World's richest woman Gina Rinehart says you can be rich if you just work more. This from an heiress who inherited $75 million when her dad passed in 1992. She is Australia's elite but has a lot in common with America's one percent.
The Huffington Post reports that 70 percent of the super wealthy have a head start by working for their fathers. This fact was proven as each of last night's speakers at the RNC spoke about their fathers or grandfathers starting businesses. They all worked at those family businesses. Not one of them mentioned starting their own business. And the Republican presidential nominee? Well, he didn't exactly start out digging ditches.
Rinehart says getting rich is easy just "spend less time drinking or smoking and socializing, and more time working." She is implying that anyone not a billionaire is just lazy. Seems like she's right in step with the Republican party in the United States. She wants deregulation of business and lower taxes so she can get richer.
Last week Gina Rinehart failed to dump 5 percent of Fairfax after they reported a $2.73 billion loss. She's losing a few million while the "middle class" workers in her country slave away in her mines to feed their families. And to make sure she keeps making more money, she also wants workers to suffer with a lower minimum wage. Hmmmm...worker wages go down, her profits go up...sound like class warfare to anyone?
According to Rinehart, she's suffering from "socialist policies." Seems America isn't the only country with a "socialist" leader.
And by the way, it doesn't look like Rinehart has missed many meals. In fact, her gourmet grocery bill could probably feed a family of four for a week in a state like Mississippi.
To those of you struggling to make ends meet, don't drink any beer or smoke that cigarette. And definitely don't call your friends to socialize. Just wait for your $75 million dollar inheritance to come, then start working hard and you too can become one of the rich and famous. That's the new and improved American dream and apparently, Australia's dream too.
Image source: AAP
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 27
thanks for 'splaining, Australian nasty lady.
I have always been easy & available. Now - after seeing your picture - I am straight too.
Please call me so we can plan our elopement.
Hyper-Love
I am no longer attracted to you. So your lovey-dovey emoticons will no longer work their magic on me!
I only have eyes for another now. Here is my emoticon for my lovely & dearest schnookum pookums Gina Rinehart:
O
|\__O
/ / \
Does everyone but me believe that people who take whatever they have available and build it into something sustainable for their families is a good thing and should be encourage? Or does everyone believe that when a person dies everything they have acquired should be turned over to the State and disctributed to those whose families did not make the sacrifices and work smart to give them a better start in life?
Since the government has been encouraging the single parenthood or making grandparents make a second try at raising children, as if they will get it right the second time, does that mean we should be condemning everyone and everything they do becuase they didn't experience poverty and abuse growing up?
I am of the old school when parents were striving to help their children have a better life then they, and the children were to carry on the tradition. To hear that people who have worked for what they have be condemned for meeting and even exceeding their parents expectations maybe why we are seeing the quality of education decline, the jails fill, the debt grow, and government grow.
I heard a commentator on the Romney's after Ann Romney's speech claiming that they had not suffered, that they did not have to work for their financial and family success. He was saying that since Romney went to Harvard he was given what he has in life. I though a degree from any university was earned, including Havard, that once a person has a degree (with that and $5 you can buy a coffee) have to put it to use.
I say if parents stay together and raise a family where their kids go on to school, raise a family and over come the other trials and tribulation that they have worked at (earned it) they should be held up as a success and no demeaned and talk of as if they are failure.
I really don't care how much more someone has than me, for as long as they made it legally it does not infringe on my pursuit of happiness.
They supported the politicians & political parties that have given us such an enormous debt. So why shouldn't dead people be the first to pay for their sins? It's not like they're going to miss it.
Are you saying all who have died have made your sin of supporting an in effective political party so all of what they have acquired is given to the state or that since some have committed your (I can't recall anyone else calling it a sin) all must suffer the retribution to ensure that the few that should pay will pay?
"an" (singular) ineffective political party? How about the two dominant political parties that have given us this ginormous debt?
"...the few that should pay..." A sovereign debt means the whole nation owes it.
I offered a solution, and you - and the entire nation - reject or avoid it. Which is the attitude explaining why it is $16. trillion.
Are you saying,"A sovereign debt means the whole nation owes it.", that not just the dead but everyone one no matter their financial situation should be paying down the national debt? That would mean that if you have an income you would be paying more then you were recieving from the government?
Your suggestions for dealing with hyper-massive future unfunded liabilities, and our enormous deficit?
I am haven't suggest any ways to addres the current fiscal problems, I am trying to better understand your approach.
I have heard many times how we need to pay for the deficit, never about real spending cuts, and it turns out that they paying is only to be done by the 1% and if the other 99% of us have no responsibility. I personal believe if you aren't paying then you won't really care.
My question to you is, do you believe everyone should pay or only a select portion of the population should pay?
Source
Should someone making $25. in one year pay at least a tiny amount in F.I.T.? I am open to that.
Whereas pollsters note majority public rejection of higher taxes combined with majority rejection of reduced benefits on specifically named program after government program after government program.
"I personally believe if you aren't paying then you won't really care." In one regard you are incorrect, Duane: both F.I.T. payers & non-payers unanimously support politicians & political parties who have proven themselves spendthrifts with sovereign debt.
In another regard - you are. As we are still borrowing - we are not "paying" yet. When we stop borrowing, and start "paying" back, that's when Idiot Nation will start to "care" - witness recent repeated riots against government fiscal responsibility in Greece and Spain.
I can type until my fingers fall off, but the people of this nation reject such, & overwhelmingly insist upon learning the very hard way.
"A far cry from your 99% figure." Since I am one of the 99% don't believe I said that only the 1% should pay, what I was saying since President Obama and the Democrats want tax breaks for everyone other than the 1% and tax increases for the 1% that would indicate that the paying down of the debt would only be done by the 1%. I say this because if at the current tax rates/payments we are going deeper in debt so if the 99% don't pay more or payless that would mean that only the 1% would be paying for any debt reduction. Its back to what is being said not what is being listened for.
"though most pay other types of taxes." if none of this is Federal taxes than they would not be paying anything toward the national debt, and I must admit I was talking at the Federal level. Were you?
"recent repeated riots against government fiscal responsibility " people do what they are encourage to do or not discourage. It seems like rioting has been and anacceptable means of protest in Europe for many more than a few years, and they always were rewarded by consestions for their efforts. If they get rewarded for rioting then why would you expect them to do other than that, it takes the lease effort?
If nothing else keep sprinkling seeds of ideas so when the people are ready to learn there will be something for them to learn. The more sources the better.
Good points, Duane - which go a long way in explaining why I have long supported political alternatives - instead of our two major parties.
The rioting is a continuation of the unanimous lack of electorate responsibility. You (plural) get the debt you want from the politicians & their political parties. When the politicians can no longer borrow - blame game & temper tantrum time.
You are naive about the masses learning, grasshopper. The explanation principles:
“The splitting of the atom changed everything, save man’s mode of thinking. Thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe”
—Einstein
(The following goes for politics too.)
"The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked."
-attributed to H. L. Mencken
I am glad to make you smile. The question is do you believe one dillusion can be replaced by another dilllusion?
Then there is hope. Now we have to figure out what the new dillusion can be and how to best frame it for others to promote it.