Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Actually, I would argue that poor people shouldn’t exist.

it is much more difficult to become a billionaire than it is to be poor. Most billionaires contribute much more to society than poor people. Billions create jobs, technology and many donate billions to the greater good.

if you looking to eliminate a wealth class, I’d get rid of the poor people.

If we took all the poor people, put them on an island somewhere, nobody would be missed. In fact, since they cause most of the violent crime, our society would benefit greatly. If we took all the wealthy and did the same thing, the country collapses.

Hitler had the same idea except it was Jews.

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

 

[gipper]

Actually, I would argue that poor people shouldn’t exist.

it is much more difficult to become a billionaire than it is to be poor. Most billionaires contribute much more to society than poor people. Billions create jobs, technology and many donate billions to the greater good.

if you looking to eliminate a wealth class, I’d get rid of the poor people.

If we took all the poor people, put them on an island somewhere, nobody would be missed. In fact, since they cause most of the violent crime, our society would benefit greatly. If we took all the wealthy and did the same thing, the country collapses.

Hitler had the same idea except it was Jews.

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If we took all the poor people, put them on an island somewhere, nobody would be missed. In fact, since they cause most of the violent crime, our society would benefit greatly. If we took all the wealthy and did the same thing, the country collapses.

Hitler had the same idea except it was Jews.

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

I don't know about ending it. He may be able to give them shelter for a while, but homelessness has to also do with drugs, which usage is out of control at this point. In other words, even if we could do something about the homeless today, there are more on the way.

What we really need to do is have change in our justice system that would allow us to do what we did before, and that is have people committed. I don't see that ever happening.

 

[Ken Mac]

Hitler had the same idea except it was Jews.

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

I don't know about ending it. He may be able to give them shelter for a while, but homelessness has to also do with drugs, which usage is out of control at this point. In other words, even if we could do something about the homeless today, there are more on the way.

What we really need to do is have change in our justice system that would allow us to do what we did before, and that is have people committed. I don't see that ever happening.

That number doesn't include the Billions and Billions needed on an annual basis to maintain it. How many more would become homeless if they figured out they didn't have to pay for it? The downstream effect of human nature never seems to be taken into account with the dems, does it? Almost like they peel the onion one layer and declare "that solves that problem". It's like playing wack a mole with their policies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If we took all the poor people, put them on an island somewhere, nobody would be missed. In fact, since they cause most of the violent crime, our society would benefit greatly. If we took all the wealthy and did the same thing, the country collapses.

Hitler had the same idea except it was Jews.

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth.

Bullshit.

He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Obviously. The only two choices are "spend $20 billion to end homelessness" or "he's a psychopath".

That's the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

I don't know about ending it. He may be able to give them shelter for a while, but homelessness has to also do with drugs, which usage is out of control at this point. In other words, even if we could do something about the homeless today, there are more on the way.

What we really need to do is have change in our justice system that would allow us to do what we did before, and that is have people committed. I don't see that ever happening.

That number doesn't include the Billions and Billions needed on an annual basis to maintain it. How many more would become homeless if they figured out they didn't have to pay for it? The downstream effect of human nature never seems to be taken into account with the dems, does it? Almost like they peel the onion one layer and declare "that solves that problem". It's like playing wack a mole with their policies.

I do believe that the homeless problem is largely being ignored. I just can't say for sure how to stop it. It's been ruled that locking people up who really did nothing wrong forever is unconstitutional. Private organizations that help have rules to follow, particularly with tobacco and sobriety. Cities have shelters, but a lot of these people don't like being inside. It's a mental illness that keeps them out there.

 

[percysunshine]

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?

Billionaires are a dime a dozen. Anyone can be a billionaire.

Trillionaires....that is where the money is.

 

[gipper]

Hitler had the same idea except it was Jews.

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth.

Bullshit.

He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Obviously. The only two choices are "spend $20 billion to end homelessness" or "he's a psychopath".

That's the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

No. It’s totally factual

 

[Andylusion]

If we took all the poor people, put them on an island somewhere, nobody would be missed. In fact, since they cause most of the violent crime, our society would benefit greatly. If we took all the wealthy and did the same thing, the country collapses.

Hitler had the same idea except it was Jews.

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

Garbage.

You people don't seem to understand how the economy works.

Redistributing wealth simply results in a reduction of wealth.

The reason for this is simple. The people who are homeless, are homeless for a reason. Putting people in homes, will not fix the fundamental reason they were homeless to begin with.

The result will be that whatever caused them to be homeless before, will cause them to be homeless in the future.

Take for example, someone who has mental issues. Most of these people had families, that simply can't handle them anymore, and kicked them out. They can't hold a job, and they can't handle maintaining a house. In the end, they end up homeless.

Now say you take Jeff Bezos money, and buy this guy a house. Do you think he has the ability to maintain a home? Of course not. Who is going to maintain the home? No one. He'll destroy it, and it will end up being worthless.

If you put this guy in an apartment, the apartments value will drop. People will move out. The value of the property will fall, and eventually be abandoned or condemned, much like the public housing projects of the 70s, or even some of the buildings in New York City today.

Most of the people who are impoverished, are impoverished because they don't know how to maintain their wealth. Giving them free stuff, doesn't make them wealthy, it just destroys the free stuff.

Again, we have examples of this throughout our culture, in the form of the lottery. People who win millions, routinely end up bankrupt in a few years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth.

Bullshit.

He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Obviously. The only two choices are "spend $20 billion to end homelessness" or "he's a psychopath".

That's the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

No. It’s totally factual

Is he the only psychopath who won't use their personal funds to end homelessness?
If I don't use some of my money, does that mean I'm a psychopath?

And why do you think it would only take $20 billion?

 

[Denizen]

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?

What about bogus billionaires like Donald Trump?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

Then you vile scum will be giving all the Soros money back?

 

[Flash]

 

[Flash]

 

[FA_Q2]

Who said it was an idea? I just pointed out the value that wealthy people in our society represent, and the lack of value our poor people have.

You believe that wealthy people have a higher value than you? Isn't it true that we have poor because of wealthy people?

How do we have poor because of wealthy people? That comment didn't even make sense.

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth. He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013
To many, homelessness is an impossible problem—too unwieldy and expensive. But ending homelessness has a price tag, just like those gizmos purporting to shed pounds and gym memberships. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, it would cost $20 billion to end homelessness. That’s less than half of what we spend each year on weight loss and self-improvement.
Resolve to End Homelessness in 2013 - Center for American Progress

Bezos alone could end homelessness in America, with a fraction of his wealth.

Bullshit.

He doesn’t because he’s a psychopath.

Obviously. The only two choices are "spend $20 billion to end homelessness" or "he's a psychopath".

That's the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

No. It’s totally factual

Giving homeless homes is not a new concept.

It does not work.

 

[FA_Q2]

This shows the prime motivation of the left - it has never been altruism or care for the disadvantaged. It has always been sheer hate for those that are advantaged.

It still shocks me that anyone thinks demanding a segment of the population should not exits is a viable campaign strategy. It is asinine.

 

[Yarddog]

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?

There is also an increasing amount of millionaires in the U.S. including more people of color. DO you think thats bad?

 

[Yarddog]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

No, they don't.

There are a few that dont. Google and Amazon come to mind, but many of them do, and many of them have created more jobs by having a vision and creating a system of wealth for many.

 

[Yarddog]

This shows the prime motivation of the left - it has never been altruism or care for the disadvantaged. It has always been sheer hate for those that are advantaged.

It still shocks me that anyone thinks demanding a segment of the population should not exits is a viable campaign strategy. It is asinine.

I think they are a bunch of jealous bastards. Who gives a shit if someone else has more?

 

[Yarddog]

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?

What about bogus billionaires like Donald Trump?

Who cares? people working in his corporations have jobs and make futures for their families. That alone is more than you have to offer the world