One billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?

[earthling01]

So you want to stop freedom (which you and the OP dub 'redistribution of wealth') with a government imposed redistribution of wealth

Yeah.. you're a few fries short of a happy meal

I see you still have plenty of insults, but still have not answered the OP's question.
Nevertheless, I will address your point about freedom instead.

You assume that the govt-imposed limits on your wealth (e.g. taxes) is a limit on your personal "freedom", correct? Freedom cannot be compromised or limited from your perspective. To a certain extent, I agree with you.

Now try to envision a world where one's wealth (and freedom) can not be limited by the govt.

Can you see how much society has lost as a result of not limiting personal wealth? Can you see where it will be ten or twenty years down the road if the trend is allowed to continue, when the wealth amassed by billionaires (I assume you are not one of them) has reached the point of no return?

Can you imagine a huge division between the "haves" and the "have nots", where one percent of the population owns 90% of the wealth and real estate, sitting on trillions of personal wealth with no incentive to invest it, while the rest of us are working 12-16 hour days just to hold on to what we have?

I assume you have seen this scenario is other parts of the world (India, Mexico, Somalia, Bangladesh). And I suggest to you that that is exactly where we are going as a nation...into the domain of the Third-World. And I suggest that the GOP (and their wealthy constituents) are leading the way. I suggest that you may want to reconsider how your position (and arrogant tone) on this issue will affect you and all Americans one day.

I think when that day comes, you may take a different view of the "freedom" you cherish because there will be very little freedom left for you. What value is freedom to those who cannot get health care, education, housing and cannot retire while the wealthy hoard their billions?

And do not expect your wealthy friends to show any appreciation for your support once they are on top and you are far, far below. And that point, we are all f*&ked.

So do not take a narrow view of this issue. You may choose your freedom to amass wealth over the need to limit wealth. But like many things, unfortunately, there are grave social implications for not imposing limits on freedom. I suggest you take note of where we are going as a nation, and what will happen if nothing changes our current direction (as your comments prescribe).

It's scary how ass backwards you have things... Mainly because you believe so absolutely in taking what is not yours by force.

I see that you still have not answered the OP's question.
I only see a lot of excuses why feel you should not answer the question.

C'mon. Give us your best shot.
I'm sure we'll all feel better educated afterwards.

 

[Avorysuds]

I see you still have plenty of insults, but still have not answered the OP's question.
Nevertheless, I will address your point about freedom instead.

You assume that the govt-imposed limits on your wealth (e.g. taxes) is a limit on your personal "freedom", correct? Freedom cannot be compromised or limited from your perspective. To a certain extent, I agree with you.

Now try to envision a world where one's wealth (and freedom) can not be limited by the govt.

Can you see how much society has lost as a result of not limiting personal wealth? Can you see where it will be ten or twenty years down the road if the trend is allowed to continue, when the wealth amassed by billionaires (I assume you are not one of them) has reached the point of no return?

Can you imagine a huge division between the "haves" and the "have nots", where one percent of the population owns 90% of the wealth and real estate, sitting on trillions of personal wealth with no incentive to invest it, while the rest of us are working 12-16 hour days just to hold on to what we have?

I assume you have seen this scenario is other parts of the world (India, Mexico, Somalia, Bangladesh). And I suggest to you that that is exactly where we are going as a nation...into the domain of the Third-World. And I suggest that the GOP (and their wealthy constituents) are leading the way. I suggest that you may want to reconsider how your position (and arrogant tone) on this issue will affect you and all Americans one day.

I think when that day comes, you may take a different view of the "freedom" you cherish because there will be very little freedom left for you. What value is freedom to those who cannot get health care, education, housing and cannot retire while the wealthy hoard their billions?

And do not expect your wealthy friends to show any appreciation for your support once they are on top and you are far, far below. And that point, we are all f*&ked.

So do not take a narrow view of this issue. You may choose your freedom to amass wealth over the need to limit wealth. But like many things, unfortunately, there are grave social implications for not imposing limits on freedom. I suggest you take note of where we are going as a nation, and what will happen if nothing changes our current direction (as your comments prescribe).

It's scary how ass backwards you have things... Mainly because you believe so absolutely in taking what is not yours by force.

I see that you still have not answered the OP's question.
I only see a lot of excuses why feel you should not answer the question.

C'mon. Give us your best shot.
I'm sure we'll all feel better educated afterwards.

To re-answer the OP’s highly intellectually challenged question: Neither is “better” for the economy as they both have their place in the economy. Again the argument can then be used on a millionaire VS people making 100,000.

Everything is relative, a billionaires ability to invest over someone with 25 million is insane. Even if the billionaire never invests (lol), eventually that billionaire will die, the money will be distributed and at some point spent by others who are now “millionaires.”

So here, answer this question for me. What is better for the economy, a millionaire or 100 people making 500,000 a year. Then answer another question. What is better for the economy, someone making 500,000 a year or 5 people making 100,000 a year? What is better for the economy, a person making 100,000 a year or 2 people making 50,000 a year…. What is better 1 person making 50,000 or 4 people making 12,500 a year?


You can see how you lost this debate... I hope. Once you make the argument about someone making "too much" money, you have to define what is too much money to be making... But, all that has to happen is someone does not agree with your magical line in the sand and believes your number is still too much money for someone to have. You would have no way to stop the process that you started.

 

[earthling01]

Fact: Democrats and Obama gave billions away in bailouts and handouts to "the rich"

Fact: Democrats and Obama have not raised a single tax on the rich.

Fact: The rich are doing better under Obama than ever before.

Fact: Rich people support Dems and Obama because Dems and Obama know how to trick fools like you into thinking they will one day raise taxes on the very people they hand money to.

Fact: You will only see me as a Republican rather than own up that you support the biggest war party in history who also prints money to give to the rich.

Now THAT sh*t is scary...

 

[Avorysuds]

Fact: Democrats and Obama gave billions away in bailouts and handouts to "the rich"

Fact: Democrats and Obama have not raised a single tax on the rich.

Fact: The rich are doing better under Obama than ever before.

Fact: Rich people support Dems and Obama because Dems and Obama know how to trick fools like you into thinking they will one day raise taxes on the very people they hand money to.

Fact: You will only see me as a Republican rather than own up that you support the biggest war party in history who also prints money to give to the rich.

Now THAT sh*t is scary...

I 100% agree... So I hope you didn't vote Dem at all last election.

 

[Borillar]

It's scary how ass backwards you have things... Mainly because you believe so absolutely in taking what is not yours by force.

I see that you still have not answered the OP's question.
I only see a lot of excuses why feel you should not answer the question.

C'mon. Give us your best shot.
I'm sure we'll all feel better educated afterwards.

To re-answer the OP’s highly intellectually challenged question: Neither is “better” for the economy as they both have their place in the economy. Again the argument can then be used on a millionaire VS people making 100,000.

Everything is relative, a billionaires ability to invest over someone with 25 million is insane. Even if the billionaire never invests (lol), eventually that billionaire will die, the money will be distributed and at some point spent by others who are now “millionaires.”

So here, answer this question for me. What is better for the economy, a millionaire or 100 people making 500,000 a year. Then answer another question. What is better for the economy, someone making 500,000 a year or 5 people making 100,000 a year? What is better for the economy, a person making 100,000 a year or 2 people making 50,000 a year…. What is better 1 person making 50,000 or 4 people making 12,500 a year?


You can see how you lost this debate... I hope. Once you make the argument about someone making "too much" money, you have to define what is too much money to be making... But, all that has to happen is someone does not agree with your magical line in the sand and believes your number is still too much money for someone to have. You would have no way to stop the process that you started.

Republicans would have us believe that those making over 250K a year are barely getting by, while simultaneously believing that a teacher or cop making 60K is severely overpaid.

 

[Sallow]

1) Buffet is a con-man and he has a ton of people snowed
2) IT IS NOT FUCKING GOVERNMENT'S JOB IN A FREE SOCIETY TO EQUALIZE OUTCOME... you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Funny that.

The Dock Workers threatened to strike just recently..and the major retailers, you know, the billionaires, were begging, hat in hand..for the government to intervene.

As they always do.

As they always will.

Right before complaining about to much government.

 

[earthling01]

To re-answer the OP’s highly intellectually challenged question: Neither is “better” for the economy as they both have their place in the economy. Again the argument can then be used on a millionaire VS people making 100,000.

Everything is relative, a billionaires ability to invest over someone with 25 million is insane. Even if the billionaire never invests (lol), eventually that billionaire will die, the money will be distributed and at some point spent by others who are now “millionaires.”

So here, answer this question for me. What is better for the economy, a millionaire or 100 people making 500,000 a year. Then answer another question. What is better for the economy, someone making 500,000 a year or 5 people making 100,000 a year? What is better for the economy, a person making 100,000 a year or 2 people making 50,000 a year…. What is better 1 person making 50,000 or 4 people making 12,500 a year?


You can see how you lost this debate... I hope.

OK, that's an honest attempt at addressing the question. But, of course, I need to inject some reality.

It's true that everything is relative. So if we take your same "compounding" argument in a new direction, you will see where I win the debate.

The middle-class is what drives the economy. They are educated, skilled, and productive. When a select few billionaires continue to amass wealth, the middle-class deteriorates below the poverty line (although a few will move up into the millionaire realm, leaving nobody in the middle) because their cost of living is controlled by those who own land and control both prices AND wages.

The remaining millionaires become the new middle-class, but are far fewer, and follow the same fate as the middle-class, who are now the poor. The billionaires are now "trillionaires". As this cycle continues over the net few decades, the end-game is a handful of people in the world with ALL of the power and the rest of the entire planet struggling to survive. The whole world becomes the "Third-World".

When those trillionaires die, they leave their wealth to their children, who pass it on to their grandchildren...

You may call it science-fiction if you wish, but I see no evidence preventing it from happening exactly like that.

The OP's question suggests that we increase the number of wealthy people by limiting how far we can go in one direction. That IS the reversal of the present perilous direction out nation is going...

 

[SniperFire]

1) Buffet is a con-man and he has a ton of people snowed
2) IT IS NOT FUCKING GOVERNMENT'S JOB IN A FREE SOCIETY TO EQUALIZE OUTCOME... you have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail

Funny that.

The Dock Workers threatened to strike just recently..and the major retailers, you know, the billionaires, were begging, hat in hand..for the government to intervene.

As they always do.

As they always will.

Right before complaining about to much government.

It escapes you, swallow, that it is only because of too much government that the retailers can be held hostage by unionized thugs instead of laughing in their faces and opting for alternative low-skilled workers to unload their cargo.

 

[bripat9643]

With a million bucks, I could pay off my mortgage, settle all my debts, send my kid through college, and retire comfortably. If a million bucks is "nothing", send some my way.

It's charming to observe you gloating about what you'd like to do with money that someone else earned. How beautifully liberal!

If a million bucks is nothing, why is everyone on the right so upset about union workers, teachers, etc, getting paltry salaries not even 1/10th of that?

Perhaps it's because we have to pay those salaries, you fucking moron.

 

[Avorysuds]

I see that you still have not answered the OP's question.
I only see a lot of excuses why feel you should not answer the question.

C'mon. Give us your best shot.
I'm sure we'll all feel better educated afterwards.

To re-answer the OP’s highly intellectually challenged question: Neither is “better” for the economy as they both have their place in the economy. Again the argument can then be used on a millionaire VS people making 100,000.

Everything is relative, a billionaires ability to invest over someone with 25 million is insane. Even if the billionaire never invests (lol), eventually that billionaire will die, the money will be distributed and at some point spent by others who are now “millionaires.” Are you admitting millionaires are good? Why are they good but a others are bad? How did you come to this?

So here, answer this question for me. What is better for the economy, a millionaire or 100 people making 500,000 a year. Then answer another question. What is better for the economy, someone making 500,000 a year or 5 people making 100,000 a year? What is better for the economy, a person making 100,000 a year or 2 people making 50,000 a year…. What is better 1 person making 50,000 or 4 people making 12,500 a year?


You can see how you lost this debate... I hope. Once you make the argument about someone making "too much" money, you have to define what is too much money to be making... But, all that has to happen is someone does not agree with your magical line in the sand and believes your number is still too much money for someone to have. You would have no way to stop the process that you started.

Republicans would have us believe that those making over 250K a year are barely getting by, while simultaneously believing that a teacher or cop making 60K is severely overpaid.

I'm not sure what you want me to say, I already pointed out that you're predictable as to write me off as a Republican because I don't agree with you, furthermore you changed the subject when I proved the insanity of the OP and I assume you as you seem to agree with him.

My answer might not be the best seeing as there are many answers proving how delusional the concept is of capping wealth. You seem to be hung up on party VS party rather than the answer, meaning you will probably be stuck for quite some time really just arguing Republican VS Democrat rather than bettering yourself by learning and accepting the answer to the problem you claim to be “debating.”

I don’t go easy on the Progressive mind. Progressives think themselves the smartest in the bunch despite usually having no meaningful education or successes in their own lives. Usually a Progressive bases all their positions off a feeling while demanding everyone accept their position as truth despite giving absolutely no data/information/plan as to how or why their ideas work.

For instance, why are 1,000 millionaires better than a billionaire? What instance do you draw from to prove it is? What happens if the millionaires you draw your example from amassed their fortune working under or with a billionaire?

Are you or the OP suggesting that if you steal a billionaires money and hand it out that the economy will boom? Sure, I’d agree it would in the short run as well. More people buying homes and so on, but look at the bubble you created, housing prices would sharply spike, making 1 million worth far less. Don’t believe me? Look at what happened leading up to the crash, easy money allowed people to invest and we had a few bubbles build up and then burst.

Reality and truth have proven me correct undoubtedly…

 

[Avorysuds]

To re-answer the OP’s highly intellectually challenged question: Neither is “better” for the economy as they both have their place in the economy. Again the argument can then be used on a millionaire VS people making 100,000.

Everything is relative, a billionaires ability to invest over someone with 25 million is insane. Even if the billionaire never invests (lol), eventually that billionaire will die, the money will be distributed and at some point spent by others who are now “millionaires.”

So here, answer this question for me. What is better for the economy, a millionaire or 100 people making 500,000 a year. Then answer another question. What is better for the economy, someone making 500,000 a year or 5 people making 100,000 a year? What is better for the economy, a person making 100,000 a year or 2 people making 50,000 a year…. What is better 1 person making 50,000 or 4 people making 12,500 a year?


You can see how you lost this debate... I hope.

OK, that's an honest attempt at addressing the question. But, of course, I need to inject some reality.

It's true that everything is relative. So if we take your same "compounding" argument in a new direction, you will see where I win the debate.

The middle-class is what drives the economy. They are educated, skilled, and productive. When a select few billionaires continue to amass wealth, the middle-class deteriorates below the poverty line (although a few will move up into the millionaire realm, leaving nobody in the middle) because their cost of living is controlled by those who own land and control both prices AND wages.

The remaining millionaires become the new middle-class, but are far fewer, and follow the same fate as the middle-class, who are now the poor. The billionaires are now "trillionaires". As this cycle continues over the net few decades, the end-game is a handful of people in the world with ALL of the power and the rest of the entire planet struggling to survive. The whole world becomes the "Third-World".

When those trillionaires die, they leave their wealth to their children, who pass it on to their grandchildren...

You may call it science-fiction if you wish, but I see no evidence preventing it from happening exactly like that.

The OP's question suggests that we increase the number of wealthy people by limiting how far we can go in one direction. That IS the reversal of the present perilous direction out nation is going...

I thank you for trying to debate me, I'm sorry I can be an ass but I think its understandable on these boards.

I still disagree with your perspective. I believe that the crash should have been a market correction, instead Obama/Bush/Dems/Reps bailed out rich people. That was to be the correction from all the malinvestment. It was not allowed to happen, thus we have a growing divide that would have ended.

Obama saved the country from a Depression (lol not really) but all he really did was make the rich richer and the poor poorer and more dependant.

Remember Obama's stimulus was 800 billion, that's freakish amounts of money... Where did it go? It sure as fuck never made it to the middle class or the poor.

 

[earthling01]

I thank you for trying to debate me, I'm sorry I can be an ass but I think its understandable on these boards.

I still disagree with your perspective. I believe that the crash should have been a market correction, instead Obama/Bush/Dems/Reps bailed out rich people. That was to be the correction from all the malinvestment. It was not allowed to happen, thus we have a growing divide that would have ended.

Obama saved the country from a Depression (lol not really) but all he really did was make the rich richer and the poor poorer and more dependant.

Remember Obama's stimulus was 800 billion, that's freakish amounts of money... Where did it go? It sure as fuck never made it to the middle class or the poor.

Unfortunately, I cannot disagree with anything you wrote here (especially the part about you being a bit of an ass...). Just kidding.

Seriously though, how bad would it be to limit personal wealth to one billion dollars? Just raise the federal tax rate on billionaires (that is everything you make beyond $1 billion per year) to 100%. Would that wreck the economy? Would those billionaires go into poverty? Who could not make ends meet on $1 billion/year???

(Talk about "freedom"; is that really freedom at that point? Sounds more like a mental illness to me...!)

And for the record, I do not agree with the accusation that progressives (myself included) are taking what is not rightfully theirs. I am not necessarily against amassing wealth; I am against amassing wealth and shipping that wealth overseas along with American jobs! THAT is what really gets me PISSED!

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[earthling01]

Oops! Let me try posting that again.

I thank you for trying to debate me, I'm sorry I can be an ass but I think its understandable on these boards.

I still disagree with your perspective. I believe that the crash should have been a market correction, instead Obama/Bush/Dems/Reps bailed out rich people. That was to be the correction from all the malinvestment. It was not allowed to happen, thus we have a growing divide that would have ended.

Obama saved the country from a Depression (lol not really) but all he really did was make the rich richer and the poor poorer and more dependant.

Remember Obama's stimulus was 800 billion, that's freakish amounts of money... Where did it go? It sure as fuck never made it to the middle class or the poor.

Unfortunately, I cannot disagree with anything you wrote here (especially the part about you being a bit of an ass...). Just kidding.

Seriously though, how bad would it be to limit personal wealth to one billion dollars? Just raise the federal tax rate on billionaires (that is everything you make beyond $1 billion per year) to 100%. Would that wreck the economy? Would those billionaires go into poverty? Who could not make ends meet on $1 billion/year???

(Talk about "freedom"; is that really freedom at that point? Sounds more like a mental illness to me...!)

And for the record, I do not agree with the accusation that progressives (myself included) are taking what is not rightfully theirs. I am not necessarily against amassing wealth; I am against amassing wealth and shipping that wealth overseas along with American jobs! THAT is what really gets me PISSED!

Wouldn't you agree?
__________________

 

[blackhawk]

There is nothing stopping Buffet or anyone else for that matter from paying as much extra in income taxes as they want if all these rich people usually liberal who say they would not mind paying more in taxes really mean it then write the check already.

 

[earthling01]

There is nothing stopping Buffet or anyone else for that matter from paying as much extra in income taxes as they want if all these rich people usually liberal who say they would not mind paying more in taxes really mean it then write the check already.

I'm sorry, but what would be the point of that? Just one person paying more than he owes? How would that impact the economy or the direction our country is going?

The OP's question is important because it raises concern about the economic perils of amassing too much wealth in the hands of too few individuals. That means that the entire system is growing increasingly lop-sided and, hence, requires EVERYONE earning more than $250, 000/year to pay more taxes.

(Keep in mind, the rate will only go up ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OVER $250,000, AND NOT THE INITIAL PART BELOW $250,000).

One or two people paying more will have a negligible effect.

I am not the OP, but I feel obligated to keep this issue in the forefront because it is central to the future of the American middle class.

 

[blackhawk]

There is nothing stopping Buffet or anyone else for that matter from paying as much extra in income taxes as they want if all these rich people usually liberal who say they would not mind paying more in taxes really mean it then write the check already.

I'm sorry, but what would be the point of that? Just one person paying more than he owes? How would that impact the economy or the direction our country is going?

The OP's question is important because it raises concern about the economic perils of amassing too much wealth in the hands of too few individuals. That means that the entire system is growing increasingly lop-sided and, hence, requires EVERYONE earning more than $250, 000/year to pay more taxes.

(Keep in mind, the rate will only go up ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OVER $250,000, AND NOT THE INITIAL PART BELOW $250,000).

One or two people paying more will have a negligible effect.

I am not the OP, but I feel obligated to keep this issue in the forefront because it is central to the future of the American middle class.

I f you will note I said there is nothing keeping Buffet or anyone else from paying more if they want to not just Buffet and keep in mind raising taxes on those making over 250,000 would only pay for about eight day's of current government spending.Taxing the rich more sounds good and makes people feel good but it does nothing to change the economy or the direction our country is going your going to have to cut spending in a big way along with tax increases to do that and so far Democrats are as resistant to spending cuts as Republicans are to tax increases.

 

[Star]

To re-answer the OP’s highly intellectually challenged question: Neither is “better” for the economy as they both have their place in the economy. Again the argument can then be used on a millionaire VS people making 100,000.

Everything is relative, a billionaires ability to invest over someone with 25 million is insane. Even if the billionaire never invests (lol), eventually that billionaire will die, the money will be distributed and at some point spent by others who are now “millionaires.” Are you admitting millionaires are good? Why are they good but a others are bad? How did you come to this?

So here, answer this question for me. What is better for the economy, a millionaire or 100 people making 500,000 a year. Then answer another question. What is better for the economy, someone making 500,000 a year or 5 people making 100,000 a year? What is better for the economy, a person making 100,000 a year or 2 people making 50,000 a year…. What is better 1 person making 50,000 or 4 people making 12,500 a year?


You can see how you lost this debate... I hope. Once you make the argument about someone making "too much" money, you have to define what is too much money to be making... But, all that has to happen is someone does not agree with your magical line in the sand and believes your number is still too much money for someone to have. You would have no way to stop the process that you started.

Republicans would have us believe that those making over 250K a year are barely getting by, while simultaneously believing that a teacher or cop making 60K is severely overpaid.

I'm not sure what you want me to say, I already pointed out that you're predictable as to write me off as a Republican because I don't agree with you, furthermore you changed the subject when I proved the insanity of the OP and I assume you as you seem to agree with him.

My answer might not be the best seeing as there are many answers proving how delusional the concept is of capping wealth. You seem to be hung up on party VS party rather than the answer, meaning you will probably be stuck for quite some time really just arguing Republican VS Democrat rather than bettering yourself by learning and accepting the answer to the problem you claim to be “debating.”

I don’t go easy on the Progressive mind. Progressives think themselves the smartest in the bunch despite usually having no meaningful education or successes in their own lives. Usually a Progressive bases all their positions off a feeling while demanding everyone accept their position as truth despite giving absolutely no data/information/plan as to how or why their ideas work.

For instance, why are 1,000 millionaires better than a billionaire? What instance do you draw from to prove it is? What happens if the millionaires you draw your example from amassed their fortune working under or with a billionaire?

Are you or the OP suggesting that if you steal a billionaires money and hand it out that the economy will boom? Sure, I’d agree it would in the short run as well. More people buying homes and so on, but look at the bubble you created, housing prices would sharply spike, making 1 million worth far less. Don’t believe me? Look at what happened leading up to the crash, easy money allowed people to invest and we had a few bubbles build up and then burst.

Reality and truth have proven me correct undoubtedly…

Do you have any data to submit to back up your claim that "Progressives think themselves the smartest in the bunch despite usually having no meaningful education or successes in their own lives. Usually a Progressive bases all their positions off a feeling while demanding everyone accept their position as truth despite giving absolutely no data/information/plan as to how or why their ideas work.", or are you just trying to change the subject-make stuff up-create strawman hypotheticals to avoid answering the very simple question posed in the OP - "Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?"

The following link includes the quote below: Income =

Note the STRONG correlation between Blue States and HIGH income!
Average income = $41,183 - $34.202 = $6,981 Higher!

Reality!
.

 

[Star]

To re-answer the OP’s highly intellectually challenged question: Neither is “better” for the economy as they both have their place in the economy. Again the argument can then be used on a millionaire VS people making 100,000.

Everything is relative, a billionaires ability to invest over someone with 25 million is insane. Even if the billionaire never invests (lol), eventually that billionaire will die, the money will be distributed and at some point spent by others who are now “millionaires.” Are you admitting millionaires are good? Why are they good but a others are bad? How did you come to this?

So here, answer this question for me. What is better for the economy, a millionaire or 100 people making 500,000 a year. Then answer another question. What is better for the economy, someone making 500,000 a year or 5 people making 100,000 a year? What is better for the economy, a person making 100,000 a year or 2 people making 50,000 a year…. What is better 1 person making 50,000 or 4 people making 12,500 a year?


You can see how you lost this debate... I hope. Once you make the argument about someone making "too much" money, you have to define what is too much money to be making... But, all that has to happen is someone does not agree with your magical line in the sand and believes your number is still too much money for someone to have. You would have no way to stop the process that you started.

Republicans would have us believe that those making over 250K a year are barely getting by, while simultaneously believing that a teacher or cop making 60K is severely overpaid.

I'm not sure what you want me to say, I already pointed out that you're predictable as to write me off as a Republican because I don't agree with you, furthermore you changed the subject when I proved the insanity of the OP and I assume you as you seem to agree with him.

My answer might not be the best seeing as there are many answers proving how delusional the concept is of capping wealth. You seem to be hung up on party VS party rather than the answer, meaning you will probably be stuck for quite some time really just arguing Republican VS Democrat rather than bettering yourself by learning and accepting the answer to the problem you claim to be “debating.”

I don’t go easy on the Progressive mind. Progressives think themselves the smartest in the bunch despite usually having no meaningful education or successes in their own lives. Usually a Progressive bases all their positions off a feeling while demanding everyone accept their position as truth despite giving absolutely no data/information/plan as to how or why their ideas work.

For instance, why are 1,000 millionaires better than a billionaire? What instance do you draw from to prove it is? What happens if the millionaires you draw your example from amassed their fortune working under or with a billionaire?

Are you or the OP suggesting that if you steal a billionaires money and hand it out that the economy will boom? Sure, I’d agree it would in the short run as well. More people buying homes and so on, but look at the bubble you created, housing prices would sharply spike, making 1 million worth far less. Don’t believe me? Look at what happened leading up to the crash, easy money allowed people to invest and we had a few bubbles build up and then burst.

Reality and truth have proven me correct undoubtedly…

Are you just another in a long list of rightwingers that just make stuff up then-----then don't have any data to back up their "stuff"? I've already provided a link that seems to be showing that people who live in so-called blue states are monetarily more successful than people who live in states that typically vote Republican or-----or are you just trying to change the subject-make stuff up-create strawman hypotheticals to avoid answering the very simple question posed in the OP - "Which is better for America's consumer driven economy, one billionaire or 1,000 millionaires?"

The following link includes the quote below: Graduates =


Red States have a significantly LOWER college graduate rate by 5.6% (29.6% - 24.0%).

Do you have any data to support your position, or do you expect me to take your word (LOL) for what looks to me like more rightwing nonsense?

Reality?

“Money is like manure. Stack it up and it'll stink
but spread it around and it'll grow.”
.​

 

[Borillar]

With a million bucks, I could pay off my mortgage, settle all my debts, send my kid through college, and retire comfortably. If a million bucks is "nothing", send some my way.

It's charming to observe you gloating about what you'd like to do with money that someone else earned. How beautifully liberal!

If a million bucks is nothing, why is everyone on the right so upset about union workers, teachers, etc, getting paltry salaries not even 1/10th of that?

Perhaps it's because we have to pay those salaries, you fucking moron.

No, your ass-holiness. I am pointing out that a million dollars is not chump change, except maybe to the Romney rich.

You don't have a problem with paying corporate execs their bloated salaries at the expense of workers, you stupid douche-bag.

 

[bripat9643]

With a million bucks, I could pay off my mortgage, settle all my debts, send my kid through college, and retire comfortably. If a million bucks is "nothing", send some my way.

It's charming to observe you gloating about what you'd like to do with money that someone else earned. How beautifully liberal!

If a million bucks is nothing, why is everyone on the right so upset about union workers, teachers, etc, getting paltry salaries not even 1/10th of that?

Perhaps it's because we have to pay those salaries, you fucking moron.

No, your ass-holiness. I am pointing out that a million dollars is not chump change, except maybe to the Romney rich.

No one ever claimed it was chump change, moron.

You don't have a problem with paying corporate execs their bloated salaries at the expense of workers, you stupid douche-bag.

I don't pay the salaries of corporate executives, asshole. However, I do pay the salaries of teachers and firemen - at gunpoint. If a corporation wants to pay their executives more than they're worth, that's their business. The market will determine whether that decision was a wise one.