It's not rich people's fault they are born rich

Oh, you're born poor? Great why should you be treated differently than somebody who is born rich?

by Quinton Figueroa on October 19th, 2015

A person born rich doesn't choose to be born rich, just as a person born poor doesn't choose to be born poor. So a person born poor should not get treatment that a person born rich doesn't get. To treat a rich person differently than a poor person because they were born rich is not treating people equally.

So if poor people are really for equality and giving people an equal chance then they can't take money from rich people who were born rich. People born rich did not choose this. You can't give one side preferential treatment if you want to be fair and equal.

And if poor people are mad about people who were born poor and became rich you can't be mad about that. Other poor people can become rich too.

Perhaps what it really is is that poor people like making excuses.

 Filed under: Personal Development, Earther Logic, Greedy Poor People, Excuse Printing

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Los Angeles, CA

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...

More

5 Comments

Jm: My answer is to have complete

My answer is to have complete contraception so that no one is born anymore. The human condition is a travesty. If only there were someone in particular to blame.

Kyle Zheng: Treating people equally ≠

Treating people equally ≠ treating people the same.

Smith: How are poor people taking from the rich?

You're right people should be treated equally. You're wrong that poor people are taking rich people's money, unless you mean theft and we have laws against it. I can only assume you're taking the fox-centric view that paying your taxes is somehow poor people taking money from the rich, which isn't what it is.

You approach this topic as if philanthropy is a form of punishment. We ask people to pay taxes to provide basic services as a community. If we dont need a standing army, poice, firemen, or even garbage services, I think you've got a point as it applies to not paying anything for anyone else's benefit. If you're talking about some form of social safety net for peoople that have fallen on hard times, I'm not sure you why think this would be unfair.

The whole point of community spending is we keep the lowest level from falling too far, so we keep normal daily life nice for those with and those without. If we don't keep people from falling into the lowest form of poverty, the society unravels... high economic disparity creates increased crime and other types of violence, disparity in education and housing which creates shanty towns and ghettoes, homelessness, mental illness, etc. Look at some of the nations in central America, the Middle East, and south Asia for examples.

The scaling back of services in this country has created a very different lifestyle for people in America than we had in the fifties, where a factory worker could have a nice home and educate his children fully. The boom in the fifites was brought on by the protectionism and welfare of the new deal... once we started removing the planks of that new deal in the eighties, the country's quality of life started to slide. Now it's in freefall.

Many wealthy attempt to make the argument they can pay for their own schools, own police, and other services, again I point to the gated lifestyle for the wealthy we see in central America and the Middle East. You can get services there, if you're near home, if you're caught in the country or the other side of town somehow without protection, you're likely to be robbed and left for dead. And good luck finding good health services except in one city hospital because the country has been so eroded by the rich keeping to their own, that it's not easy to get good service anywhere.

Then look at Scandinavia and some parts of Europe where a decent lifestyle is guaranteed. There's no trouble getting decent services no matter what your income level. As America more and more slides into the third world, you'll see those than can afford it fleeing to better countries, unless of course America grows up.

Your point about poor people being angry about those who became rich is puzzling. This sounds like pure propaganda and I've never actually heard of it in the real world. The 'making excuses' point is also confusing - it sounds once again like you're using the propaganda point that poor people are lazy, and would rather make excuses than be wealthy. How would anyone in a capitalist society actually prefer to not have money? Since it's how problems are solved and you provide for your family, who doesn't want the power to help their family?? I'm not sure what media you're consuming, but this is not an educated or logical point of view. I *AM* sure however it's a great excuse for those that have been lucky enough to be granted loans, or fallen into a good business early in life (noone ever says they got lucky of course, even those born rich often tell you they worked for it or built it themselves) to look down on the those not "PLU". When you're able to see the poor as 'other' and in your way, or attacking you - it's much easier to abuse them and not care about their plight. The funny thing is this whole "Rand-ian" philosophy isn't new or novel at all, it's been used by artistocracies for hundreds of years (and centuries before that by royalty and the clergy). That attitude is the same, the treatment of the poor is the same, it's only the reasons provided for the behavior that changes.

Quinton Figueroa: "You're right people should
@Smith (view comment)

"You're right people should be treated equally. You're wrong that poor people are taking rich people's money, unless you mean theft and we have laws against it. I can only assume you're taking the fox-centric view that paying your taxes is somehow poor people taking money from the rich, which isn't what it is."

Taxation is theft.

"You approach this topic as if philanthropy is a form of punishment. We ask people to pay taxes to provide basic services as a community. If we dont need a standing army, poice, firemen, or even garbage services, I think you've got a point as it applies to not paying anything for anyone else's benefit."

We don't need taxes for any of this. We can pay for all services directly without taxes.

"If you're talking about some form of social safety net for peoople that have fallen on hard times, I'm not sure you why think this would be unfair."

Most poor people haven't fallen on hard times.

"The whole point of community spending is we keep the lowest level from falling too far, so we keep normal daily life nice for those with and those without. If we don't keep people from falling into the lowest form of poverty, the society unravels..."

Substantiate this.

"high economic disparity creates increased crime and other types of violence, disparity in education and housing which creates shanty towns and ghettoes, homelessness, mental illness, etc. Look at some of the nations in central America, the Middle East, and south Asia for examples."

No, low IQ does.

"The scaling back of services in this country has created a very different lifestyle for people in America than we had in the fifties, where a factory worker could have a nice home and educate his children fully. The boom in the fifites was brought on by the protectionism and welfare of the new deal... once we started removing the planks of that new deal in the eighties, the country's quality of life started to slide. Now it's in freefall."

How do you know it's not inflation caused through central banking and the Federal Reserve that has done this?

"Many wealthy attempt to make the argument they can pay for their own schools, own police, and other services, again I point to the gated lifestyle for the wealthy we see in central America and the Middle East. You can get services there, if you're near home, if you're caught in the country or the other side of town somehow without protection, you're likely to be robbed and left for dead. And good luck finding good health services except in one city hospital because the country has been so eroded by the rich keeping to their own, that it's not easy to get good service anywhere."

These places have different people than Western Society. They also have lower IQs.

"Then look at Scandinavia and some parts of Europe where a decent lifestyle is guaranteed. There's no trouble getting decent services no matter what your income level. As America more and more slides into the third world, you'll see those than can afford it fleeing to better countries, unless of course America grows up."

Scandanavian wealth was created through Capitalism. These locations also have higher IQs than most other nations. High IQ people are wealthier than low IQ people.

"Your point about poor people being angry about those who became rich is puzzling. This sounds like pure propaganda and I've never actually heard of it in the real world."

Not an argument.

"The 'making excuses' point is also confusing - it sounds once again like you're using the propaganda point that poor people are lazy, and would rather make excuses than be wealthy."

Correct.

"How would anyone in a capitalist society actually prefer to not have money? Since it's how problems are solved and you provide for your family, who doesn't want the power to help their family??"

Who said they wouldn't?

"I'm not sure what media you're consuming, but this is not an educated or logical point of view."

Why not?

"I *AM* sure however it's a great excuse for those that have been lucky enough to be granted loans, or fallen into a good business early in life (noone ever says they got lucky of course, even those born rich often tell you they worked for it or built it themselves) to look down on the those not "PLU". When you're able to see the poor as 'other' and in your way, or attacking you - it's much easier to abuse them and not care about their plight."

You can't complain about rich people getting lucky if you can complain about poor people getting unlucky.

This article was written for you:
http://www.slayerment.com/poor-people-choose-be-poor

Sam: Definition of luck

I see the word "luck" being mentioned a lot in these comments - but I don't think many people stop to define what "luck" actually means.

The concept of luck, in my experience, was invented by poor people who believe "luck" is all that separates a rich person from a poor person. It's complete fantasy but it's easy for a poor person to believe because they've already accepted this flawed idea that they have no control over anything that happens to them - so the next best thing is to make a blanket statement and say "Steve Jobs was rich because he got lucky" or "I'm poor because I am unlucky."

It's easy and lazy and that's the mindset typical poor "victims" gravitate towards - easy things.

It's also easy to believe in luck because it takes no work to be lucky and the primary strategy of a poor persons mentality is centered around "luck." It's the reason why so many poor people actually believe winning the lottery is a viable strategy because it's no different than the way they think about everything else - just live without thinking and hope to get "lucky" someday.

That's why they believe the rich deserve less because they got their money through pure luck. They think luck is random when in fact, luck is created.

Poor peoples definition of "luck" is random chance" while rich people's definition of luck is "choices."

Rich people say you can make your own luck - which sounds crazy to a poor person. If you replace "luck" with their definition, the statement literally becomes "you can make your own random chance" and that makes no sense. So poor people think making your own luck is insanity."

Scientifically speaking, making your own luck is perfectly viable and happens all the time. Think about it this way.

If you spend every day in a casino, you'll probably be poor. Why? Because the casino game is designed so the odds are against you. You have a 1 in 64 chance on most slot machines to simply break even. The chances are 3x worse to actually win money.

By definition, the casino game and the casino owner is "lucky" because their chances for success are higher than the gambler.

On the flip side, the gambler is by definition "unlucky" because the odds are against them.

The gambler out himself in an unlucky situation hence he is unlucky, and vice versa.

Poor people think that because the game is "rigged" they are "unlucky." That's all true. That game is designed to keep the gambler poor. But that does not mean it's the slot machines FAULT that the gambler is unlucky and poor. It simply means the unlucky person put themselves in a position that makes them unlucky. Simple.

Here's where the big difference between the rich and poor come into play. The poor person will continue to play the slot machine and continue being "unlucky" while the rich person chooses NOT to play this game at all because they don't want to be "unlucky" - and if you're not unlucky, you'll become lucky by default.

A rich person is smart. They won't put themselves into a position where they'll be "unlucky" and they'll avoid it at all costs. There's different levels of luck but it all starts with choice and choices are free to make.

By avoiding the casino entirely, the rich person is now "lucky" and the poor person that remains inside the casino gambling away will remain "unlucky" no matter how much they complain.

This is what people mean when they say the rich can "'make their own luck." It doesn't literally mean they become lucky and good things just happen to them for no reason. That's obviously ridiculous.

It simply means rich people habitually place themselves in lucky situations where the odds are NOT stacked against them. No matter how small or large the situation, the rich person will avoid any unlucky scenario which means making difficult choices and making sacrifices constantly to do so.

Poor people make do the opposite - they consistently end up in situations where the odds are against them and hence are always "unlucky."

This is where CHOICE becomes the determining factor in success. It doesn't cost any money to avoid the casino. A rich or poor person both are on the same level playing field when it comes to making CHOICES.

It is these choices that determine whether you live a "lucky life where good things happen to you consistently, or an "unlucky" life where bad things keep coming your way.

Bad luck is earned in the same way good luck is also earned. It's never random and people, for the most part, aren't just born lucky. Yes, some people are born in luckier circumstances - but they can quickly lose their luck if they make the bad choices - the same way a person born unlucky can become lucky if they make the good choices. Luck is never random even thought the actual definition says it is. The meaning of luck in the real world is anything but random.

But poor people have a hard time understanding that playing the slot machine in the first place (or watching too much tv, working less, having kids you can't afford, not learning new skills, getting into debt) is a choice. That choice is what will make you unlucky. But to become a lucky person instead of an unlucky person, you first have to AVOID any situation that is unlucky.

Poor people seem to make consistently bad choices yet expect to be lucky. And when they're not lucky they blame society and rich people for their bad luck. They believe "luck" is truly random and they think some people are magically luckier than others because the universe decided Bob should be luckier than Jimmy. That's ridiculous.

Luck is the outcome of good decisions while bad luck is the culmination of bad decisions.

The belief that "luck" cannot be controlled is one of the biggest myths that poor people latch onto. It's why poor people buy lottery tickets with terrible odds and hope to get "lucky" - while the rich find investments with odds that are in their favor and don't wait on "getting lucky."

To rich people, luck is a result. To poor people, luck is happenstance.

But at its core, in its simplest form,
The rich and the poor make choices and these choices define your level of "luck" in their lives.

Rich people think of "luck" as "choice." And choices can be controlled.

Poor people think of "luck" as "random chance." And random chances cannot be controlled.

From my experience, the way someone defines the word "luck" will define everything else in their lives. Luck is like the boogeyman. If you believe it's real, you'll never get out of your bed. If you understand luck is just the result of choices, you'll succeed. Simple.

Rich people believe they can create "luck."

Poor people believe "luck" happens to them.

Add new comment