Conservatives: how much money do you think billionaires are obligated to give...

[Antares]

Oh golly girly boy.....you seem so worried about someone else not having enough....

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

right????

How much money should any one man have sissy ass?

Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"

How do I know girlyman/boy, and why would I care?

Subjective arguments and sophomoric bullshit is your forte, not Dante's

 

[Dante]

Oh golly girly boy.....you seem so worried about someone else not having enough....

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

right????

How much money should any one man have sissy ass?

How do I know girlyman/boy, and why would I care?

Subjective arguments and sophomoric bullshit is your forte, not Dante's

What are you doing here? Tryouts for the Special Olympics over?

 

[depotoo]

Are you kidding me? Who the **** donates millions of dollars in cash?

you are not understanding. What he means is someones' assets can show he is a billionaire, yet in actuality it is all on paper. He has no cash available unless he were to convert, as an example, stocks into cash by selling them. And depending on the market he could end up with much less than the worth it had been declared. Just one of many examples.

Can you imagine those billionaires that have most of their worth in stocks, commodities, etc. suddenly having to sell them all and what would then happen to the economy?

I think you exaggerate how much disposable money a billionaire has access to.

Here are some examples for you of those that have lost much of their worth-
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times went from $3.6 billion to less than $25 million in a matter of a year.
In 2001 BET founder sold his company to Viacom for $4 billion, yet because of a nasty divorce, bad real estate deals, and the loss of value in Viacom stock lost all but $550 million in one year.
In 2008 Mark Zuckerburg lost $900 million of his worth of $1.5 billion.


In 2007 Randal Nardone was worth over $10.7 billion through his hedgefund. He lost 91% of that value in one year.

What many people do not realize is that most peoples net worth is all tied up in paper assets. Say I purcahse a home that is worth $250,000 and take a loan out for that amount. I have another $10 grand in savings. My net worth is now $260,000 even though I just took out the loan on that home and I still owe all but my down payment on it. That is just an example of net worth for you. Do I actually have access to $260,000? No. And if the real estate market crashes, then my net worth drops even more, even though I am still responsible for paying for a $250,000 mortgage. And what happens if I need to sell? Then I am still obligated to the bank for that $250,000 even if I can only sell the home for $190,000. I have derived an added debt of $60,000 on something I don't even own anymore.

Net worth that you hear about of individuals is the total of their homes, real estate holdings, vehicles, stocks, treasury bills, etc. and of course any cash they may have accumulated, retirement funds, etc. Even though they may owe the banks for most of that, it is still considered their net worth. If they suddenly were to lose most of all of the above, through poor investing, economies, etc. and they had to turn to their retirement savings, and had to withdraw from them early just to live, even then they would be worth much less than that fund shows on paper as there are penalties for early withdrawal. Even money in the form of cd's, money markets, etc. can be subject to early withdrawl penalties.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"

Liberals

 

[Pogo]

That's what it meant in the 18th century. In the 21st century "liberal" means communist.

Only in your minuscule little paranoid head.

That's reality as demonstrated by noting what those who call themselves liberals support. They wouldn't disagree with a single item on the platform of the American Communist Party.

And I'm sure they'll be ecstatic to know they have a seven-year-old brat with jelly all over his face to speak for them. What a time saver.

 

[Billy000]

Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"

Liberals

What did i tell you about thinking critically?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"

Liberals

What did i tell you about thinking critically?

Not one word. Because as a liberal, you are incapable of such.

 

[Pogo]

There is no such thing as excess profit or excess savings.

Of course there is. Once you've bought/invested all you could ever need, anything left over is "excess". Something you have no use for is what we call "useless".

And just what is this definition of "all you need"? And who determines what it is anyone "needs"

I can give you a laundry list of things I think you need and don't need is that OK with you?

You have absolutely no right to tell anyone else what they need or don't need. It's none of your business.

Reading discomprehension must be contagious.

Nobody suggested dictating what somebody else needs. You started this out by saying there's no such thing as "excess". So I gave a definition that disproves that. And right in that definition, it's the owner of that money making his own decision on what he needs.

That's all there is to it. Stop plugging in irrelevant shit.

 

[Billy000]

you are not understanding. What he means is someones' assets can show he is a billionaire, yet in actuality it is all on paper. He has no cash available unless he were to convert, as an example, stocks into cash by selling them. And depending on the market he could end up with much less than the worth it had been declared. Just one of many examples.

Can you imagine those billionaires that have most of their worth in stocks, commodities, etc. suddenly having to sell them all and what would then happen to the economy?

I think you exaggerate how much disposable money a billionaire has access to.

Here are some examples for you of those that have lost much of their worth-
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times went from $3.6 billion to less than $25 million in a matter of a year.
In 2001 BET founder sold his company to Viacom for $4 billion, yet because of a nasty divorce, bad real estate deals, and the loss of value in Viacom stock lost all but $550 million in one year.
In 2008 Mark Zuckerburg lost $900 million of his worth of $1.5 billion.


In 2007 Randal Nardone was worth over $10.7 billion through his hedgefund. He lost 91% of that value in one year.

What many people do not realize is that most peoples net worth is all tied up in paper assets. Say I purcahse a home that is worth $250,000 and take a loan out for that amount. I have another $10 grand in savings. My net worth is now $260,000 even though I just took out the loan on that home and I still owe all but my down payment on it. That is just an example of net worth for you. Do I actually have access to $260,000? No. And if the real estate market crashes, then my net worth drops even more, even though I am still responsible for paying for a $250,000 mortgage. And what happens if I need to sell? Then I am still obligated to the bank for that $250,000 even if I can only sell the home for $190,000. I have derived an added debt of $60,000 on something I don't even own anymore.

Net worth that you hear about of individuals is the total of their homes, real estate holdings, vehicles, stocks, treasury bills, etc. and of course any cash they may have accumulated, retirement funds, etc. Even though they may owe the banks for most of that, it is still considered their net worth. If they suddenly were to lose most of all of the above, through poor investing, economies, etc. and they had to turn to their retirement savings, and had to withdraw from them early just to live, even then they would be worth much less than that fund shows on paper as there are penalties for early withdrawal. Even money in the form of cd's, money markets, etc. can be subject to early withdrawl penalties.

That is interesting information, ill give you that. But come on, plenty of billionaires are able to retain their wealth.

 

[Billy000]

Liberals

What did i tell you about thinking critically?

Not one word. Because as a liberal, you are incapable of such.

Well, this post only further proves that you cannot. Go back a few pages and re read my reply to your laughable post about the way liberals think.

 

[Pogo]

Paranoia strikes deep.

so you dont think they should confiscate?

Still waiting....you deflected and I'm straight up asking


Do you think they should confiscate?

I was driving to another state, if that's OK with you. I don't ******* live on the internets. Sheesh.

No I don't think anyone should "confiscate". And that wasn't my idea anyway, it was finger-boy jelly-mouth's delusional fantasies. Those nightmares have nothing to do with me. They never have.

 

[candycorn]

...to charitable causes?

I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.

I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.

In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.

How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?

Not a penny....

 

[Immanuel]

They can't be "obligated" to give anything. Once it becomes an obligation it is no longer a "gift" but something that has been confiscated. If it is the government that is obligating them to give then it is a tax, not a gift.

You cannot force me to give you any percentage of my income. Once you take it by force, it is no longer a "gift", because I am not choosing to give. That is the same problem as with mandatory "gratuities" at a restaurant. If you make it mandatory it is no longer a tip and don't even try to call it a tip or a gratuity. Call it what the hell it is a service charge.

No one can or should be obligated to give anything. They should give out of the goodness of their hearts.

Immie

 

[Pogo]

I know what you said and I'm saying if the money served a purpose then it wasn't excess money you moron!

Fact is you stupid little **** the money was used!! He used the money to donate to your made up subject's foundation.

If you're so dim you can't comprehend the words on your own screen then **** you.
Don't ever try to put words in my mouth. You're nowhere near worthy. Once the money is used, it isn't useless, and that was your word. Dumb shit.

Trust me, you would never be fortunate for me to put anything in your mouth.

I do believe you are the one with the reading comprehension problem skippy.

"Once the money is used, it isn't useless, "

That's my word?

No I'm pretty sure I never said anything as retarded as that.

You really want to look this much an idiot in public??

I gave a scenario where some guy has bought and invested everything he can think of, and still has money left over, i.e. "excess". That's a simple (for most people) word definition.

You then plugged in "The money Buffet gave served a purpose, it wasn't useless."

Those Are Two Completely Different Things..

You have the intellect of a turnip. Only less clever.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I shudder at the thought of a country where the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government.

How much money can a citizen keep till he becomes associated with hoarders? How many children can you have before the government decides that you are becoming less happy and comfortable? How many cars is the government going to allow you to have till they decide that you're becoming decadent and unhelpful to the general rules of governmental abstinence.

The thing about freedom is that it's so hurtful and unfair sometimes. It's still better than letting the politicians govern your values by confiscating your private property.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing our overly complex ridiculous tax code. A simple flat tax would fix much of our problems I believe. Also, what part about a government unable to balance a budget is supposed to make me comfortable with their financial expertise?

so in other words, you're another loony buying into Randian Nitwitticisms?

Nope, no objectivists here.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Johnboy, who believes "the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government?"

You seem to. I hope this clears everything up.

 

[MikeK]

The problem with that thinking (IMHO) is that the government would have less money. An example, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc would have no motive to continue their innovations as soon as they reached the 20 million dollar mark. Why not retire and go fishing? Consequently, we would have far fewer jobs which would lead to less money in our society that government could tax.

If you're assuming Steve Jobs and Bill Gates retired and went fishing it would mean the end of Apple and Microsoft, you need to ask yourself why Ford didn't fold when Henry died. To move aside and make room for someone else underlies the principle of horizontal vs vertical distribution of wealth.

But if either of those two chose to remain at the helm for pure ego satisfaction there is no reason why they couldn't -- provided their personal assets remained at the $20 million maximum.

 

[MikeK]

I shudder at the thought of a country where the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government. How much money can a citizen keep till he becomes associated with hoarders? How many children can you have before the government decides that you are becoming less happy and comfortable? How many cars is the government going to allow you to have till they decide that you're becoming decadent and unhelpful to the general rules of governmental abstinence. The thing about freedom is that it's so hurtful and unfair sometimes. It's still better than letting the politicians govern your values by confiscating your private property. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing our overly complex ridiculous tax code. A simple flat tax would fix much of our problems I believe. Also, what part about a government unable to balance a budget is supposed to make me comfortable with their financial expertise?

The "flat tax" idea has been plugged into the Libertarian playbook by the super-rich and would only be fair if everyone's earnings were the same.

If you earn $50,000 and the flat tax is 20 percent, you pay ten thousand dollars, which means you can't afford braces on your kid's crooked teeth , or to replace your dying car, or to fix your leaking roof, etc. But one who earns $10,000,000 will pay two million in taxes, leaving only eight million to get along on, which means he's stuck with the same yacht for another year, or he'll have to fly commercial to the Bahamas rather than hire a private, jet, etc.

In other words, there is a point at which the flat tax is a real burden only on the lower class. Because beyond a certain point it becomes irrelevant in real terms. Taxation is not expected to by painless -- but everyone should feel the pain. Not just the little people. The fundamental meaning of America is the end of aristocracy.

Twenty million -- no more. And a progressive tax rate. The rich stay rich, just a little less rich.

 

[MikeK]

Caring how much your neighbors have is not rational nor emotionally healthy. The manifestation of greed when it comes to other peoples property is the only mental disorder I see here.

What you're talking about is the kind of competitive jealousy that drives many to strive for more, and more, and more. Behaviorists regard this limitless compulsion as a mental disorder and most religions regard such covetous jealousy as sin. Which I'm sure you, as an Irish Catholic, are well aware of.

 

[Misty]

Food for thought...

The Americans Who Gave Away the Most Money in 2012 - Forbes

'Forbes' Billionaire List: J.K. Rowling Drops From Billionaire To Millionaire Due To Charitable Giving

You do realize that foundations are ways to hide money from the government. They set them up and donate some but keep the rest under the guise of running the foundation. It's a scam.