Should Billionaires Even Exist?

[ChrisL]

Trump already said some industries might feel some pain, but they can adjust. This is worth it to level the playing field with China. If we continue to sit on our hands and do nothing, then we will get nothing. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Time to put the pressure on and keep it there.

China is all kinds of effed up, human rights violation, sweat shops, literal wage slaves who have no minimum wage. Funny how all of these bleeding heart leftists don't seem to care about slave wage labor in China.

It will be nice to have some quality American made products rather than cheap crappy Chinese made products as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I agree that taxation is not the solution. Fair wealth distribution is the solution.

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?

The financially advantaged taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged would qualify as 'no reasonable alternative but to surrender it'.

When a person is starving and/or has a family to support they are forced to work for whatever their employers are willing to pay them. They are in no position to demand payment on par with the value of their work.

Richard, nobody is forced to work for anybody. It's an agreement between somebody that needs workers and another who needs work. It's laid out up front as to pay and benefits, then it's up to the worker to decide if that offer is reasonable enough to accept the job.

If a worker believes they are being taken advantage of, then they are free to find another job. If they can't find a better job, then the employer they are currently working for is not stealing anything from them. They are getting paid what they are worth.

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

Liar.

 

[Brain357]

Trump already said some industries might feel some pain, but they can adjust. This is worth it to level the playing field with China. If we continue to sit on our hands and do nothing, then we will get nothing. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Time to put the pressure on and keep it there.

China is all kinds of effed up, human rights violation, sweat shops, literal wage slaves who have no minimum wage. Funny how all of these bleeding heart leftists don't seem to care about slave wage labor in China.

It will be nice to have some quality American made products rather than cheap crappy Chinese made products as well.

Interesting excuse for failure. At least you are past the denial of failure stage.

 

[San Souci]

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.

So someone who creates wealth for himself is a thief? And the remedy is for the Gov't to take it away and give it to the worthless POOR?

 

[ChrisL]

I agree that taxation is not the solution. Fair wealth distribution is the solution.

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?

The financially advantaged taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged would qualify as 'no reasonable alternative but to surrender it'.

When a person is starving and/or has a family to support they are forced to work for whatever their employers are willing to pay them. They are in no position to demand payment on par with the value of their work.

Richard, nobody is forced to work for anybody. It's an agreement between somebody that needs workers and another who needs work. It's laid out up front as to pay and benefits, then it's up to the worker to decide if that offer is reasonable enough to accept the job.

If a worker believes they are being taken advantage of, then they are free to find another job. If they can't find a better job, then the employer they are currently working for is not stealing anything from them. They are getting paid what they are worth.

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

If they are good employees and worth a raise, then they can usually get a raise, or while they are working, they can find an employer that is willing to offer them something more and then quit and take another job.

 

[ChrisL]

You can always change jobs if you are unhappy. There are TONS of jobs out there right now. Go get one. Go learn some skills. Take some training classes.

 

[ChrisL]

Just go and click on Indeed.com. There are thousands of jobs available and a lot of them are offering decent wages and benefits too.

 

[ChrisL]

And if people are SO concerned about wages, then quit inviting illegal immigrants in who will work those "grunt" jobs for peanuts and make Americans disposable. Hello? Wake up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree that taxation is not the solution. Fair wealth distribution is the solution.

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?

The financially advantaged taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged would qualify as 'no reasonable alternative but to surrender it'.

When a person is starving and/or has a family to support they are forced to work for whatever their employers are willing to pay them. They are in no position to demand payment on par with the value of their work.

Richard, nobody is forced to work for anybody. It's an agreement between somebody that needs workers and another who needs work. It's laid out up front as to pay and benefits, then it's up to the worker to decide if that offer is reasonable enough to accept the job.

If a worker believes they are being taken advantage of, then they are free to find another job. If they can't find a better job, then the employer they are currently working for is not stealing anything from them. They are getting paid what they are worth.

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

That's now how you are paid. Your value as a worker is what your employer can pay somebody else to do your job. That's all you are worth.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

The financially advantaged taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged would qualify as 'no reasonable alternative but to surrender it'.

When a person is starving and/or has a family to support they are forced to work for whatever their employers are willing to pay them. They are in no position to demand payment on par with the value of their work.

Richard, nobody is forced to work for anybody. It's an agreement between somebody that needs workers and another who needs work. It's laid out up front as to pay and benefits, then it's up to the worker to decide if that offer is reasonable enough to accept the job.

If a worker believes they are being taken advantage of, then they are free to find another job. If they can't find a better job, then the employer they are currently working for is not stealing anything from them. They are getting paid what they are worth.

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

That's now how you are paid. Your value as a worker is what your employer can pay somebody else to do your job. That's all you are worth.

Do you think that's a good process? Would you change anything about it?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Richard, nobody is forced to work for anybody. It's an agreement between somebody that needs workers and another who needs work. It's laid out up front as to pay and benefits, then it's up to the worker to decide if that offer is reasonable enough to accept the job.

If a worker believes they are being taken advantage of, then they are free to find another job. If they can't find a better job, then the employer they are currently working for is not stealing anything from them. They are getting paid what they are worth.

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

That's now how you are paid. Your value as a worker is what your employer can pay somebody else to do your job. That's all you are worth.

Do you think that's a good process? Would you change anything about it?

They are paid according to the market value of their services. How else would you judge the value of their work?

 

[SweetTea]

Sure the fed is wrong. You are such a child...

The fed was wrong to raise interest rates in late 2018. They admitted as much. Maybe you haven't been following, but the fed is not all knowing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Richard, nobody is forced to work for anybody. It's an agreement between somebody that needs workers and another who needs work. It's laid out up front as to pay and benefits, then it's up to the worker to decide if that offer is reasonable enough to accept the job.

If a worker believes they are being taken advantage of, then they are free to find another job. If they can't find a better job, then the employer they are currently working for is not stealing anything from them. They are getting paid what they are worth.

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

That's now how you are paid. Your value as a worker is what your employer can pay somebody else to do your job. That's all you are worth.

Do you think that's a good process? Would you change anything about it?

I didn't say if it was good or bad, I'm just saying that's the way it is. But you can't blame businesses for doing the same thing that you and I do all the time with people that work for us.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

That's now how you are paid. Your value as a worker is what your employer can pay somebody else to do your job. That's all you are worth.

Do you think that's a good process? Would you change anything about it?

They are paid according to the market value of their services. How else would you judge the value of their work?

I'm not really sure. Just because a role or job is designated as a certain level or grade by the generic "market" doesn't necessarily mean that businesses can't redefine or revalue those roles based on how those jobs impact it in my opinion. If you build a house which trade is more valuable? which non-construction job associated with that build is more valuable? without any of them the house wouldn't be built.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

That's now how you are paid. Your value as a worker is what your employer can pay somebody else to do your job. That's all you are worth.

Do you think that's a good process? Would you change anything about it?

They are paid according to the market value of their services. How else would you judge the value of their work?

If their father is the VP of the United States?

 

[SweetTea]

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.

I agree that taxation is not the solution. Fair wealth distribution is the solution.

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?

The financially advantaged taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged would qualify as 'no reasonable alternative but to surrender it'.

When a person is starving and/or has a family to support they are forced to work for whatever their employers are willing to pay them. They are in no position to demand payment on par with the value of their work.

Richard, nobody is forced to work for anybody. It's an agreement between somebody that needs workers and another who needs work. It's laid out up front as to pay and benefits, then it's up to the worker to decide if that offer is reasonable enough to accept the job.

If a worker believes they are being taken advantage of, then they are free to find another job. If they can't find a better job, then the employer they are currently working for is not stealing anything from them. They are getting paid what they are worth.

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

You are under the assumption that the job market is saturated with quality workers. If it were, then you may have a point, but that is a pipe dream. Employers are always looking for quality workers who are conscientious and hard working. Anyone can be that person and stand out from the crowd if they put forth the effort to do so. Unfortunately, many of these folks would rather NOT stand out because that requires effort. They find it much easier to complain about how the rich people are screwing them and they deserve some "free" stuff and they vote for the Socialists.

 

[ChrisL]

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

That's now how you are paid. Your value as a worker is what your employer can pay somebody else to do your job. That's all you are worth.

Do you think that's a good process? Would you change anything about it?

They are paid according to the market value of their services. How else would you judge the value of their work?

If leftists would stop supporting illegal immigration, then our wage gaps would not be so bad anyways. When you invite people into the country who will work for peanuts, then the value of your job is going to be less.

 

[iceberg]

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?

I think you are the same idiot as you've always been.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

Sorry, but it is not up to others to take care of you. If you want a better job and better pay, then you have to make yourself more attractive and more valuable to a potential employer. A person collecting social services is usually qualified to receive grants for training programs in order to help them get better job opportunities. But then you have to perform to prove you are a valuable asset and worth what you are getting paid.

There's no doubt that better educated and skilled people have a greater potential for valued productivity.

But, pure dumb ass labor produces some of the most valuable of all work - and they should be paid on par with the value of their work - not on par with their financial desperation.

It doesn't take much brains to dig a ditch, but without ditch diggers we would all die.

That's now how you are paid. Your value as a worker is what your employer can pay somebody else to do your job. That's all you are worth.

Do you think that's a good process? Would you change anything about it?

I didn't say if it was good or bad, I'm just saying that's the way it is. But you can't blame businesses for doing the same thing that you and I do all the time with people that work for us.

But would you change anything about that process if you could redefine it? I don't really have anybody that works for me personally but if I did it would cause chaos in my brain trying to think of how to take care of them.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

I agree that taxation is not the solution. Fair wealth distribution is the solution.

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?

The financially advantaged taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged would qualify as 'no reasonable alternative but to surrender it'.

When a person is starving and/or has a family to support they are forced to work for whatever their employers are willing to pay them. They are in no position to demand payment on par with the value of their work.

Richard, nobody is forced to work for anybody. It's an agreement between somebody that needs workers and another who needs work. It's laid out up front as to pay and benefits, then it's up to the worker to decide if that offer is reasonable enough to accept the job.

If a worker believes they are being taken advantage of, then they are free to find another job. If they can't find a better job, then the employer they are currently working for is not stealing anything from them. They are getting paid what they are worth.

What a line of horse shit!

Workers have to take whatever job they can get. The alternative is HOMELESSNESS!

They get paid the least that the employers can get away with - there is NO relationship between what they are paid and the value of the work that the employer demands.

There are usually not alternative jobs available...and even if there were employers aren't going to hire anybody that makes any demands.

If they can't find a job, it's because the financial system refuses to fund the creation of those jobs.

If left up to many employers, employees would always be on the verge of homelessness and starvation.

You are using the assumption that the job market is saturated with quality workers. If it were, then you may have a point, but that is a pipe dream. Employers are always looking for quality workers who are conscientious and hard working. Anyone can be that person and stand out from the crowd if they put forth the effort to do so. Unfortunately, many of these folks would rather NOT stand out because that requires effort. They find it much easier to complain about how the rich people are screwing them and they deserve some "free" stuff and they vote for the Socialists.

Exactly. If you are the one doing the overtime, putting forth an extra effort, showing up every day, not being late, not taking time off all the time, not looking at your phone or your iPad when you should be working, then you are the one who will have the most opportunity for growth in your company. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there with poor work ethic who do all of the above and then ***** that they can't get a raise or find a good job.