Do we need a wealthy class in order to maintain society?

[armyowalgreens]

I know that only a few days ago I declared that we need idealist bourgeoisie to help our movement.


But now I'm contemplating a statement often uttered by the right.

"Increasing taxes on the wealthy would destroy incentive to succeed". They are implying that the wealthy will leave the US or they will stop working hard. I'm inclined to believe that they are full of shit. Yet their statement raises an important question.

Could society function without the "wealthy" class? If we put the power of businesses back into the hands of the workers, do we need the classist system that we currently live in?

[YOY]

1. Define "wealthy".

n.t.

[armyowalgreens]

2. hmmm... I'm really trying to focus on the hyper wealthy.

Those individuals making well over $1,000,000 dollars a year. Millionaires and billionaires.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. What function do they serve?

A good many of them are parasites with no ability to make it on their own. I would argue that, as a class, they are responsible for many of our problems through their piggish ignorance, sense of entitlement, and psychopathic self-centeredness. Other than a few minor eccentricities like that, I'm sure they're fine folk, in the main.

[armyowalgreens]

20. Well a lot of the hyper wealthy provide the financial means for businesses and other projects.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. No, their wealth does that.

They do nothing. Often, they don't even make the decisions on how their money is invested, leaving that up to money managers.

[armyowalgreens]

25. Agreed. That's why I asked the question in the OP.

[NYC_SKP]

3. And define "society"... depends on what one expects society to be. nt

[armyowalgreens]

19. Society in this context means the entire community in the US.

[eShirl]

4. the wealthy work hard?

[deaniac21]

5. It should be a graduate level course.

[virgogal]

6. The definition of the word "society"varies. Means different thing to different

people.

[opihimoimoi]

7. Do we see Wealthy animals, insects, birds, etc???There are many clues from Mother Nature

that we should consider....No we don't need a wealthy class...what we need is a Smart Benevolent group of LEADERS who ere trained to do the best for the masses and for the Society in General...

[juno jones]

21. Consider the lilies....

I've heard that before, somewheres, some socialist guy...:)

...and you are very right!

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. I don't know that we need a wealthy class; but any system without it is tyrranical

and not a system I would want to live in.

Also depends on how you define "wealthy" - if it means merely the upper 10% of any society, then no matter what one does (outside of iron-fisted tyrrany) there will be "wealthy" people. If you mean those who have capital far beyond what the average is - say, beyond three sigmas - then that's a different thing. Non-iron-fisted things can be put in place to help keep the wealth disparity in check.

A wealthy class is a byproduct of any system that isn't an iron-fisted dictatorship that isn't worth living in.

And I don't believe that Republican meme of destroying the incentive to succeed. It might destroy the incentive to accumulate and hoard, or to screw others without measure, but most people are normal, and normal people are doing stuff because they enjoy doing it and want to be better at it, and measure their success that way. Except, of course, Republicans, who apparently measure a successful life only the shit that was accumulated during it.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Depends upon which economic theory and model you wish to adhere to the society.

[treestar]

11. The wealthy don't work harder than others

We don't need the class that inherits wealth.

Talking about the ones who invented something or worked smartly enough to make big companies that give the rest of us jobs, I suppose we could say we need those individuals, at least we do with a population high enough that we can't all hunt and gather or farm and we expect modern conveniences.

Supposedly wealth is the only thing that rewards those innovators, but it is an open question whether they would sit and do nothing without the incentive of extreme wealth. There's a point where you have to use the brain you have or you go nuts. I bet they would continue to use their talents with a modest reward for it.

Take singers - there are many who did not become rich and famous, yet they don't quit singing. They sing in the church choir or somewhere.

[izquierdista]

12. It did until money was invented

Primitive cultures were very egalitarian, sharing what little they had. It was not until "civilization" began that some figured out how to take more from others and then be envied for it.

[customerserviceguy]

13. I think it does serve an incentive purpose

but that purpose is lost when the wealth is inherited. Estate taxes may just be the solution, they allow people to accumulate wealth from extraordinary deeds done that society deems worthy of paying for in a free market, but then it forces them to choose which charitable organizations they want to benefit after they no longer can use the benefits of that wealth.

Again, I'm not so naive to believe that all people being paid over a million dollars are anywhere worth it. But if Oprah Winfrey can make that kind of money by doing what she does, openly and without government subsidy or protective legislation, shouldn't she be entitled to keep it, subject to reasonable taxation levels?

[NightWatcher]

14. kings and slaves, lords and serfs, ceo's and minimum wagers

It's been this way for HOW long now?

[CrispyQ]

15. I don't think the problem is class as much as it's a lack of community.

Our sense of community has become more & more limited & exclusive as we revere extreme individualism. Instead of a "we're all in this together" attitude, we have cultivated a dog-eat-dog, cut throat, fuck anyone for a dime mentality. An individual can operate successfully only within the context of a healthy & robust community. As our communities fail, so do more & more individuals.

To those who much has been given, much will be expected. It's shameful that this no longer applies.

[LostInAnomie]

16. They'd like for us to believe we do.

[KansDem]

17. I think we could point to the events of the last 30 years of so...

Ronald Reagan called for tax cuts on the wealthy as part of his "trickle-down" theory. Supposedly, the wealthy would take their new-found wealth and invest in American business and industry, creating jobs and increased payrolls. It didn't work. Instead the wealthy took their swag and squirreled it away in offshore bank accounts in an attempt to avoid paying US taxes. As a result, we have record unemployment, stagnant wages, and more and more jobs disappearing.

That's the legacy of Reaganism.

If you can point out to me how wealth maintains society, I'd like to hear it...

[seabeyond]

18. you will always have the wealthy. always the poor. and always the in the middle

it doesnt matter what system on this earth....

it is an always

[mitchum]

22. Only for eating

[Vidar]

24. The Robber Class is only necessary to itself.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. Absolutely!

We once had a really high tax rate for the super-rich and the US imploded and hasn't been heard from since.

(If you need the tag...)

[armyowalgreens]

27. I'll have to save that.

[emilyg]

28. How many times in your lifetime has

a poor person given you a job?