Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[Flash]

Conservatives love billionaires and would like to be one.

Stupid Libtards love ghetto welfare queens and usually are them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government control of campaign finance. Duh.

No control sure isn’t working.

Control didn't work...….

Explain.

We had control in 1996, while Clinton was getting illegal Chinese donations.

Did he? Link?

how much control did we have?

Did he?

He did.

So what reform do we need?

 

[Brain357]

Yes you blame only the buyers and not the sellers. It’s all a problem. We need reform.

The buyers are our politicians. The sellers have no say if the buyers aren't buying. Lol.

But they are.

??? But they are what? Again, the sellers cannot sell if the buyers stop buying. Correct?

They are buying. What should we do about that?

Well, we could vote in some people who are NOT lifelong corrupt politicians. Really though, Congress could put an end to it. THEY choose not to.

Both options are corrupt.

 

[Brain357]

No control sure isn’t working.

Control didn't work...….

Explain.

We had control in 1996, while Clinton was getting illegal Chinese donations.

Did he? Link?

how much control did we have?

Did he?

He did.

So what reform do we need?

Link?

 

[dblack]

You just keep repeating yourself, and I've already addressed this. Are you a bot?

Yes you blame only the buyers and not the sellers. It’s all a problem. We need reform.

The buyers are our politicians. The sellers have no say if the buyers aren't buying. Lol.

But they are.

??? But they are what? Again, the sellers cannot sell if the buyers stop buying. Correct?

They are buying. What should we do about that?

Cut off the supply. The problem is that Congress has too much power to interfere in our economic decisions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Control didn't work...….

Explain.

We had control in 1996, while Clinton was getting illegal Chinese donations.

Did he? Link?

how much control did we have?

Did he?

He did.

So what reform do we need?

Link?

I don't have a link to your plan for reform. Do you?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

It's like with the income inequality. It's just an excuse. They want government to have the power instead of the people. They want government to control capital, and healthcare - and pretty much everything else they can get their hands on - because they want government to control things.

Why do you think that is? Because they are incapable of caring for themselves? If you think about it, they are actually the "greedy" ones.

I think it's because of a naive conception of government. They see government as equivalent to the will of the society - some even claim government IS the society, that it IS the people. From their point of view, if you want to change something in society, you pass a law. And if someone objects to the law, it's because they object to the change you have in mind.

I run into this all the time. If I oppose intrusive civil rights laws, it's because I'm a bigot. If I oppose the welfare state it's because I want poor people to suffer. If I oppose government control of healthcare, it's because I don't care about sick people. That's not just demagoguery. That's what they actually believe. It extends from their faith in government as the ultimate expression of society and humanity.

Our politicians are all owned by the wealthy.

There's a very simple way to combat this; limit the size, scope, and power of the federal government. As was originally intended.

Liberals: 'We want bigger government!'

Liberals 5 minutes later: 'Look at all these problems with a bigger government!'

Republicans love big government too. They support subsidies and corporate welfare as much as anyone. Milton Friedman’s answer was to have a budget politicians couldn’t go over. That way they would be limited in what they could do. Their corruption is unlimited now.

I agree 100% with this post.

 

[dblack]

Why do you think that is? Because they are incapable of caring for themselves? If you think about it, they are actually the "greedy" ones.

I think it's because of a naive conception of government. They see government as equivalent to the will of the society - some even claim government IS the society, that it IS the people. From their point of view, if you want to change something in society, you pass a law. And if someone objects to the law, it's because they object to the change you have in mind.

I run into this all the time. If I oppose intrusive civil rights laws, it's because I'm a bigot. If I oppose the welfare state it's because I want poor people to suffer. If I oppose government control of healthcare, it's because I don't care about sick people. That's not just demagoguery. That's what they actually believe. It extends from their faith in government as the ultimate expression of society and humanity.

Our politicians are all owned by the wealthy.

There's a very simple way to combat this; limit the size, scope, and power of the federal government. As was originally intended.

Liberals: 'We want bigger government!'

Liberals 5 minutes later: 'Look at all these problems with a bigger government!'

Republicans love big government too. They support subsidies and corporate welfare as much as anyone. Milton Friedman’s answer was to have a budget politicians couldn’t go over. That way they would be limited in what they could do. Their corruption is unlimited now.

I agree 100% with this post.

It's also just a dodge, and in no way justifies all the horseshit he's been arguing for in this thread.

 

[San Souci]

It's like with the income inequality. It's just an excuse. They want government to have the power instead of the people. They want government to control capital, and healthcare - and pretty much everything else they can get their hands on - because they want government to control things.

Markets don’t work with healthcare. Ours is the most expensive by far and still not the best. It needs fixing.

Bullshit. Markets become dysfunctional when unscrupulous politicians pollute them with inane regulation. And then these same unscrupulous politicians point to the mess (that they created by interfering) and pretend it's proof that "markets don't work".

They can make markets worse certainly. But that doesn’t change they inherently don’t work for healthcare. You can’t call around for pricing when in an ambulance. You don’t shop around for cheap surgery when your life is on the line.

Haven't really got time to get into this bullshit right now, but I've heard it ad nauseam. Every time a liberal wants more power for government, it's the excuse. The free market (freedom) doesn't work. We must submit.

No thanks.

I think it’s only true for healthcare. Now our markets are broken everywhere thanks to the near monopolies, but that can be fixed.

Markets are BROKEN? Hmmmmm…..I checked. ten thousand points higher than Obama ever reached.

 

[San Souci]

It is not HAVING the money. It is the EARNING that is fun. If one is the type able to do it in the first place.

Yes, people who end up being millionaires and billionaires have a different mindset that's for sure.

Yes. Some people forget that they create JOBS.

They do but I guess my personal opinion is that you would think that their company and especially their employees would be better off if the multi-millionaire or billionaire founder or owner didn’t allow themselves to get to that level because they gave more money back into the company and it’s employees beyond simple employment.

its up to the individual rich person what they do with their money. If you don't like how a CEO acts boycott his business. The government should never tell any person what they must do with their money.

I would agree that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do with their money. I guess my point was that in my opinion if the wealthiest CEO’s were to reinvest their wealth into their employees and the communities that their employees live it would help create a more stable life for millions of people across the country. Many CEOs are philanthropists, I’m aware of that, but if you are a multi-millionaire or especially a billionaire business owner or CEO I personally think that you have more to share. Money is not the end all be all and so I’m not saying employees need to be millionaires or anything like that but many large companies have employees that are barely making it by while the top executives have generational wealth. I’m not saying to force them to do anything but I am saying that I personally believe that they should close that gap more between them. I know I would if I were in that position.

Would that not be up to the individual? What if the guy wants to bogart his money?

 

[ChrisL]

 

[Brain357]

Explain.

We had control in 1996, while Clinton was getting illegal Chinese donations.

Did he? Link?

how much control did we have?

Did he?

He did.

So what reform do we need?

Link?

I don't have a link to your plan for reform. Do you?

You made a claim about Clinton. Prove it.

 

[Brain357]

Yes you blame only the buyers and not the sellers. It’s all a problem. We need reform.

The buyers are our politicians. The sellers have no say if the buyers aren't buying. Lol.

But they are.

??? But they are what? Again, the sellers cannot sell if the buyers stop buying. Correct?

They are buying. What should we do about that?

Cut off the supply. The problem is that Congress has too much power to interfere in our economic decisions.

You would do that how?

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Yes, people who end up being millionaires and billionaires have a different mindset that's for sure.

Yes. Some people forget that they create JOBS.

They do but I guess my personal opinion is that you would think that their company and especially their employees would be better off if the multi-millionaire or billionaire founder or owner didn’t allow themselves to get to that level because they gave more money back into the company and it’s employees beyond simple employment.

its up to the individual rich person what they do with their money. If you don't like how a CEO acts boycott his business. The government should never tell any person what they must do with their money.

I would agree that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do with their money. I guess my point was that in my opinion if the wealthiest CEO’s were to reinvest their wealth into their employees and the communities that their employees live it would help create a more stable life for millions of people across the country. Many CEOs are philanthropists, I’m aware of that, but if you are a multi-millionaire or especially a billionaire business owner or CEO I personally think that you have more to share. Money is not the end all be all and so I’m not saying employees need to be millionaires or anything like that but many large companies have employees that are barely making it by while the top executives have generational wealth. I’m not saying to force them to do anything but I am saying that I personally believe that they should close that gap more between them. I know I would if I were in that position.

Would that not be up to the individual? What if the guy wants to bogart his money?

Yes it would be up to the individual at the end of the day. I was mainly speaking from my own personal point of view of what I would do if I were in that kind of position.

 

[Brain357]

I think it's because of a naive conception of government. They see government as equivalent to the will of the society - some even claim government IS the society, that it IS the people. From their point of view, if you want to change something in society, you pass a law. And if someone objects to the law, it's because they object to the change you have in mind.

I run into this all the time. If I oppose intrusive civil rights laws, it's because I'm a bigot. If I oppose the welfare state it's because I want poor people to suffer. If I oppose government control of healthcare, it's because I don't care about sick people. That's not just demagoguery. That's what they actually believe. It extends from their faith in government as the ultimate expression of society and humanity.

Our politicians are all owned by the wealthy.

There's a very simple way to combat this; limit the size, scope, and power of the federal government. As was originally intended.

Liberals: 'We want bigger government!'

Liberals 5 minutes later: 'Look at all these problems with a bigger government!'

Republicans love big government too. They support subsidies and corporate welfare as much as anyone. Milton Friedman’s answer was to have a budget politicians couldn’t go over. That way they would be limited in what they could do. Their corruption is unlimited now.

I agree 100% with this post.

It's also just a dodge, and in no way justifies all the horseshit he's been arguing for in this thread.

Campaign finance reform is horseshit?

 

[Hum Dinger]

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?

The fact is that wealth is only created by the production of physical items. Services may have value that is equated to the value of physical items, but service do not create wealth.

There are many mechanisms for people to horde wealth, but hording wealth is NOT creating wealth.

Unfortunately, the people who actually create wealth are deprived of the ownership of the wealth that they create, while most people that have horded huge amounts of wealth have not created any wealth whatsoever in their lifetimes. They may have performed some services that have value, but usually extremely wealthy people's total services rendered are NOT close in value to the amount of wealth that they own.

Basically, extremely wealthy people are thieves. They don't mean to be thieves, but they are.

Our society has many, many mechanisms for legal thievery. That's the problem.

 

[kwc57]

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?

The fact is that wealth is only created by the production of physical items. Services may have value that is equated to the value of physical items, but service do not create wealth.

There are many mechanisms for people to horde wealth, but hording wealth is NOT creating wealth.

Unfortunately, the people who actually create wealth are deprived of the ownership of the wealth that they create, while most people that have horded huge amounts of wealth have not created any wealth whatsoever in their lifetimes. They may have performed some services that have value, but usually extremely wealthy people's total services rendered are NOT close in value to the amount of wealth that they own.

Basically, extremely wealthy people are thieves. They don't mean to be thieves, but they are.

Our society has many, many mechanisms for legal thievery. That's the problem.

Bovine feces.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

The fact is that wealth is only created by the production of physical items. Services may have value that is equated to the value of physical items, but service do not create wealth.

There are many mechanisms for people to horde wealth, but hording wealth is NOT creating wealth.

Unfortunately, the people who actually create wealth are deprived of the ownership of the wealth that they create, while most people that have horded huge amounts of wealth have not created any wealth whatsoever in their lifetimes. They may have performed some services that have value, but usually extremely wealthy people's total services rendered are NOT close in value to the amount of wealth that they own.

Basically, extremely wealthy people are thieves. They don't mean to be thieves, but they are.

Our society has many, many mechanisms for legal thievery. That's the problem.

Hording your own money does not make you a thief. Greedy? Perhaps, but not a thief.

Even if the government took ALL of this wealth, you aren't going to see any of it. Lol. You will still be paying government taxes also.

I don't know what you people think would happen? That the government is going to support your arses with the wealth they take from someone else? Not going to happen.

 

[ChrisL]

The problem with leftists is that they want instant gratification and don't want to work hard for anything. Corrupt politicians love those types.

 

[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?

The fact is that wealth is only created by the production of physical items. Services may have value that is equated to the value of physical items, but service do not create wealth.

There are many mechanisms for people to horde wealth, but hording wealth is NOT creating wealth.

Unfortunately, the people who actually create wealth are deprived of the ownership of the wealth that they create, while most people that have horded huge amounts of wealth have not created any wealth whatsoever in their lifetimes. They may have performed some services that have value, but usually extremely wealthy people's total services rendered are NOT close in value to the amount of wealth that they own.

Basically, extremely wealthy people are thieves. They don't mean to be thieves, but they are.

Our society has many, many mechanisms for legal thievery. That's the problem.

Theft is the action of taking anothers property against their will, or leaving them with no reasonable alternative but to surrender it. So who are these thieves taking belongings from?