C'mon, Rob. You know what I'm saying.
A lot of people who are rich worked their ass off.
A lot of people who are rich, didn't.
And a lot of people work their ass off and get nowhere.
Getting rich probably means you were naturally talented to begin with, worked your ass off, AND you were lucky. But you can still have all those things and fail, and many, if not most do.
As for "defining the level of income that qualifies as rich", that is exactly the question my opening post in this thread was asking before it was hijacked for political propaganda purposes.
"I bring this up on CE [as opposed to Flame]because working definitions of rich and poor are important when discussing contemporary political and economic life. Personally, I don’t believe anyone can be too rich, that is, that they should have some of their money taken away from them"
But apparently, the Thought Police didn't like that. I guess it wasn't reverent enough for their delicate religious sensibilities.
Read it again, carefully this time, and you will see I was trying to get people to think, on left and right. I wasn't trying to tell them what they had to think. I made no ideological claims, I did not take sides, I did not slam anybody or boost anyone else. I asked a simple question: what should be considered "rich". In fact, by my own personal definition, I consider myself wealthy, because I don't NEED any more money.
In fact, the only opinion I ventured was that the poor weren't necessarily to be blamed for their povety, and that I was concerned that in these hard economic times, when everyone is suffering, a tiny group of people is prospering like never before.
Can anyone really dispute that? Or is even saying that out loud considered "Communist" these days?