Because people are insane and retarded.

This is the government's way of blaming their incompetence on the private sector. INstead of allowing AIG to go bankrupt, as bad companies ought, they acted like nothing ever happened and the company wasn't insolvent. If they went bankrupt, the contracts that guaranteed certain irresponsible people bonuses would have been null and void. People realize this, namely the Obama administration, but they will never demonize the government. It is always the private sector's greedy fault.

Furthermore, if everyone's whining about people losing their homes, why doesn't it matter that neglecting to issue bonuses (which any executive plans to get) will put those executives out of their homes! Sure, their homes are larger and more expensive than the average home, but in this market there is no way they could sell their houses. Even if they were lucky enough to find a buyer they'd be selling it for far less than they bought it for.

I'm sick of this idea that no rich person deserves sympathy. It's not like they didn't work their asses off for what they have. It's not like they aren't nice enough, friendly enough people. Sure, there are exceptions, but it's no more fair to say that all rich people are pompous snobs who gain wealth on the backs of "real" workers than it is to say that all poor people are drug-addicted criminals who want to rape your daughter.

Trust funds my ass. We don't live in an aristocracy. Sure, the sons and daughters of millionaires are probably going to be set for life. However, I think you underestimate the millions of people moving up in the world, people who started out middle class and then accumulated wealth through tenacious hard work. Some of the people who are getting shafted by these horrendous laws are the kind of people who are my peers right now. I have friends who are going to go out into the workforce pulling 70-90 hour work weeks. These are high-skill, high-stress, high-pay jobs we're talking about here. Not everyone's cut out for that. If someone is getting a bonus from a corporation, it means they have a job and so it means they aren't coasting the trust fund.

The whole grounded aristocracy, trust fund brat story is as much a fantasy as the rags-to-riches, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps story. They both happen, but neither of them are representative of the economic reality.

Socialist, there I called it you it :).

Beyond comfort, rather subjective term to advocate theft towards someone as well. Beyond whose comfort? A writer could be as comfortable in a shack as someone could be in a luxurious mansion. I don't think the government should be making judgment calls like this. And as Jason said, trust fund brats who maintain their wealth until their dying days are as rapidly occurring as the people who make a success from being of a lower class. And what's it to you that a person chose to gave their children money? I've known virtuous people who had rich parents, who wanted to work just as hard as their parents. I've also known yuppies who drank and partied on their parents dime. People need to stop acting like there is some kind of class warfare going on in America.

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

---

You can hardly survive in a place like NYC on 250K a year. It's all so ridiculous when you stop and really think about it for more than two minutes

---

I agree that wealth is relative, but I feel like a lot of people are surviving in NYC on less than $250,000 a year.  I'll still grant that in NYC $250,000 a year does not make you "rich" or anywhere close to it.

DEATHPIGGIE wrote:

---

And what's it to you that a person chose to gave their children money? I've known virtuous people who had rich parents, who wanted to work just as hard as their parents. I've also known yuppies who drank and partied on their parents dime. People need to stop acting like there is some kind of class warfare going on in America.

---

if the will to work exists independently of a financial backing, then a tax should be no impedence to a strong work ethic.  this is the difference between perspectives of entitlement and opportunity.

i knew a kid whose parents, for his 16th birthday, leased a BMW convertible for him.  however, since he didn't like it, they also leased an escalade.  this is an attitude of entitlement, not opportunity.

as far as cost of living goes, i don't feel sorry for people who choose to live in a city in which they can't afford standard necessities

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

---

That kid is not every well off person, and just because he got two cars when he was 16 makes you feel alright about him losing his home or job when he's 40?

Those people could afford to live in whichever city they reside. But like most people if they lose their jobs they'd have to pack it up and move somewhere else.

I don't get why since their situation involves a few more zeros, that we should treat them like savage animals instead of hard working people.

 

---

if his attitude of entitlement (about house, job, possessions) never evolves to a profound sense of opportunity, he deserves no pity for losing any of them

when was the last time you knew anyone (hard-working or otherwise) who received a taxpayer-sponsored bonus equivalent to a few families' lifetime incomes?

But Piggie, the government just can't sit around and do NOTHING while voters are looking at them to solve everything.