Should rich people be able to do whatever they want?

[XemaSab]

Poll question: Should rich people be able to do whatever they want?

If a rich person wants to buy a massive house, or build a golf course, or own a private amusement park/zoo, or drive a Hummer, should they be able to?

[deadmessengers]

1. As long as they're paying their share of taxes...

...I could care less what they do with their money.

[MattSh]

53. Well, maybe you should....

If only a few people had 5000 Sq ft houses, and only a few people had SUV's, the impact on energy supplies would be minimal.

But when 100's of thousands, or millions, have either or both, it has a measurable impact on the demand side of supply and demand. Energy is a finite resource, becoming more finite every day. With more demand and less supply, the price of energy goes up for everyone. Not just the rich. If you don't mind paying 5% more, or even 2% more for energy because of the above mentioned people, that's your choice. I would prefer that everyone live in sensible houses and drove sensible vehicles so I don't have to pay extra to subsidize their extravegant lifestyle.

[Mend]

2. sure but they should not expect poor peoples' sons and daughters

to protect their freedom and liberties...why should the rest of us care if they are safe and sound.

[Codeblue]

3. I voted no

While I'm all for spending your own money on what you wish, when you start harming the environment then it's no longer your right to do whatever you want.

When doing whatever you want with your money harms people or animals, then you forfeit that right. Honestly, rich people think they can do anything. If I tried to do some of the things rich people do, I'd be sent to prison for a long time.

[ProudDad]

4. They should be allowed

to eat sh*t and die...

(That is, the ultra-rich, the real "owners" of this society)...

Serious answer -- return the 95% marginal tax rate on the real rich -- incomes over 1 million dollars per year and capital gains over 1 million dollars per year...

[EstimatedProphet]

5. So long as you don't significantly impact other people, or the commons

If someone puts up a $10 million mansion, that's their business - so long as they pay for it, they pay the upkeep themselves, and they don't hurt the land or other people's property or public property by doing it.

[XemaSab]

8. Who decides what an impact is?

(Besides me. At work. Today. FYI, there will be no impact on steelhead from the proposed project/action. :P )

[EstimatedProphet]

9. Well, that's one definition

I've done my own share of impact stuff too.

However, I think significant impact can be defined. Anyone can calim that any building has an effect, but is it an effect that directly negatively impacts you? Your business? Your property? Public property? that's where a case can be made.

And I'm glad to hear that about steelhead.

[XemaSab]

10. The definition of a significant impact

depends on where you're assessing it, basically.

And I think anyone who uses that much energy arguably impacts everyone else. Maybe not in terms of CEQA/NEPA, but in the grand scheme of things. :P

[mondo joe]

6. I think EVERYONE should be alllowed to do what they like with what's theirs,

provided they do not violate anyone else's rights.

That doesn't equate quite to doing "whatever they want".

[XemaSab]

7. But where is that line?

I think driving a Hummer is socially irresponsible, no matter what your wealth status. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

11. No, it's not socially responsible.

That's one reason to have sensible laws and to strongly encourage more socially responsible choices.

But the thing is that almost everyone makes socially irresponsible choices. It's easy to identify others', but less easy to change our own.

[KoKo]

12. Should they be able to .....just because they are able to?

That would depend on the circumstances.

[JVS]

13. not without criticism

[Wiley50]

14. They Should Pay A LIVING WAGE Even If They Don't Want To

And They Must Not Take Control of Our Government
And Subvert The Constitution

So, Therefore, I vote NO

[Quixote1818]

15. Not if they want me to vote for them. nt

[noamnety]

16. We regulate corporations

because if we don't, we know they will be incredibly irresponsible and destructive.

Hard not to see some similarities.

[porphyrian]

17. As long as they aren't infringing anyone else's rights, everyone should be able...

...to do whatever they want. The problem with the wealthy isn't the wealth so much as the corporate monstrosities they've unleashed upon the world to grow their wealth. When the rich employ sociopathic automatons (which is essentially what a corporation is) to reap profit, knowing the damage they are doing and who and what they are doing it to, it is irresponsible and unacceptable.

[Quixote1818]

18. Under the law: Yes Moraly: No

We all have a responsibility to take care of the world and be good stewards. It's EVERYONES world not a playground just for those who have wealth and power. Those with money have perhaps a greater responsibility than those who don't, because they have more power! With power comes more responsibility to do the RIGHT thing!

If you are in politics you have an even GREATER responsibility to be a good steward because YOU set the example for everyone!

[jpgray]

19. I think all people should live responsibly

But I won't reject the support of someone who lives luxuriously when it comes to fighting poverty. Too many extremely gluttonous and wasteful rich people have made a tremendous differences in millions of impoverished lives for me to agree to that. It's strange--I don't think anyone believes a life of egregious excess is admirable, and I don't believe that people think a rich luxurious person should do nothing to fight poverty even if he/she isn't doing "enough"--so why are we arguing about this?

[camero]

20. In an era of declining resources, No.

McMansions use more water, more electricity hence more oil and coal, more hazardous chemicals for the McLawn, thus leaving less for everyone else. Not to mention using up more land that could be used for food production.

[seabeyond]

21. should poor people be able to do whatever they want with their money.

say buy a pizza or that toy for the kid or the shirt they dont really need or that dependable car????

i really dont want to start getting to the place where we are even telling people how to spend their friggin money.

[jpgray]

22. Poor people getting everything they need would be a good place to start

[seabeyond]

23. i guess there would have to be a defintion of poor and need n/t

[jpgray]

24. Well, people who can't afford homes, food, education, or time to raise their kids are poor

And they need all thsoe things.

[sandnsea]

32. Because resources are finite

It won't be long before people will want to know how ecologically sound the local Pizza Hut is too. Everybody can demand that the people with the money use it in a way that enhances the plant. We don't have to wait around for the government to implement the regulations, we can begin demanding better from ourselves and those in our communities. And those seeking the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. ALL OF THEM.

[leftofthedial]

25. no. there should be no rich people.

the exorbitant wealth concentrated at the high end of a laissez fair capitalist oligarchy is no longer sustainable on this planet.

[Quixote1818]

28. Never in a million years will that fly, but unfortunatly it's the truth! nt

[marions ghost]

54. I have to agree

when you are talking about concentrated exorbitant wealth--ie. obscene wealth and the power that accrues to obscene wealth. This has a very detrimental impact on the rest of society. If people really understood this, they wouldn't feel so 'live and let live' about it.

[Jim Warren]

26. I'm not religious

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." Napoleon Bonaparte

[Zorra]

27. Yes, but maybe we need to start levying exorbitant environmental

impact and resource usage fees.

For example, make the annual registration for a private jet cost $250,000 a year. That might encourage wealthy folks to use public carriers instead of their own personal aircraft. Aircraft fuel exhaust is extremely damaging to the environment, and for one passenger to occupy a jet simply because s/he wants to fly from L.A. to Paris for dinner at Chez Pierre is disgustingly excessive in its relative damage to the environment.

Whatever, the necessity of preserving life on this planet will eventually force us to take some type of drastic measures to prevent excessive use of resources and further environmental damage. Unfortunately, lots of folks will not care whatsoever about what they do to the environment or how many of our natural resources they waste until they find that their beachfront property has become prime real estate for a school of sea bass, or their local aquifer dries up, or some other type of environmental catastrophe effects them up close and personal.

[Quixote1818]

29. This is what I love about DU

I know everyone hated all the different Edwards house threads, but that really opened up some great dialog and debate. It caused many on DU, including myself to really look at our heart and values and make some decisions about what is important. The debate took several directions, all very interesting.

You would never see this happen over at Freerepublic. Very little real disagreement over there.


When DU is arguing and debating is when it's most beautiful!

[Vidar]

52. I admire your outlook.

[marions ghost]

55. It's true

this thing about Edwards house has sparked a lot of good discussion.

[wiggs]

30. Weird, divisive, polarizing, vaguely offensive poll question.

What is the point? Is this a question about zoning laws? Building guidelines? Gas consumption? Income caps? Communism?

As far as I know, "rich people" cannot do whatever they want, nor is anyone suggesting they should be able to. The question is inflammatory. And what is rich anyway? To much of the world, someone living in Nevada in a 20-year old mobile home with running water and electricity is wealthy beyond belief. To the person in the mobile home, a homeowner in new condo in Fresno with community pool has it made...and to the condo-owner there's the next level up, and so on....

Yes. Most of us may have opinions about how materialistic some others are. I'm just so tired of grouping, name-calling, polarization, resentment, righteous indignation, etc.. Perhaps just coming back from seeing Children of Men has made me less tolerant of this kind of thing, but still....come on. No more...not us.

[Laurier]

39. What wiggs said.

cuz I couldn't say it any better myself. thanks.

[sandnsea]

31. They should be criticized for it

I don't understand why it's not okay for freepers to drive Hummers or poor people to shop at Walmart, but it is okay for a Democrat to do whatever the fuck he wants.

[Quixote1818]

33. Amen! nt

[JVS]

49. Yes

[ConsAreLiars]

34. Yes, but if they do these things before compensating those they stole their riches from

they should be hung. And eaten. There is nothing right or decent about any human being able to display their ill-gotten wealth in front of those they have stolen from. It is simply the typical arrogance of the privileged. They deserve no less misery than that they have caused.

[Raydawg1234]

35. You can't Legislate Morality

[JVS]

36. But is morality "None of anyone's business"?

[Raydawg1234]

37. Morality cannot be forced on another. It is up to us as individuals to attain it.

[JVS]

38. But is morality an individual or social concept.

Should there be social sanctions for not meeting societies' morality?

[Raydawg1234]

41. short of breaking the law.........no.

that would be tyranny.

[JVS]

42. So we shouldn't criticize people unless they are breaking the law?

[Raydawg1234]

45. what point does it serve, all you can do is live your own life.

anyways, thats my philosophy, either you get it or you don't.

[Quixote1818]

46. You are exactly right! I never understood guys like MLK Jr.

Gandhi, Jesus, FDR, JFK, etc. etc. What were they thinking trying to change things? Those guys were NUTS! Just let people live their greedy, self-centered lives! Thats the ticket! :eyes:

[Raydawg1234]

47. I'm talking more about legislation, you can't force people to change.

[Quixote1818]

48. Not force but teach

Attitudes do change over time if people work hard to get the message out. Take Al Gore for instance. He kept giving his speech on Global Warming and wondering if it would change peoples values. It took years and years of spreading the message before it started to take hold and people started taking him seriously. You can't just relax and hope things get better. You have to work your ass off for the things you believe in. If you work hard enough and others work hard enough then attitudes change. It's not easy but it necessary and worthwhile!

You don't see any pessimists on coins. Those guys worked their ass off for a better world!

[Quixote1818]

43. Well, thats not exactly right

A democratic society legislates morality by free debate and then voting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. It never bothered Marie Antoinette or Czar Nicholas II.

However, their conspicuous consumerism did upset the po' folk a trifle.

[koopie57]

44. hell no

no good reason for saying hell no, just cuz I'm sick of rich bastards tonight *LOL* I was reading Molly Ivans and Bushwacked and just felt sickened at the filthy rich and how they get away with everything when it comes to money. Who knows what they want next, they have no fricken shame. And those big mansions are always put up somewhere that the entire community enjoyed but the rich sob was able to buy it cuz he had money. I can't even count the number of places I would like to take my kids to but can't cuz the property is now private.

[marions ghost]

58. I have seen that too

the rich always take the best real estate. In places that are in full swing with this kind of McMansion development, the 'community' never even gets a pocket park. Local governments seem to have no ability to protect developing areas in ways that support the longterm health of the community, despite all the rhetoric. It's a land-grab of historic proportions and we will all regret it eventually, even those now living in those ostentatious houses on steroids.

[Katherine Brengle]

50. Uh, yeah??

Maybe it's not what you would do, maybe it's not environmentally resposible, maybe it's downright self-indulgent, but what do you propose as an alternative?

I can't say that a person should not be able to spend his/her money as he/she chooses because I support every individual's right to freedom and the ability to decide for him/herself how to live life.

And frankly, the very wealthy make up such a small portion of the population - I wish wealth weren't concentrated as it is, but that's a whole different issue.

[Vidar]

51. The majority of the rich are thieves & should be treated accordingly.

[annabanana]

56. Yes... IF they obey laws THEY HAVEN'T WRITTEN!

The laws in this country have been twisted out of shape and beyond recognition in favor of people with lots of money. What SHOULD be a curb on egregious greed is ineffectual.

[LeftishBrit]

57. I think that there need to be laws, and that everyone needs to obey them

So no, I don't think that the rich should be able to 'do as they like' by buying themselves out of obeying the law.

I also think that the rich should pay proportionately more taxes than less well-off people.

When it's a question of consumption, within the law, and within the income left after taxes, then I think that people should be able to do roughly what they like. "Within the law", however, covers quite a bit: e.g. you should not be able to build a big palace or private amusement park without getting planning permission, and you should not be able to get that automatically, without regard to the needs of other people in your locality.

[Fountain79]

59. I think if it is your money...

you are entitled to do whatever you would like to do within the bounds of the law. This doesn't matter if you are rich, middle-class, or poor. I don't think it is wise for poor people to spend so much of their money on the lottery but it's their choice.