Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[gipper]

You know what’s not cool anymore? Billionaires.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren believe some Americans have too much money, and they’re not alone.

Their very existence is now the subject of political debate, sparked most recently by tax-the-rich proposals from two prominent politicians.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed placing a 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wants to increase the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year.

Their ideas went viral, starting a mainstream conversation about inequality and wealth.

This kind of talk has always existed among a certain group of hard-core progressives and left-leaning economists, but heading into next year’s presidential election, the idea that the super-rich should pay their fair share is gaining real momentum.

Marshall Steinbaum, a research director at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, has advocated taxing the rich at higher rates for years. “We do not need billionaires,” Steinbaum told HuffPost. “The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past.”

For Steinbaum, higher taxes on the wealthy would mean freeing up more money for everyone else. If you think of the economy as a pie, right now, billionaires are getting just about all of it, while we’re all left splitting just one slice.

If you raise taxes on the richest, their incentive to grab at every morsel declines. The theory is they’ll fight a little less hard to depress everyone else’s wages if they know that every extra million is going to get taxed away. A high-paid CEO has less incentive to keep workers’ wages low so he can get a bigger payday.

Billionaires were once a rare breed. In the past few decades, as the U.S. has slashed tax rates, their numbers have exploded, far outpacing inflation.

Since 2008, the number of billionaires in the world has doubled, according to a report published last week by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam. In just the last year, billionaires raked in an astonishing $2.5 billion each day.

In 1982, the first year Forbes debuted its list of the 400 richest Americans, there were about a dozen billionaires. The richest man in the U.S. back then was an 85-year-old shipping magnate with an estimated worth of $2 billion, or $5.2 billion in today’s dollars.

"We do not need billionaires. The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past."
--Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute​

Nowadays, Forbes’ list is entirely billionaires. The richest is Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, worth $160 billion.

More: Should Billionaires Even Exist?

I agree! Billionaires aren't cool anymore! The playing field is tilted like the Titanic before it went down. There is no logical reason for so few to have so much. What do you think?

They never were cool. Take most of their wealth or prevent them from buying off the politicians and the government.

 

[OnePercenter]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

No, they don't.

You don't have to hate Billionaires to ask them to pay their fair share... Many of them agree they should be paying more. Warren Buffet put it best when comparing to his secretary...

Then why doesn't Buffet invest his money in taxable returns instead of tax sheltered investments? Why did he fight the IRS to the last breath when they audited him and said he owed more money?

Why do you not take your personal deduction?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

The rich and wealthy pay far less percentage of all the money they make than you, and you can least afford it.

The rich and wealthy pay far less percentage of all the money they make than you,

Liar

 

[toomuchtime_]

You know what’s not cool anymore? Billionaires.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren believe some Americans have too much money, and they’re not alone.

Their very existence is now the subject of political debate, sparked most recently by tax-the-rich proposals from two prominent politicians.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed placing a 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wants to increase the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year.

Their ideas went viral, starting a mainstream conversation about inequality and wealth.

This kind of talk has always existed among a certain group of hard-core progressives and left-leaning economists, but heading into next year’s presidential election, the idea that the super-rich should pay their fair share is gaining real momentum.

Marshall Steinbaum, a research director at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, has advocated taxing the rich at higher rates for years. “We do not need billionaires,” Steinbaum told HuffPost. “The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past.”

For Steinbaum, higher taxes on the wealthy would mean freeing up more money for everyone else. If you think of the economy as a pie, right now, billionaires are getting just about all of it, while we’re all left splitting just one slice.

If you raise taxes on the richest, their incentive to grab at every morsel declines. The theory is they’ll fight a little less hard to depress everyone else’s wages if they know that every extra million is going to get taxed away. A high-paid CEO has less incentive to keep workers’ wages low so he can get a bigger payday.

Billionaires were once a rare breed. In the past few decades, as the U.S. has slashed tax rates, their numbers have exploded, far outpacing inflation.

Since 2008, the number of billionaires in the world has doubled, according to a report published last week by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam. In just the last year, billionaires raked in an astonishing $2.5 billion each day.

In 1982, the first year Forbes debuted its list of the 400 richest Americans, there were about a dozen billionaires. The richest man in the U.S. back then was an 85-year-old shipping magnate with an estimated worth of $2 billion, or $5.2 billion in today’s dollars.

"We do not need billionaires. The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past."
--Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute​

Nowadays, Forbes’ list is entirely billionaires. The richest is Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, worth $160 billion.

More: Should Billionaires Even Exist?

I agree! Billionaires aren't cool anymore! The playing field is tilted like the Titanic before it went down. There is no logical reason for so few to have so much. What do you think?

They never were cool. Take most of their wealth or prevent them from buying off the politicians and the government.

If they have bought off the politicians and government, how are you going to pass laws to strip them of their wealth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

The rich and wealthy pay far less percentage of all the money they make than you, and you can least afford it.

The poor pay no taxes dumbass. The rich pay their way.

Because the poor don't make enough money dumbass. The rich and wealthy pay far less percentage in tax of all the money they make than you do. We have all of the good deductions.

We have all of the good deductions.

Like your Nevada Corporation?

That lie still makes me chuckle.

 

[Ken Mac]

If you take the Billionaire's money to the point that they are no longer Bilionaire's and not do anything but use it to pay for more and new programs a couple of things are going to happen:

Capital investment will fall to zero.

Productivity will drop

Standard of living will drop

Jobs will be lost

Wages will drop

We would go into a depression that would make the 1920's and 30's look like a great time.

The people on the receiving end would not use any windfall to invest in capital.

the nation as a whole would be very poor compared to today.


I'm being very simplistic here, but just trying to make a point. This is what socialism looks like.

Shared Misery

The 585 or so Billionaires in the US have a combined net worth of about $40T. This is about 40% of the total net worth of the whole USA combined. When you liquidate this kind of wealth (40%) of the US net worth and do essentially nothing but spend it on programs. Those companies profiting from that kind of money will raise prices because of the high demand and inflation would ensue. Most of the money would essentially end up back in the pockets of those that own equities and the rich would get some of it back. But most of it would evaporate to overseas companies thus reducing our nations wealth. This is why a recession or depression would ensue. The government can not and should not be trusted with that kind of money. Our government is very, very inefficient and produces absolutely nothing.

Now - I don't have a problem with raising income and capital gains taxes on the Billionaires. I think the rates should go up to somewhere around a 40% from the current 36% effective "actual" rate paid. It has historically for the last 100 years varied between 20% and 45%. I think this should be done to reduce the GINI because it is too high. (go look it up if you want to know what it means)

I am against a wealth tax. - To tax money twice is just ******* Un-American. And to do it just cuz people don't like Billionaires is absofuckinglutely stoopid, inane, childish, etc.....

 

[Andylusion]

You know what’s not cool anymore? Billionaires.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren believe some Americans have too much money, and they’re not alone.

Their very existence is now the subject of political debate, sparked most recently by tax-the-rich proposals from two prominent politicians.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed placing a 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wants to increase the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year.

Their ideas went viral, starting a mainstream conversation about inequality and wealth.

This kind of talk has always existed among a certain group of hard-core progressives and left-leaning economists, but heading into next year’s presidential election, the idea that the super-rich should pay their fair share is gaining real momentum.

Marshall Steinbaum, a research director at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, has advocated taxing the rich at higher rates for years. “We do not need billionaires,” Steinbaum told HuffPost. “The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past.”

For Steinbaum, higher taxes on the wealthy would mean freeing up more money for everyone else. If you think of the economy as a pie, right now, billionaires are getting just about all of it, while we’re all left splitting just one slice.

If you raise taxes on the richest, their incentive to grab at every morsel declines. The theory is they’ll fight a little less hard to depress everyone else’s wages if they know that every extra million is going to get taxed away. A high-paid CEO has less incentive to keep workers’ wages low so he can get a bigger payday.

Billionaires were once a rare breed. In the past few decades, as the U.S. has slashed tax rates, their numbers have exploded, far outpacing inflation.

Since 2008, the number of billionaires in the world has doubled, according to a report published last week by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam. In just the last year, billionaires raked in an astonishing $2.5 billion each day.

In 1982, the first year Forbes debuted its list of the 400 richest Americans, there were about a dozen billionaires. The richest man in the U.S. back then was an 85-year-old shipping magnate with an estimated worth of $2 billion, or $5.2 billion in today’s dollars.

"We do not need billionaires. The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past."
--Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute​

Nowadays, Forbes’ list is entirely billionaires. The richest is Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, worth $160 billion.

More: Should Billionaires Even Exist?

I agree! Billionaires aren't cool anymore! The playing field is tilted like the Titanic before it went down. There is no logical reason for so few to have so much. What do you think?

So here's the problem with that. During the 2008 down-turn, many billionaires lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Did that help me? No. Did it help you? I doubt it. Did it help anyone? Not that I could tell.

Did anyone anywhere, wake up in 2009, with a new house, or car, or a 401K with a million dollars in it... because the wealthy lost billions dollars?

No. If you can prove otherwise, I would love to see it. Show me the poor beggar that woke up with a $50 thousand, because the rich people lost money. I'll consider your evidence.

But assuming you can't provide me with such evidence, how rich people losing money does anything good for the rest of society, then the question becomes why do you care about billionaires?

And to answer that I would have to conclude the only reason is selfish greed, and envy of those who have more than you.

Because here's the reality. If you take all the wealth away from Zuckerberg, it isn't going to make the guy next door who doesn't save a penny, any good. He's not going to end up with a paid off house, because Zuckerberg lost billions. He's not going to have a paid for car, or any investments. He will continue to live how he is already living, and blowing his money.

We know this, because we already have tons of evidence this is true, from the lottery. That's why I have posted on this forum numerous times, the story of $10 Million dollars given to two people. Steve Jobs, and Sharon Tirabassi. Sharon won $10.5 Million, and in under ten years, didn't even own a car, and was riding the bus to a part time job. Steve jobs of course got $10 Million when he was kicked out of Apple Computer, and used it to invest into a small computer graphics company, which ended up being Pixar, which he sold for $10 Billion.

Do you see the problem? Taking that $10 Million from Steve Jobs would not have made people like Sharon Tirabassi rich. Instead it would have just made Sharon poor, but now we wouldn't have Pixar, and all the jobs created, and the movies produced.

And who knows, without the profits made by Steve Jobs investment, maybe he would not have gone back to Apple, and maybe iPhones and Itunes, and iPods would never have been created.... and still Sharon Tirabassi would be poor.

Taking money from the rich who invest, grow, and produce jobs and wealth for the nation, will not make anyone richer. It will only make everyone poorer.

The poor will still be poor, no matter how much money you give them.
The only question is, how poor will everyone else get, when the rich pack up their companies and leave the country?
How much poorer will we all be, when there is no investment, no innovation, and no growth to the economy?

 

[OnePercenter]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

No, they don't.

You are mistaken

the tax rate on the rich is much, much higher than it is for everyone else

with poor paying nothing or even less than nothing

that is unjust

Nobody pays tax rates. My tax rate in 2020 is 21%. I will pay 1.5%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

if being a billionaire makes you president, Ross Perot would be president today!

He's dead, so it doesn't matter how much he had, he wouldn't be President today.

 

[OnePercenter]

Do the Obama's really need a $15 million dollar ocean front mansion when they already have a house in Chicago? Does Bernie really need 3 houses? When you libtards start practicing what you preach call us.

You want to punish successful people because you aren't?

Shut up troll boy I pay more in taxes than you earn.

That's true. I officially made $1.00 last year.

 

[OnePercenter]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

The rich and wealthy pay far less percentage of all the money they make than you, and you can least afford it.

The rich and wealthy pay far less percentage of all the money they make than you,

Liar

Prove it.

 

[Flash]

You know what’s not cool anymore? Billionaires.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren believe some Americans have too much money, and they’re not alone.

Their very existence is now the subject of political debate, sparked most recently by tax-the-rich proposals from two prominent politicians.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed placing a 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wants to increase the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year.

Their ideas went viral, starting a mainstream conversation about inequality and wealth.

This kind of talk has always existed among a certain group of hard-core progressives and left-leaning economists, but heading into next year’s presidential election, the idea that the super-rich should pay their fair share is gaining real momentum.

Marshall Steinbaum, a research director at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, has advocated taxing the rich at higher rates for years. “We do not need billionaires,” Steinbaum told HuffPost. “The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past.”

For Steinbaum, higher taxes on the wealthy would mean freeing up more money for everyone else. If you think of the economy as a pie, right now, billionaires are getting just about all of it, while we’re all left splitting just one slice.

If you raise taxes on the richest, their incentive to grab at every morsel declines. The theory is they’ll fight a little less hard to depress everyone else’s wages if they know that every extra million is going to get taxed away. A high-paid CEO has less incentive to keep workers’ wages low so he can get a bigger payday.

Billionaires were once a rare breed. In the past few decades, as the U.S. has slashed tax rates, their numbers have exploded, far outpacing inflation.

Since 2008, the number of billionaires in the world has doubled, according to a report published last week by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam. In just the last year, billionaires raked in an astonishing $2.5 billion each day.

In 1982, the first year Forbes debuted its list of the 400 richest Americans, there were about a dozen billionaires. The richest man in the U.S. back then was an 85-year-old shipping magnate with an estimated worth of $2 billion, or $5.2 billion in today’s dollars.

"We do not need billionaires. The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past."
--Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute​

Nowadays, Forbes’ list is entirely billionaires. The richest is Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, worth $160 billion.

More: Should Billionaires Even Exist?

I agree! Billionaires aren't cool anymore! The playing field is tilted like the Titanic before it went down. There is no logical reason for so few to have so much. What do you think?

They never were cool. Take most of their wealth or prevent them from buying off the politicians and the government.

You mean like all those Wall Street tycoons that gave all that money to Crooked Hillary and Obama or the Silicon Valley billionaires that financed their campaigns? Maybe you are thinking about the fat cat Limousine Hollywood Liberal donors that keep the Democrats rolling in cash.

 

[OnePercenter]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

The rich and wealthy pay far less percentage of all the money they make than you, and you can least afford it.

The poor pay no taxes dumbass. The rich pay their way.

Because the poor don't make enough money dumbass. The rich and wealthy pay far less percentage in tax of all the money they make than you do. We have all of the good deductions.

We have all of the good deductions.

Like your Nevada Corporation?

That lie still makes me chuckle.

No State income or business tax. Pretty sweet!!!!!

 

[BluesLegend]

You mooching deadbeat losers would spend every last dime of the billionaires wealth. In 6 months it would be pissed away then you would be back to the table mooching again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

No, they don't.

You don't have to hate Billionaires to ask them to pay their fair share... Many of them agree they should be paying more. Warren Buffet put it best when comparing to his secretary...

Warren Buffet put it best when comparing to his secretary...

He lied.

 

[Flash]

No income tax.

No corporate tax.

No inheritance tax.

No payroll tax.

No more ******* taxes.

 

[Ken Mac]

You know what’s not cool anymore? Billionaires.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren believe some Americans have too much money, and they’re not alone.

Their very existence is now the subject of political debate, sparked most recently by tax-the-rich proposals from two prominent politicians.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed placing a 2 percent tax on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she wants to increase the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year.

Their ideas went viral, starting a mainstream conversation about inequality and wealth.

This kind of talk has always existed among a certain group of hard-core progressives and left-leaning economists, but heading into next year’s presidential election, the idea that the super-rich should pay their fair share is gaining real momentum.

Marshall Steinbaum, a research director at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, has advocated taxing the rich at higher rates for years. “We do not need billionaires,” Steinbaum told HuffPost. “The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past.”

For Steinbaum, higher taxes on the wealthy would mean freeing up more money for everyone else. If you think of the economy as a pie, right now, billionaires are getting just about all of it, while we’re all left splitting just one slice.

If you raise taxes on the richest, their incentive to grab at every morsel declines. The theory is they’ll fight a little less hard to depress everyone else’s wages if they know that every extra million is going to get taxed away. A high-paid CEO has less incentive to keep workers’ wages low so he can get a bigger payday.

Billionaires were once a rare breed. In the past few decades, as the U.S. has slashed tax rates, their numbers have exploded, far outpacing inflation.

Since 2008, the number of billionaires in the world has doubled, according to a report published last week by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam. In just the last year, billionaires raked in an astonishing $2.5 billion each day.

In 1982, the first year Forbes debuted its list of the 400 richest Americans, there were about a dozen billionaires. The richest man in the U.S. back then was an 85-year-old shipping magnate with an estimated worth of $2 billion, or $5.2 billion in today’s dollars.

"We do not need billionaires. The economy’s done better without billionaires in the past."
--Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute​

Nowadays, Forbes’ list is entirely billionaires. The richest is Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, worth $160 billion.

More: Should Billionaires Even Exist?

I agree! Billionaires aren't cool anymore! The playing field is tilted like the Titanic before it went down. There is no logical reason for so few to have so much. What do you think?

So here's the problem with that. During the 2008 down-turn, many billionaires lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Did that help me? No. Did it help you? I doubt it. Did it help anyone? Not that I could tell.

Did anyone anywhere, wake up in 2009, with a new house, or car, or a 401K with a million dollars in it... because the wealthy lost billions dollars?

No. If you can prove otherwise, I would love to see it. Show me the poor beggar that woke up with a $50 thousand, because the rich people lost money. I'll consider your evidence.

But assuming you can't provide me with such evidence, how rich people losing money does anything good for the rest of society, then the question becomes why do you care about billionaires?

And to answer that I would have to conclude the only reason is selfish greed, and envy of those who have more than you.

Because here's the reality. If you take all the wealth away from Zuckerberg, it isn't going to make the guy next door who doesn't save a penny, any good. He's not going to end up with a paid off house, because Zuckerberg lost billions. He's not going to have a paid for car, or any investments. He will continue to live how he is already living, and blowing his money.

We know this, because we already have tons of evidence this is true, from the lottery. That's why I have posted on this forum numerous times, the story of $10 Million dollars given to two people. Steve Jobs, and Sharon Tirabassi. Sharon won $10.5 Million, and in under ten years, didn't even own a car, and was riding the bus to a part time job. Steve jobs of course got $10 Million when he was kicked out of Apple Computer, and used it to invest into a small computer graphics company, which ended up being Pixar, which he sold for $10 Billion.

Do you see the problem? Taking that $10 Million from Steve Jobs would not have made people like Sharon Tirabassi rich. Instead it would have just made Sharon poor, but now we wouldn't have Pixar, and all the jobs created, and the movies produced.

And who knows, without the profits made by Steve Jobs investment, maybe he would not have gone back to Apple, and maybe iPhones and Itunes, and iPods would never have been created.... and still Sharon Tirabassi would be poor.

Taking money from the rich who invest, grow, and produce jobs and wealth for the nation, will not make anyone richer. It will only make everyone poorer.

The poor will still be poor, no matter how much money you give them.
The only question is, how poor will everyone else get, when the rich pack up their companies and leave the country?
How much poorer will we all be, when there is no investment, no innovation, and no growth to the economy?

Bravo mi compadre. Very well stated.

 

[Ken Mac]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

No, they don't.

You are mistaken

the tax rate on the rich is much, much higher than it is for everyone else

with poor paying nothing or even less than nothing

that is unjust

Nobody pays tax rates. My tax rate in 2020 is 21%. I will pay 1.5%

That's because you're considered poor.

When you get to a 35% tax rate, let me know that percentage. Because Billionaires pay about a 36% effective rate when the rate is 39.5%.

Be happy you don't pay shit. That's a good thing.

Oh - I know - we should cut your taxes to zero.

that'd be great, huh? Boy I'm sure that would help you out. I mean 1.5% is a lot!

 

[Toro]

Yes. We should all aspire to be billionaires.

Next question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Greedy assholes thinking that the government should steal money from successful people to give to them is like Tony Soprano thinking that the successful business in his home town should pay him more "protection" money. You know, because he deserves it and the business doesn't need that much money.

Which plays really well in a little 100-person village with its mom-and-pop shop...

Until 'Pop' gathers-in more wealth than his 99 neighbors combined...

When one realizes that that wealth was built relying upon infrastructure funded by the other 99 as well...

Then the idea of forcing a Give-Back begins to sound a bit more appealing to the 99...

And, of course, when 'Pop' grows too big and too arrogant and preys upon his neighbors, well...

Eventually, they start conjuring-up ways to take Pop down a peg or two or three or twenty...

Probably best if Pop comes to a compromise years before the other 99 find a way to hose him, rather than lose it all...

But it is the fate of Man to ignore such possibilities until it's too late... history holds many examples of such procrastination...

Tragically, the vast majority of those defending the 1% are and will (including their descendants) forevermore remain part of the 99%...

Unless the stranglehold of the 1% is broken...

When the Titanic sunk it was believed at the time the richest man in the world was on board, he was worth $2.5b in todays money... Jeff Bezo is worth $131bn and the guy in the Titanic would be lucky to make it into the top 1000... Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are still in the top 5 even after trying to give 10s of billions away...

When the Titanic sunk it was believed at the time the richest man in the world

Nah. Astor was worth about $87 million.

John D. Rockefeller was worth 10 times that.