Rich SOB Says Treatment Of Rich Like The Holocast

Being a terrible and ineffective leader born into a position is the exact opposite of being successful. How can anyone who has any understanding of Russian monarchy and the revolution compare public opinion of them to the perceived plight of the American wealthy? And I'm not even talking about the idle wealthy, those born into wealth, even the most despicable of the pop culture icons who've earned nothing don't compare to what the Romanov's did to that country.

He had to overcome the loss of a Parental figure, which is never easy.

Like I said they are loose examples used to illustrate a point, not all people who are rich, got so by hand outs. It is to show that there are situations which dictate how your life will turn out, that are beyond your control.

so you are saying that just because a person has a family set back and has to care for his siblings he should just give in to adversity. i know a few successful people who came from terrible families and circumstances that have become quite successful. I have no pity for people who give up. we have our whole lives to improve ourselves and our lives, personally and financially. only quitters make excuses for there failures.successful people learn from their failures and make adjustments.

I rather blame the environment I grew up in with why I am a failure though...


No pro athlete had to overcome growing up in a ghetto. Not having a father etc.

Nobody is saying anything about giving in to adversity. It's a simple example that input =/= output. Well put, unequal opportunity. Even equal opportunity doesn't yield equal successes, starting with that much against you drastically lowers your chances of success.

No what he is saying is that making such blanket statements about whole groups of people as you do right now is not the way to go.
When it comes to people there are no "on rule fits all", it all has to do with many factors.

I'm more of on the point that if a company can't survive within the laws of the land then the company was a bad business in the first place.

Like companies bitching about epa regulations...

A lot of that can be chalked up to laws changing faster than the company is able to adapt, which indicates an even more ridiculous mismanagement of the company.

True. But today idiots like to compare everything to the Holocaust.

Liberals like Bill Gates? His parents? Warren Buffet?(sp?)


You consider the last Czar a successful leader?

P.S

The entire German, Polish, and Russian branches of my family wiped out. That's why.

And for those who think that letter was about taxes or something....


From Slate, which in the sentence directly above their copy of the letter said:


P.S.

The entire German, Polish, and Russian branches of my family wiped out. That's why.

So, because Slate added that little comment, the topic of his letter is about taxes, even though there was no mention of taxes, nor anything that could even lead to taxes, in that letter? But the topic, according to a 3rd party, is about taxes?

And you don't see this as misconstruing his words to fit their agenda?

P.S.

What does your family have to do with the topic anyway?

true, laws change quite often, and large businesses take awhile to change, and it costs money to make changes.

Many poor people are poor due to the choices they make. I've seen people who could never afford to retire receive life-changing inheritances and yet wind up in the same exact position they were in a few years later.

The problem is lack of education, resources, and opportunity.

Unfortunately this is where business interests and politicians come into play. Yes, many of those business interests are funded by very wealthy individuals, however it is completely unfair to demonize anyone who is in a more fortunate situation than you, whether they earned it or was dealt a lucky hand in life.

Class warfare isn't the way to handle the matter. Most people who make a comfortable living pay much more in taxes than they should. Quite frankly, I believe a flat tax is the fairest system. Hong Kong has a flat tax and has a very high rating of compliance. It'd never pass here of course with a strong lobby backing CPAs and ultra-high worth individuals who aren't interested in closing favorable loopholes.

I see those who've grown up around me who continue to make poor choices and understand the hamster wheel they will forever run as a result.

This isn't about giving everyone a fish, nor taking away the other guy's two fish. It's all about finding ways to teach people to fish.

Her family was the quote unquote and were wiped out by the Third Reich. So on a certain level Perkin's analogy is infuritating to people of a certain descent.

That is the cost of doing business, I can see very few legitimate scenarios where laws shift faster than a private entity has the capacity to unless that company is grossly mismanaged. Most of the companies large enough to be largely affected by legislation should be able to adapt quickly as they are generally more liquid than smaller ones.

Whenever I see a successful and affluent individual I think to myself how one day with enough hard work, dedication, and possibly a little luck that could be me, I don’t say to myself, “F**k that guy, why’s he got so much sh*t?”

Now the “Rich SOB” in question here comes across like an a-hole, and as far as a-holes go I’ve met people that fit that bill spanning the entirety of the financial spectrum; I just think poor a-holes don’t generate as much enmity because people aren’t really envious of them…

envy is irrelevant, the poor don't generate as much enmity because their options are far more limited and they appear far less like spoiled children when they complain. As with any group, though, there are plenty of idle poor who embody the "f--- that guy" mentality.

Why is his little diatribe written in regards to a piece concerned with overly strict speech codes on college campuses?

Anyway, it's not difficult to see why public perceptions of the rich are largely negative. The idealistic dream of the American meritocracy was pretty much shattered when certain institutions were deemed "too big to fail" and summarily bailed out at the expense of everyone else. No high-profile prosecutions ever took place so, in the eyes of the average citizen, the top rung screwed up royally and got away with it scot free. Widening income gaps have left the majority sitting in stagnant water while a select minority have watched their take increase exponentially.

So the author's seemingly complete obliviousness to the root of his rich people problems is why it's hard to take his concerns seriously even if you're able to look past his indefensibly ludicrous analogy. To boil the entire issue down to the teenage princess mentality of "if you don't like me, you must be jelly" is a stupid oversimplification and indicative of some serious short-term memory loss.

Depends on the situation, from my experience smaller companies have more opportunities to be flexible, not so much with financial obligations, but practices and such. Larger firms take awhile to standardize, as it affects more people/takes more time.

let's look at it a tech perspective for a moment:

Say the government mandated all business encrypt their data, as a rather small business one could just load truecrypt on their devices, maybe have a consultant assist with management and key backups, etc. Could be done in a weekend.

Large organization: would have to devise a strategy, test and implement on thousands of devices, no matter which product they use, but typically would have to expand their licensing or buy a new product to cover everything with centrally managed software, taking weeks, if not months.

and considering the laws are getting even more complex, they add numerous stipulations to each, the part smaller businesses would have would be to be aware of said laws and how to implement them.

That's one advantage larger companies have: a legal team.

But I agree, it is the cost of running business, and the laws are bad enough, but the bureaucracies are beyond ridiculous, and have very little due process.

That being said: not a fan of the recent court reversal of the FCC's net neutrality.

I think the only reason why people make fun of "rich" people as shown in this thread is simply "Jealousy". Even deserving it's own topic.


And here's a quote to all those people who blame rich people for everything:

"It's not your problem if you were born poor, it becomes your f*ck*ng problem when you do nothing about it".

news flash people:

the boot strap myth is just that: a myth.

this thread reminds me of the poor white man fighting the rich white man's battle for the south in the civil war...

I feel sorry for you.

What bugs me about that topic, and I understand it's off topic, is that it's purely for monetary reasons. They label the internet as a means of communication or content delivery (generally a fairly narrow portion of the worldwide web) which implies that content providers are now subject to leveraging content based on the consumer. It opens the door to a lot of capitalization.

I will never understand how people who are demonstrably poor or, at best, middle class, can vehemently defend the exceedingly wealthy. I say with surety that not a single one of the delusional lunatics defending this article or its subject is actually rich.

There's a simple test: are you posting on an online forum? Then you're not rich. Rich people are busy making money, vacationing in the tropics, and eating live fetuses.

Seriously, though, defending the pecunious greed of those who pay less in taxes than people just shy of qualifying for food stamps when one is closer to the latter group than the former makes about as much sense as cows campaigning on behalf of steakhouses.

I think it comes from them buying into the ideal that if they work hard enough, they too will someday be rich. My brother-in-law's family is like this. They have been living in poverty for over 50 years but are convinced that prosperity is just around the corner if they keep working hard.

caught up in the system :| not everyone is ready to be unplugged, etc.

I like how the topic has started as 'Wow look at this douche bags lack of any sort of tact' to turning into 'YA'LLS JUST JELOUS *snaps fingers*'

Oi vea

Working Smart > Working Hard.

If you're not willing to apply yourself beyond your standard 9-5 gig, then you have no room to complain about career mobility.

Get the promotion, get an education, get a better job.

Nobody is responsible for your success other than you. Time to start acting like it.

Read my previous post again. I SHOWED that the letter in question did not mention taxes no mater what Slate thought.

I started this thread because I was insulted that some rich SOB compared his trials and tribulations to MY RELATIVES WHO WERE MURDERED AND SHOVED INTO OVENS. (But he didn't mention taxes.)

You are still wearing your reading comprehension - 20 glasses aren't you? Or you merely being deliberately obtuse?