Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[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 a joke....wealth is not a finite, static pie.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Of course not
That is why they should be taxed

Well, so tax the millionaires more heavily so they never become billionaires,, and then we can reduce the number of millionaires as as well ! fantastic! you people really don't know what you are asking for. It would all be a social experiment that would be dissasterous for the economy. Your people dont want to tax the riches' money, they want to tax their assets. As AOC said, she wants their power not their money. This is a mental illness of jealousy and some sort of revenge. It's asking for ingrained class warfare, unjustly causing people to hate others for their success.

 

[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?

So, what you're really saying is, should we get government to confiscate and redistribute wealth from private individuals?

.

Indirectly, by leveling the playing field. The fat cats have gamed the system. From the OP:

There is a raft of policies in place that help America crank out billionaires: lax antitrust laws and regulations; strong intellectual property protections; low tax rates; government-funded research. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (No. 2 on Forbes’ list in 2018) couldn’t have amassed a fortune, for example, without strict copyright and patent protections on his software, Steinbaum pointed out.

The late Steve Jobs, widely regarded as an absolute genius who deserved every last dollar, used a boatload of government-funded technology to help create his defining device, the iPhone. Google also benefited from government-funded research, argues Mariana Mazzucato in a piece in the Harvard Business Review.

“Over the years. U.S. taxpayers have been very good to Apple,” she writes, adding that in return, the Cupertino, California, computer maker and other tech companies have done everything they can to get out of paying taxes and paying it forward.

Most entrepreneurs like to argue that they’ve achieved great wealth in spite of the government, not with its help.

Lakhota your identity as paid political propagandist working for the DNC is confirmed.

Do you ever post your own ideas on this forum?

No, you do not, that would be a breach of contract.

The OP affects everyone - regardless of party affiliation. It's not about politics - it's about social justice for everyone.

Many More Millionaires by 2020: How Will Your State Stack Up? – News to Watch

So as you can see, the number of millionaires is increasing. Wanna bet that also the number of households making over 100K is also increasing?
Now lets punish them all because some other people are still making much less! Lets crack the system, and give all that money to the government... because.. because... because.. they are so accountable for the stupid shit they already do!

Brilliant idea!

Sure, you say your talking about the Billionaires, not the others but thats just people like AOC and Sanders testing the waters. It's the starting point. They can tax the crap out of billionaires and it still doesn't end up being enough to pay the price tag for the things they want. They will soon move on down the line. What is real social justice, is creating a society, where anyone can aspire to be what they want to be, and a healthy economy that creates a demand for all those things. Not a government who is there to decide who has too much and who needs to be penalized.

 

[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?

What a joke....wealth is not a finite, static pie.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Of course not
That is why they should be taxed

Wealth is NOT a finite static pie.

Meaning that one person having more, does not mean someone else has less.

Being taxed, just reduces the size of the pie, which means everyone has less.

 

[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, what you're really saying is, should we get government to confiscate and redistribute wealth from private individuals?

.

Indirectly, by leveling the playing field. The fat cats have gamed the system. From the OP:

There is a raft of policies in place that help America crank out billionaires: lax antitrust laws and regulations; strong intellectual property protections; low tax rates; government-funded research. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (No. 2 on Forbes’ list in 2018) couldn’t have amassed a fortune, for example, without strict copyright and patent protections on his software, Steinbaum pointed out.

The late Steve Jobs, widely regarded as an absolute genius who deserved every last dollar, used a boatload of government-funded technology to help create his defining device, the iPhone. Google also benefited from government-funded research, argues Mariana Mazzucato in a piece in the Harvard Business Review.

“Over the years. U.S. taxpayers have been very good to Apple,” she writes, adding that in return, the Cupertino, California, computer maker and other tech companies have done everything they can to get out of paying taxes and paying it forward.

Most entrepreneurs like to argue that they’ve achieved great wealth in spite of the government, not with its help.

Lakhota your identity as paid political propagandist working for the DNC is confirmed.

Do you ever post your own ideas on this forum?

No, you do not, that would be a breach of contract.

The OP affects everyone - regardless of party affiliation. It's not about politics - it's about social justice for everyone.

Many More Millionaires by 2020: How Will Your State Stack Up? – News to Watch

So as you can see, the number of millionaires is increasing. Wanna bet that also the number of households making over 100K is also increasing?
Now lets punish them all because some other people are still making much less! Lets crack the system, and give all that money to the government... because.. because... because.. they are so accountable for the stupid shit they already do!

Brilliant idea!

Sure, you say your talking about the Billionaires, not the others but thats just people like AOC and Sanders testing the waters. It's the starting point. They can tax the crap out of billionaires and it still doesn't end up being enough to pay the price tag for the things they want. They will soon move on down the line. What is real social justice, is creating a society, where anyone can aspire to be what they want to be, and a healthy economy that creates a demand for all those things. Not a government who is there to decide who has too much and who needs to be penalized.

Exactly. It's like by every measure more people are better off, but instead we have people whining more now than ever before.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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?

Right, kill all the rich people and the poor people will disappear. Did you hear that from a kindergartener?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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 couldn’t end homelessness with all his money. Lack of Money is not most homeless peoples’ issue. It’s either drugs, alcohol, or mental problems.

It’s kinda like you. If you had all the money in the world, you’d still be stupid.

 

[OKTexas]

George Soros is a billionaire, why isn't he in the picture?

He helps keep the left wing hate site that wrote the article in business. They know who butters their bread.

.

Soros thinks his own taxes should be raised

Well, the great thing about living in a free country is he can write a check for any amount he chooses. The government places minimums, not maximums.

.

 

[San Souci]

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 couldn’t end homelessness with all his money. Lack of Money is not most homeless peoples’ issue. It’s either drugs, alcohol, or mental problems.

It’s kinda like you. If you had all the money in the world, you’d still be stupid.

Or just stupidity ,laziness ,or entitlement mentality.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

In your world during 911 you think the stockbroker running out of the building is worth 10 firemen going into the building..

And you don't think all people were created equally...

Jesus said forsake worldly goods, bloody losers...

Lets be very clear you worship the dollar and not God..

You really are fucked in the head, people choose different paths for reasons known only to them. BTW this is a political forum, if you want to discuss religion, this ain't the damn place.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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...

Cool story...
Tell me, how does your neighbor achieving more than you, earning more than you, possessing more than you affect your life and or wealth potential?
How does Jeff Bezos stand in your way?

Easy

Our nation used to achieve great things and had government services and infrastructure that was the envy of the world.

Since we have embraced supply side economics we have lived on an austerity budget with infrastructure, education and healthcare suffering.

How could that be if the treasury is taking in record amounts of cash and we’re spending more than ever?
Are you pulling shit from your ass again?

The treasury always takes in more cash over time. It is a function of economic and population expansion

We are also taxing corporations and the one percent at the lowest rate in decades

AND??????

.

 

[San Souci]

The rich already pay far more than a fair share.

No, they don't.

Yes. The top 1% pay 50% of TAX. The top 10% pay 90% of all Tax. The Bottom 50% pay NOTHING.

 

[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 couldn’t end homelessness with all his money. Lack of Money is not most homeless peoples’ issue. It’s either drugs, alcohol, or mental problems.

It’s kinda like you. If you had all the money in the world, you’d still be stupid.

He most certainly could. $20 billion is all that is needed. Roughly 15-20% of his wealth would do it.

You just need to think outside the box, you have put yourself in.

 

[gipper]

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 couldn’t end homelessness with all his money. Lack of Money is not most homeless peoples’ issue. It’s either drugs, alcohol, or mental problems.

It’s kinda like you. If you had all the money in the world, you’d still be stupid.

Or just stupidity ,laziness ,or entitlement mentality.

Yes the elites love fools who think this

 

[gipper]

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.

Yes it does. It worked in the past.

 

[gipper]

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?

Read the article I linked. I didn’t come up with the $20 billion, silly.

You aren’t thinking, which is commonplace today.

I’m not suggesting government take his wealth. I’m stating he has the power and wealth to end homelessness, but he doesn’t. He isn’t the only one who could, silly. All the wealthiest people could do it.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Read the article I linked. I didn’t come up with the $20 billion, silly.

You aren’t thinking, which is commonplace today.

I’m not suggesting government take his wealth. I’m stating he has the power and wealth to end homelessness, but he doesn’t. He isn’t the only one who could, silly. All the wealthiest people could do it.

No they couldn't. All the money in the world will not solve this problem. I've read plenty of stories where people have tried to give homeless people money to lift themselves out of poverty, and they would spend the money on drugs, hotel rooms, etc. Also, similar stories of people winning the lottery and blowing all their winnings and ending up just as poor as before they had won.

People are not perfect. A lot of people are lazy or sedentary or just satisfied with their position in life.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Read the article I linked. I didn’t come up with the $20 billion, silly.

You aren’t thinking, which is commonplace today.

I’m not suggesting government take his wealth. I’m stating he has the power and wealth to end homelessness, but he doesn’t. He isn’t the only one who could, silly. All the wealthiest people could do it.

Read the article I linked. I didn’t come up with the $20 billion, silly.

I know, it was some useless bureaucrat.

I’m stating he has the power and wealth to end homelessness,

Yes, I saw your silly claim already.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

George Soros is a billionaire, why isn't he in the picture?

He helps keep the left wing hate site that wrote the article in business. They know who butters their bread.

.

Soros thinks his own taxes should be raised

Well, the great thing about living in a free country is he can write a check for any amount he chooses. The government places minimums, not maximums.

.

Leftists don't like choice. Choice means freedom which means less control for them.

Take away their soda size options. Take away their plastic bags and straws. Take away their choice of magazine size for their guns. Take away their guns. Take away their choice of food in school lunches. Take away their money. Take away their choice in getting healthcare insurance. Take away their choice of vehicles. Take away their choice of a Happy Meal or not.

Leftism is all about taking things away from people.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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 couldn’t end homelessness with all his money. Lack of Money is not most homeless peoples’ issue. It’s either drugs, alcohol, or mental problems.

It’s kinda like you. If you had all the money in the world, you’d still be stupid.

Or just stupidity ,laziness ,or entitlement mentality.

Yes the elites love fools who think this

Ending homelessness does not carry a single one time cost. In other words, if you could spend $20 billion and end homelessness On one day, the next day there would be new homeless people. Like I said, lack of money is not the main cause of homelessness.

It seems the biggest cause of homelessness is Liberalism.
Proof- New York City and cities in California have the most homeless people.

 

[ChrisL]

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 couldn’t end homelessness with all his money. Lack of Money is not most homeless peoples’ issue. It’s either drugs, alcohol, or mental problems.

It’s kinda like you. If you had all the money in the world, you’d still be stupid.

Or just stupidity ,laziness ,or entitlement mentality.

Yes the elites love fools who think this

Ending homelessness does not carry a single one time cost. In other words, if you could spend $20 billion and end homelessness On one day, the next day there would be new homeless people. Like I said, lack of money is not the main cause of homelessness.

It seems the biggest cause of homelessness is Liberalism.
Proof- New York City and cities in California have the most homeless people.

The biggest causes of homelessness are mental illness and drug addiction and/or a combination of both.