> Splint Chesthair: "No poor person ever gave me a job."
So what's your point? That poor people are worthless?
No rich person ever became wealthy without the thousands of poor and middle-income people who either worked for them or bought their products.
> Che is dead: "... the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent" of taxes.
And why shouldn't they? They own 40% of the wealth! Probably more.
And regarding the 40% of American who pay NO income taxes at all... they have no money left after paying their bills. I suppose you want them to pay their fair share and give the super rich a break? Sheesh.
> lulu: "And all the anti-rich sentiment is just nonsense, isn't it."
There is no anti-rich sentiment. It's an anti- "people who hate to help the poor, and make up all sorts of excuses for not doing so" sentiment.
> nifrek: "Hello people that are somehow annoyed by the article. I assume you are rich ..."
It has been my observation that it is not so much the rich defending themselves who make the rediculous comments you see here, but rather followers of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. They tend to be hard-working, healthy, white males with little capacity to think for themselves. They tend to be (self-proclaimed) strong Christians, but somehow forget the most important of Jesus' commandments.
I've often wondered who is more generous, the poor or the wealthy. I know that I became more generous myself after suffering hardship, and am more generous now that I'm somewhat poor than I was years ago when I had a great job and a lot of money. I was more self absorbed back then. BTW, that was when I was a conservative.
Like others, I've observed that poor people APPEAR to be more generous than wealthy people. But I think we need to remind ourselves that a wealthy person may be very generous but not one who wears it on his sleeve. Maybe he donates nothing at store checkouts, but hundreds of thousands to his favorite causes.
So while I find the study interesting, I take it with a grain of salt.
So what's your point? That poor people are worthless?
No rich person ever became wealthy without the thousands of poor and middle-income people who either worked for them or bought their products.
> Che is dead: "... the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent" of taxes.
And why shouldn't they? They own 40% of the wealth! Probably more.
And regarding the 40% of American who pay NO income taxes at all... they have no money left after paying their bills. I suppose you want them to pay their fair share and give the super rich a break? Sheesh.
> lulu: "And all the anti-rich sentiment is just nonsense, isn't it."
There is no anti-rich sentiment. It's an anti- "people who hate to help the poor, and make up all sorts of excuses for not doing so" sentiment.
> nifrek: "Hello people that are somehow annoyed by the article. I assume you are rich ..."
It has been my observation that it is not so much the rich defending themselves who make the rediculous comments you see here, but rather followers of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. They tend to be hard-working, healthy, white males with little capacity to think for themselves. They tend to be (self-proclaimed) strong Christians, but somehow forget the most important of Jesus' commandments.
I've often wondered who is more generous, the poor or the wealthy. I know that I became more generous myself after suffering hardship, and am more generous now that I'm somewhat poor than I was years ago when I had a great job and a lot of money. I was more self absorbed back then. BTW, that was when I was a conservative.
Like others, I've observed that poor people APPEAR to be more generous than wealthy people. But I think we need to remind ourselves that a wealthy person may be very generous but not one who wears it on his sleeve. Maybe he donates nothing at store checkouts, but hundreds of thousands to his favorite causes.
So while I find the study interesting, I take it with a grain of salt.