls Royce without getting into debt up to their eyeballs. Well-to-do just means that you comfortably have the necessities of life and you can afford to have a little "fun" with your extra cash.

But that's just me.

Still generally but a little more specific:

I'll use an article I found online about the EU and the US.

The EU commentator was commenting that the EU is just as rich as the US and that the only reason why the US has more money is because Americans, in general, work more than Europeans.

That is true on an individual level. Rich people tend to work more. Poor people tend to work less.

I don't think you are being fair here. You can't really compare jobs based on how much more muscle you put into it. Jobs are basically based on how much you can produce. If a 19 year old with a computer and Internet can make $50,000 a year on eBay (an example) you can't discount his ability simply because he didn't lift a brick or a bag of cement thru out the whole year. Some people are smarter than others, some people are better at certain things. Everyone has a job that is needed (other wise the job wouldn't exist), it's up to the individual who does the job to decide if the job is worth the money and if they can do better.

People usually retire for 1 of 2 reason, they made enough money to live without working anymore or because they can't do the job anymore. Just because a rich person secures their lifestyle at a young age and decides to retire should not have to be judged just because he is rich. That to me sounds more like envy than a point.

Talent, dedication, ambition, and opportunity.



To a reasonable extent, it's good (and necessary) for us all to contribute to the welfare of our nation. There are some things we cannot do as individuals that we can accomplish as a collective.



It really, really depends on location (cost of living), family situation, and a ton of other factors.

A rich person to me would be someone who can afford most any luxury they could desire while still being able to maintain a large pool of money with which to invest and save.

In my mind wealthy and rich are different.

I have friends I consider wealthy. They live in high cost of living areas but make several 100ks a year. Even these friends can't just go and spend as they please. They may have a Coach bag where I have a Nine West from Ross, but they still have to save and work on their finances to upgrade their home or buy a new vehicle just like any other family.

Rich to me is more money than you can reasonably conceive of spending in your lifetime, even if you try really hard (and I would!). Haha.

I don't expect to ever be rich. I enjoy money as much as the next person, but I'm not willing to make the sacrifices involved to become wealthy (ha, and I lack the talent and foresight necessary as well, LOL).

That is so true. But the key word in you comment is "all". You see, they are wanting a certain group of people, let's be honest here, rich people, to be the ones to contribute to the welfare of our nation. Even more, they believe that the welfare of our nation is to make sure that whether you have the skills or not, the education or not, the abilities or not, that all should have the same wealth.

At this point I have to question, if a poor person deserves to have money given to them simply because they can not make enough on their own, why should my children have to educate themselves? Why should I bother sending my child to college, spend all that tuition and school material money, if when not educated and not spending the tuition and school material money will get you a paycheck anyways. A paycheck that you could live on since that is basically what what people like Loca and thinkAload want. Why bother tryibg to become better people when all we have to do is be in this country. Hell, you don't even have to be a citizen of this country. You need only to claim not to be capable of producing enough money.

Why are people wealthy?

Here's a few reasons.

1. Born into wealth. This is the traditional method. Most wealthy people are the children of wealthy people or born into a family which has regularly thrown up wealthy people. You could subdivide it into trust fund rich people and hereditary skills/attitudes rich people, but the difference is arbitrary for the question - they're both rich/wealthy because of their folks rather than a solely personal struggle against the universe.

2. The right idea at the right time with the right marketing abilities. This is commonly mistaken as luck, but really it's not so random. If you know what your idea is worth and release it properly, you'll be wealthy without having to work all that hard after the release.

3. Astute financial nous and instinct. This is your classical rich merchant personality. They know the value of everything and where and when to sell it for the best results.

4. Political nous. They have connections which lead to wealth. Their greatest asset is their personality, which is gregarious enough to attract attention and trust. These rich people are swindlers, politicians and some CEOs. Their actual abilities and the amount they work are irrelevant compared to their ability to make friends and influence them.

5. Military nous. These people are leaders of men. In the past they would go and conquer somewhere and rape it to extract the wealth. Today that sort of activity is frowned on. Mercenaries and corporate takeover specialists are the modern equivalents.

There are probably more, but these are the ones I can think of now.

why should they share their wealth with others?

Because it's the morally right thing to do and because it will do more for keeping the peace and protecting their wealth than any amount of security forces. Historically hoarders of wealth have lost everything to the peasants, the plague or foreign invaders. If money isn't circulating - whether through expenditure or taxation - money is wasted.

Fools and their hoards will be parted, whether for the right reasons or the wrong ones. That's human nature at work.

Define rich

Being conspicuously more wealthy than your fellows.

Virtually all Americans who are in the top 10% tile got there in their generation through their own work.

Nearly all of the wealthy in the United States (in terms of number of individuals) are small business owners.

Regarding why people should share their wealth

What does this have to do with what we're discussing. We're not talking about hoarding wealth. We're talking about money being exchanged for goods and services.

People who would take up arms and try to form a revolution are obviously people of action. In a healthy normal economy, like we have today and have had since the end of World War II (and for most of US history other than the great depression and the panic of the late 19th century) people of action are very successful.

The bottom 10% tile on the other hand, aren't going to revolt. They aren't going to do anything. You can barely get them to get off their asses and vote.  The bottom 40% tile are largely in that category too. They ain't revolting. If they're not motivated enough to get a job, they're certainly not going to be motivated to try to take down the government or revolt or whatever you imagine. It's a canard.

 

 

If we have a great depression, then by all means, the government should help. But when we're not in a depression, the government should scale back.  Right now, it's consuming about 20% of the GDP which is awful.

Sure there are folks who are rich because of Mommy and Daddy, but they're the exception to the rule.

Whenever this topic comes up, I see a few common reactions to explain why people are "rich"

Some have listed off "right place, right time" as being some unfair method, as if it was sheer luck that the person chanced upon the situation and somehow magically profited from it.  I know a lot of people who were in the right place and the right time but didn't bother to DO anything about it.  Luck and opportunity will only get you so far, after that you need to actually DO something.

Others have implied that it's due to increased mental or physical abilities, and that those advantages are also somehow unfair.  I know a lot of super-smart people who can't get a job.  Won't get a job really because they're not motivated to do anything. 

Then there's the whole "they won it at the expense of others!"  Unless we're talking about a sweatshop, or some illegal method, they didn't win it at the expense of others.  Just because those others couldn't realize and act on the opportunity doesn't mean that they're somehow victims of those who do.

It comes down to actually acting and doing.  You can have all the opportunity/luck in the world, but if you never recognize it and actually put in the work to accomplish whatever it is, then you're going to be stuck riding on the coattails of those who did make the leap.

Are they morally obligated to support those beneath them?  Absolutely not.  If I have two sandwiches, and you have none, it's not my responsibility to give it to you.  I may share it out of a sense of decency, but to tell me that I'm compelled to give that second sandwich up is ridiculous.  There is a difference between helping because you want to and helping because you are forced to.  One is charity, the other is bordering on theft.

1. Born into wealth. This is the traditional method. Most wealthy people are the children of wealthy people or born into a family which has regularly thrown up wealthy people. You could subdivide it into trust fund rich people and hereditary skills/attitudes rich people, but the difference is arbitrary for the question - they're both rich/wealthy because of their folks rather than a solely personal struggle against the universe.

This has been shown time and time again to be false (it may be in a Monarchial society filled with Dukes and Lords, but not in a meritocracy).  I have to ask why, given the preponderance of empirical data that shows the opposite, that this myth is perpetuated.

I agree that the values we are raised with matter.

Culture is the secret to success. If you have bad culture, you won't be very successful.

It's not having wealthy parents as much as having parents that instill values that lead to success.

I might point out that one of the reasons why conservatives tend to be very over-represented in the wealth demographic is because conservatve values are much more constructive to leading a successful life in the general sense.  People don't become conservatives because they become successful. They become successful because of conservative values.

Those values include working hard, having delayed gratification, perseverence, investing wisely.

Heck, these days, you can basically split the population up between people who are capable of delayed gratification and people who aren't.  The people who aren't we call Democrats.

Dont know about the land down under, but it has been sbown repeatedly that MOST poor are there only temporarily before moving into the middle class (in this country), or higher. And while some may say that Paris Hilton is rich, would you call her that? Or poor by almost every other definition.

Besides, we were talking rich. ANd the rich, in studies done in the states, clearly show that most made their wealth, they were not born into it. That is the myth I was referring to.