Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[The Original Tree]

You and every Millionaire Democrat running for office who wants to kill The Billionaires and put Conservatives in Concentration Camps.

Off with your Head.

The Bible says to them who do not work, they shall not eat.

If you want to Help The POOR, help them out of your own Pocket. Do not rob me of my wealth and earnings, and give it to a overpaid Government Official to embezzle it and distribute it to his friends so that by the time it gets to an actual homeless person, The $100 you stole from me is whittled down to $1.

Wicked people such as you hide behind The HOMELESS, steal our money for yourselves and will Not get up off of their LAZY Asses to do anything for The Homeless Themselves.

If you have homeless and illegals in your city, it is because your city is mismanaging it's resources, and has unjust laws creating homelessness. Fix it yourself, and quit begging for money. Get up off of your Lazy Ass and DO SOMETHING yourself about it.

Good God you’re nuts.

In your deluded world, the weak and feeble minded should be executed.

"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".


Who said that?

Jesus said that, and you know why? Because The Man he was talking to, did not want to use his OWN money to help The Poor. He wanted someone else to do it. He wanted to be Seen with Jesus, but he did not want to make The Sacrifices Jesus made. He wanted someone else to pay for it. He was a Social Justice Warrior.

He left Jesus and was sorrowful because he had much wealth. THEN Jesus made that statement.

Jesus did not however, Confiscate his Wealth, Throw him in a Gulag, and then Call for him to be Beheaded, like The Sanders Campaign asserts we must do with anyone that has a certain amount of wealth, and the cut off line starts with them excluding themselves from such things.

Just like EVERY LIBERAL EVER, they make a religion out of their causes and exclude themselves from the work that needs done to fix anything, and instead they create the problems then wash their hands and exclude themselves from being part of the solution.

Jesus never said wealth was bad. Wealth did separate people from God in his eyes. The more earthy things you possess, the less you care about God almighty. He was right in a way. As we acquire all these wonderful things in this country, more and more people are dropping out of religion, and we have more atheists than ever.

Worshipping the almighty dollar isn't just for the rich though, obviously. Do you think God would look upon people who have "wealth envy" favorably? I don't. The term "don't covet thy neighbor" comes to mind.

Who has wealth envy? You?

 

[ChrisL]

Off with your Head.

The Bible says to them who do not work, they shall not eat.

If you want to Help The POOR, help them out of your own Pocket. Do not rob me of my wealth and earnings, and give it to a overpaid Government Official to embezzle it and distribute it to his friends so that by the time it gets to an actual homeless person, The $100 you stole from me is whittled down to $1.

Wicked people such as you hide behind The HOMELESS, steal our money for yourselves and will Not get up off of their LAZY Asses to do anything for The Homeless Themselves.

If you have homeless and illegals in your city, it is because your city is mismanaging it's resources, and has unjust laws creating homelessness. Fix it yourself, and quit begging for money. Get up off of your Lazy Ass and DO SOMETHING yourself about it.

Good God you’re nuts.

In your deluded world, the weak and feeble minded should be executed.

"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".


Who said that?

Jesus said that, and you know why? Because The Man he was talking to, did not want to use his OWN money to help The Poor. He wanted someone else to do it. He wanted to be Seen with Jesus, but he did not want to make The Sacrifices Jesus made. He wanted someone else to pay for it. He was a Social Justice Warrior.

He left Jesus and was sorrowful because he had much wealth. THEN Jesus made that statement.

Jesus did not however, Confiscate his Wealth, Throw him in a Gulag, and then Call for him to be Beheaded, like The Sanders Campaign asserts we must do with anyone that has a certain amount of wealth, and the cut off line starts with them excluding themselves from such things.

Just like EVERY LIBERAL EVER, they make a religion out of their causes and exclude themselves from the work that needs done to fix anything, and instead they create the problems then wash their hands and exclude themselves from being part of the solution.

Jesus never said wealth was bad. Wealth did separate people from God in his eyes. The more earthy things you possess, the less you care about God almighty. He was right in a way. As we acquire all these wonderful things in this country, more and more people are dropping out of religion, and we have more atheists than ever.

Worshipping the almighty dollar isn't just for the rich though, obviously. Do you think God would look upon people who have "wealth envy" favorably? I don't. The term "don't covet thy neighbor" comes to mind.

Who has wealth envy? You?

I would say, the people who constantly blame them for all of their own (usually self inflicted) problems and people who think that if they would just distribute their money to the homeless/poor that would solve all the world's problems. That is quite naïve and ignorant of the human condition, IMO.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Agreed and a billionaire with the ability to help them, should do so. I’m not suggesting they be forced to but if you could help these people, wouldn’t you?

I'm sure many of us would, but that's why we're not wealthy. People with money are usually obsessed with it. That's what drove them to being wealthy in the first place. After they made one million, they wanted two. After they made ten million, they wanted twenty. Can you imagine how much money one billion dollars is? There is no way to reasonably spend that kind of dough. But people who make that billion dollars want to turn it into two billion dollars even though there is no way to spend it. It's an obsession.

Hence, they are ******* psychopaths.

And those psychopaths continue to produce.

That is why a free market is a win for everyone.

 

[FA_Q2]

Pretty much everyone looks at wealth inequality from the perspective of personal circumstances. And they the get preoccupied with who "deserves" to have more goodies. But beyond a few hundred thousand, that becomes irrelevant. What we're really talking about is economic power. And the question of whether there should be billionaires, is really the question of how we should distribute economic power in society. Should we do it freely, through the market, with our spending decisions? Or take a vote, and appoint our billionaires via government?

economic power is usually earned, unless your name is Biden

Think that was the point....

 

[dblack]

Pretty much everyone looks at wealth inequality from the perspective of personal circumstances. And they the get preoccupied with who "deserves" to have more goodies. But beyond a few hundred thousand, that becomes irrelevant. What we're really talking about is economic power. And the question of whether there should be billionaires, is really the question of how we should distribute economic power in society. Should we do it freely, through the market, with our spending decisions? Or take a vote, and appoint our billionaires via government?

economic power is usually earned, unless your name is Biden

Think that was the point....

Yep. "Billionaires" will exist either way. It's just a question of whether they are appointed by government or the market.

 

[gipper]

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.

Agreed and a billionaire with the ability to help them, should do so. I’m not suggesting they be forced to but if you could help these people, wouldn’t you?

I'm sure many of us would, but that's why we're not wealthy. People with money are usually obsessed with it. That's what drove them to being wealthy in the first place. After they made one million, they wanted two. After they made ten million, they wanted twenty. Can you imagine how much money one billion dollars is? There is no way to reasonably spend that kind of dough. But people who make that billion dollars want to turn it into two billion dollars even though there is no way to spend it. It's an obsession.

Hence, they are ******* psychopaths.

And those psychopaths continue to produce.

That is why a free market is a win for everyone.

People don’t blame them for their problems. They blame them for ******* up the country.

There is no free market. It’s a fiction the right likes to talk about, to dupe the dumb.

 

[gipper]

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.

Of course not. Do you have any idea how much wealth the billionaires have?

What the hell difference does that make, they have no more obligation as a citizen of this country than you.

.

The point was they have the wealth to easily fix the problem. Sorry you are incapable of deciphering the point.

Please don’t take me out of context to fit your screwed beliefs.

 

[gipper]

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.

Agreed and a billionaire with the ability to help them, should do so. I’m not suggesting they be forced to but if you could help these people, wouldn’t you?

I'm sure many of us would, but that's why we're not wealthy. People with money are usually obsessed with it. That's what drove them to being wealthy in the first place. After they made one million, they wanted two. After they made ten million, they wanted twenty. Can you imagine how much money one billion dollars is? There is no way to reasonably spend that kind of dough. But people who make that billion dollars want to turn it into two billion dollars even though there is no way to spend it. It's an obsession.

Hence, they are ******* psychopaths.

And those psychopaths continue to produce.

That is why a free market is a win for everyone.

LOL. Free market my ass. The billionaires love dupes like you.

 

[Brain357]

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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

 

[San Souci]

Once again. May the CEO PoWER rule forever.

 

[dblack]

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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

And if those "few" were government bureaucrats, rather than private entrepreneurs, that'd be all good, eh?

 

[Brain357]

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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

And if those "few" were government bureaucrats, rather than private entrepreneurs, that'd be all good, eh?

Those few have gotten a lot of help from government bureaucrats.

 

[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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

How so? What would you rather have, government collect all our money and divide it up as they see fit?

 

[Brain357]

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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

How so? What would you rather have, government collect all our money and divide it up as they see fit?

I’d prefer good capitalism where the rich aren’t working with the politicians to hose the people.

 

[dblack]

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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

And if those "few" were government bureaucrats, rather than private entrepreneurs, that'd be all good, eh?

Those few have gotten a lot of help from government bureaucrats.

True that. We should put a stop to collusion between government and business. But that doesn't really answer my question. Do you think it would be better if government had control of all that capital, rather than private investors?

 

[dblack]

What would you rather have, government collect all our money and divide it up as they see fit?

Ultimately, yes. That's what they're after.

 

[Brain357]

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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

And if those "few" were government bureaucrats, rather than private entrepreneurs, that'd be all good, eh?

Those few have gotten a lot of help from government bureaucrats.

True that. We should put a stop to collusion between government and business. But that doesn't really answer my question. Do you think it would be better if government had control of all that capital, rather than private investors?

Why would you suggest that? I’m a free market capitalist, that means the government doesn’t pick winners and losers. Many of our ultra wealthy were picked.

 

[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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

How so? What would you rather have, government collect all our money and divide it up as they see fit?

I’d prefer good capitalism where the rich aren’t working with the politicians to hose the people.

How are we being hosed? Please give me an example or two.

 

[dblack]

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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

And if those "few" were government bureaucrats, rather than private entrepreneurs, that'd be all good, eh?

Those few have gotten a lot of help from government bureaucrats.

True that. We should put a stop to collusion between government and business. But that doesn't really answer my question. Do you think it would be better if government had control of all that capital, rather than private investors?

Why would you suggest that? I’m a free market capitalist, that means the government doesn’t pick winners and losers. Many of our ultra wealthy were picked.

Hmmm... nah...just not believing you. I bet you just want them to pick different winners and losers, amiright?

 

[Brain357]

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?

Probably not, The massive wealth of so few shows our capitalism is broken.

How so? What would you rather have, government collect all our money and divide it up as they see fit?

I’d prefer good capitalism where the rich aren’t working with the politicians to hose the people.

How are we being hosed? Please give me an example or two.

Trillion dollar deficits. Weak wage growth. Huge increases in healthcare costs...