Billionaires win again

Bob001 · 25th November 2020, 11:54 PM

The nation's billionaires have added a trillion dollars to their wealth since March.

Quote:

On March 18, according to a report Collins and his colleagues published last week, America’s 614 billionaires were worth a combined $2.95 trillion. When the markets closed on Tuesday, there were 650 billionaires and their combined wealth was now close to $4 trillion. In the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, American billionaires’ wealth grew by a third.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/o...lionaires.html

RolandRat · 25th November 2020, 11:55 PM

Many a penny to be made from misery.

Stacyhs · 25th November 2020, 11:56 PM

I'm sure it will be trickling down to us in say....two weeks?

The Great Zaganza · 26th November 2020, 12:07 AM

Republicans were right!

Trickle-up economics does work!

TragicMonkey · 26th November 2020, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Many a penny to be made from misery.

How does one invest in misery? Is it an ETF?

I appreciate that nobody likes billionaires but not all of them actively seek out horror to exploit, while cackling evilly in their Scrooge McDuckian vault. Most investors just buy shares and funds and if the market goes up, so does their wealth from it. How is that wicked of them?

My investments went up, too, although I did literally nothing to make them do so. The tide lifts my boat whether I'm in it or not.

Segnosaur · 26th November 2020, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

How does one invest in misery? Is it an ETF?

I appreciate that nobody likes billionaires but not all of them actively seek out horror to exploit, while cackling evilly in their Scrooge McDuckian vault. Most investors just buy shares and funds and if the market goes up, so does their wealth from it. How is that wicked of them?

True... some of them have taken positions which are wealth-neutral or wealth-adverse... for example, Buffett has endorsed Democratic candidates and suggested that he should be paying a bigger proportion of his income in taxes compared to his secretary.

But, many wealthy people do support the republicans... i.e. the group that has policies that 1) benefit the wealthy, and 2) harm society (especially lower classes). For every Warren Buffet (someone who is against wealth inequality), I can point to a Charles Koch (who donates to republican causes).

The_Animus · 26th November 2020, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

How does one invest in misery? Is it an ETF?

I appreciate that nobody likes billionaires but not all of them actively seek out horror to exploit, while cackling evilly in their Scrooge McDuckian vault. Most investors just buy shares and funds and if the market goes up, so does their wealth from it. How is that wicked of them?

My investments went up, too, although I did literally nothing to make them do so. The tide lifts my boat whether I'm in it or not.

While there are rare exceptions, most billionaires are billionaires because they've exploited the workers and taken a disproportionately large portion of the value those workers have created.

BobTheCoward · 26th November 2020, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by The_Animus

While there are rare exceptions, most billionaires are billionaires because they've exploited the workers and taken a disproportionately large portion of the value those workers have created.

Maybe? They appear to be billionaires because they in aggregate possess some thing people have proposed purchasing at a prices that total a billion dollars.

Also, I wouldn't blame the person who made the best offer to those employees for being exploitive. That is like saying a person is bad for only offering a quarter of their sandwich when everyone else didn't even offer a sandwich.

TragicMonkey · 26th November 2020, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by The_Animus

While there are rare exceptions, most billionaires are billionaires because they've exploited the workers and taken a disproportionately large portion of the value those workers have created.

Which is a generality. I thought the point of this thread was some new evil wrought by the pandemic.

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 12:20 PM

Thw "workers should control the means of productions" philispoply so many hold here has worked so damn well in the past....

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Which is a generality. I thought the point of this thread was some new evil wrought by the pandemic.

Nha, it is just "Any body who has more money then I do is evil" stuff.

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by The_Animus

While there are rare exceptions, most billionaires are billionaires because they've exploited the workers and taken a disproportionately large portion of the value those workers have created.

Good old Marxist Surplus Value crap.

smartcooky · 26th November 2020, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

True... some of them have taken positions which are wealth-neutral or wealth-adverse... for example, Buffett has endorsed Democratic candidates and suggested that he should be paying a bigger proportion of his income in taxes compared to his secretary.

Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions to good causes and charities.. $14.7 billion or just over 16% of his $90 billion net worth between 2014 and 2018

In 2006, he pledged to gradually give more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropic foundations.

"In my entire lifetime, everything that I've spent will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I've made. The other 99% plus will go to others because it has no utility to me,so it's silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It's doing me no good."

2014 - 2018
Warren Buffett - $14.7 billion for health & poverty alleviation
Bill & Melinda Gates - $9.9 billion, for health & poverty alleviation
George Soros - $3 billion, for protect voting rights and reforming the criminal-justice system
Michael Bloomberg - $3 billion, for climate change & health
Walton Family - $2.3 billion, for education & environment research
Jim & Marilyn Simons - $1.65 billion, for STEM research

These are not pledges, this is the money that actually reached the intended beneficiaries.

These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold.

I just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money" attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics.

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

How does one invest in misery? Is it an ETF?

I appreciate that nobody likes billionaires but not all of them actively seek out horror to exploit, while cackling evilly in their Scrooge McDuckian vault. Most investors just buy shares and funds and if the market goes up, so does their wealth from it. How is that wicked of them?

My investments went up, too, although I did literally nothing to make them do so. The tide lifts my boat whether I'm in it or not.

The issue is not any particular thing that any particular billionaire does. The issue is a tax and social code that allows the unlimited concentration of wealth. The Walton heirs hold over 200 billion dollars. If inheritance and capital gains taxes were higher, and Walmart was required to pay better wages to its 2 million employees, the Waltons would still be plenty rich, but not quite so much. The Koch brothers also inherited their wealth, and have used a big part of it to influence public policy to their benefit. Etc., etc. A nation founded on principles of equality and equal opportunity should not allow the creation of a multi-generational oligarchy.

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions to good causes and charities.. $14.7 billion or just over 16% of his $90 billion net worth between 2014 and 2018

In 2006, he pledged to gradually give more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropic foundations.

"In my entire lifetime, everything that I've spent will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I've made. The other 99% plus will go to others because it has no utility to me,so it's silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It's doing me no good."

2014 - 2018
Warren Buffett - $14.7 billion for health & poverty alleviation
Bill & Melinda Gates - $9.9 billion, for health & poverty alleviation
George Soros - $3 billion, for protect voting rights and reforming the criminal-justice system
Michael Bloomberg - $3 billion, for climate change & health
Walton Family - $2.3 billion, for education & environment research
Jim & Marilyn Simons - $1.65 billion, for STEM research

These are not pledges, this is the money that actually reached the intended beneficiaries.

These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold.

I just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money" attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics.

1/ What percentage of their total wealth have they chosen to donate, and what percentage of that was tax-deductible?

2/ Why is it better to allow them to choose pet projects -- often to their own benefit -- than to tax them in the public interest?

The link above notes that in the U.S. roughly 650 individual people -- not corporations or other entities -- control four trillion dollars. Suppose they only held $2 trillion? How much public education, health care, infrastructure repair etc. would two trillion bucks buy? Many Western countries have plenty of rich people, yet they still provide a social safety net vastly superior to ours. The way we do things is not the only way things can be done.

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions to good causes and charities.. $14.7 billion or just over 16% of his $90 billion net worth between 2014 and 2018

In 2006, he pledged to gradually give more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropic foundations.

"In my entire lifetime, everything that I've spent will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I've made. The other 99% plus will go to others because it has no utility to me,so it's silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It's doing me no good."

2014 - 2018
Warren Buffett - $14.7 billion for health & poverty alleviation
Bill & Melinda Gates - $9.9 billion, for health & poverty alleviation
George Soros - $3 billion, for protect voting rights and reforming the criminal-justice system
Michael Bloomberg - $3 billion, for climate change & health
Walton Family - $2.3 billion, for education & environment research
Jim & Marilyn Simons - $1.65 billion, for STEM research

These are not pledges, this is the money that actually reached the intended beneficiaries.

These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold.

I just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money" attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics.

Neither do I. If you want to talk about the rich paying their fair share, yes. I think the 2018 tax break they got should be repealed. But this blind "Rich People are Evil" attitude is just plain stupid.
And the whole Marxian "Surplus Value" theory someone just cited is pure crap.

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

1/ What percentage of their total wealth have they chosen to donate, and what percentage of that was tax-deductible?

2/ Why is it better to allow them to choose pet projects -- often to their own benefit -- than to tax them in the public interest?

The link above notes that in the U.S. roughly 650 individual people -- not corporations or other entities -- control four trillion dollars. Suppose they only held $2 trillion? How much public education, health care, infrastructure repair etc. would two trillion bucks buy? Many Western countries have plenty of rich people, yet they still provide a social safety net vastly superior to ours. The way we do things is not the only way things can be done.

Agreed, but I detect just plain dislike of the wealthy in your posts.

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions to good causes and charities.. $14.7 billion or just over 16% of his $90 billion net worth between 2014 and 2018

In 2006, he pledged to gradually give more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropic foundations.

"In my entire lifetime, everything that I've spent will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I've made. The other 99% plus will go to others because it has no utility to me,so it's silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It's doing me no good."

2014 - 2018
Warren Buffett - $14.7 billion for health & poverty alleviation
Bill & Melinda Gates - $9.9 billion, for health & poverty alleviation
George Soros - $3 billion, for protect voting rights and reforming the criminal-justice system
Michael Bloomberg - $3 billion, for climate change & health
Walton Family - $2.3 billion, for education & environment research
Jim & Marilyn Simons - $1.65 billion, for STEM research

These are not pledges, this is the money that actually reached the intended beneficiaries.

These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold.

I just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money" attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics.

Neither do I. If you want to talk about the rich paying their fair share, yes. I think the 2018 tax break they got should be repealed. But this blind "Rich People are Evil" attitude is just plain stupid.
And the whole Marxian "Surplus Value" theory someone just cited is pure crap.

Mader Levap · 26th November 2020, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions

This is quite typical modus operandi for old rich. Drop few billions at end of life for some charities, that surely will make up for many, many decades of abuse, exploitation and influencing law to your advantage while shafting the rest.

It worked for Nobel and robber barons of old, it works for current crop of modern version of nobility.

Sucker is born every minute and you are one of them.

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Agreed, but I detect just plain dislike of the wealthy in your posts.

I admire and respect people who have become successful -- and rich -- through their own talents and efforts. Michael Jordan and Bruce Springsteen earned every dollar. The problem I have is with the accumulation of vast wealth, often inherited, and the political power it confers. You could argue that Sam Walton and his brother earned their money by building a global powerhouse from scratch. But why should their kids be sitting on $200 billion? I repeat, the tax codes that allow it are not carved in stone.

smartcooky · 26th November 2020, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

1/ What percentage of their total wealth have they chosen to donate, and what percentage of that was tax-deductible?

In Buffet's case, its 16%, the proportion varies to a couple of percent to over 35%. But why is this even relevant

Originally Posted by Bob001

2/ Why is it better to allow them to choose pet projects -- often to their own benefit -- than to tax them in the public interest?

1. These are donations. Why on earth should a donor of money not get to decide what the causes they want to give to?

2. Would you trust your government to spend your donated money wisely? I would not!

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Agreed, but I detect just plain dislike of the wealthy in your posts.

Relevant quotes:

1/ "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

2/ “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -- attributed to John Steinbeck

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

In Buffet's case, its 16%, the proportion varies to a couple of percent to over 35%. But why is this even relevant

1. These are donations/ Why on earth should a donor of money not get todecide what the causes they want to give to?

2. Would you trust your government to spend your donated money wisely? I would not!

They can donate to whatever they want. The point is that they have these vast fortunes only because of current tax policies. I say tax them more for education, health care, infrastructure, etc., etc.. The society's basic needs shouldn't be dependent on the whims of a few fat cats.

I note that you are in New Zealand. You benefit from a tax-supported social safety net that would be considered the wildest radical extremism in the U.S.

Segnosaur · 26th November 2020, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

They can donate to whatever they want. The point is that they have these vast fortunes only because of current tax policies. I say tax them more for education, health care, infrastructure, etc., etc.. The society's basic needs shouldn't be dependent on the whims of a few fat cats.

Some of these wealthy donors would probably be OK with being taxed more... but the republicans in government are reducing their taxes.

If the government is saying "We don't want your money", what are they to do?

Segnosaur · 26th November 2020, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold.

I just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money" attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics.

I guess the big question is, how many rich people do give away a large portion of their wealth, and how many hold onto it? Are the Warren Buffets a tiny minority (the exception that proves the rule) or is it common? And how many give a lot, compared to those that just give a small, token amount?

Quote:

2/ Why is it better to allow them to choose pet projects -- often to their own benefit -- than to tax them in the public interest?

1. These are donations. Why on earth should a donor of money not get to decide what the causes they want to give to?
2. Would you trust your government to spend your donated money wisely? I would not!

On the other hand.... allowing billionaires to assume "the government will just waste the money" and pick who to donate to opens things up for abuse... What if the 'generous' billionaire donated to far-right christian organizations because they believed it was better for society?

smartcooky · 26th November 2020, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

They can donate to whatever they want. The point is that they have these vast fortunes only because of current tax policies.

So having great business acumen, investing wisely and being willing to risk failure all have nothing to do with financial success. Got it!

Originally Posted by Bob001

I say tax them more for "education, health care, infrastructure, etc., etc.." The society's basic needs shouldn't be dependent on the whims of a few fat cats.

I guess you didn't read my post properly, you know, the bit where I told you these people gave for things such as "education, health care, infrastructure, etc., etc.." and research into science, technology, engineering & mathematics.

Originally Posted by Bob001

I note that you are in New Zealand. You benefit from a tax-supported social safety net that would be considered the wildest radical extremism in the U.S.

Yep, and guess what... many of the programmes and institutions which form part of that "safety net" are funded privately, from donations, by the rich, because the NZ Government either does not fund them sufficiently, or not at all!

Funded by Sir Michael Friedlander
Dyslexia Research
Regenerative and stem cell medicine for children with severe conditions

Funded by Dame Rosie Horton
Starship Foundation (a children's hospital)
Breast Cancer Foundation
Rautakauri Music Therapy Trust
World Child Cancer
Yellow Belle for NZ Women’s Refuge
Abbeyfield NZ
Athlae Lyon Starship Research Trust
Macular Degeneration Research
University of Auckland’s Centre of Brain Research

Funded by Sir David Levene
Outward Bound Trust
Parkinson’s New Zealand
Halberg Trust
North Shore Hospice.

Funded by Gareth Morgan
Jasmine Charitable Trust (aimed at alleviating poverty in the developing world.)
One Acre Fund (helps subsistence farmers in Africa develop their land and manage crops so they can sell them at a profit).

Funded by Neal and Annette Plowman
Next Foundation.
Rotoroa Island Trust
Teach First NZ

Funded by the Todd Family
The Todd Foundation - list of recipients too numerous to list here
http://www.toddfoundation.org.nz/who-we-funded

... and these are just a few. The Charitable trusts, foundations and recipients listed above receive little or no government support. Most of them would not even exist were it not for the generosity of these private philanthropists. Its why I don't trust the government to spend my tax money wisely - too many snouts in the trough.

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

This is quite typical modus operandi for old rich. Drop few billions at end of life for some charities, that surely will make up for many, many decades of abuse, exploitation and influencing law to your advantage while shafting the rest.

It worked for Nobel and robber barons of old, it works for current crop of modern version of nobility.

Sucker is born every minute and you are one of them.

Either of you ever hear of "The Buffet Rule"?

In 2006, Warren Buffett said he only paid 19% in federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% despite making much less money. "How can this be fair?" he asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. "How can this be right?" There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning".

The Buffett Rule, named after him, would implement a higher minimum tax rate for taxpayers in the highest income bracket, to ensure that they do not pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans. On April 16, 2012, the bill received 51 affirmative votes, but was stopped by a Republican filibuster that required 60 votes to proceed to debate and a vote on final passage.

Buffet sets that to rights by giving away truckloads of money - some people ARE willing to put their money where their mouth is... literally!!

I'm not saying that all millionaires/billionaires are nice, generous people, I just object to the unfair tarring of them all with the same brush.

smartcooky · 26th November 2020, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Some of these wealthy donors would probably be OK with being taxed more

Indeed they are...

https://www.oxfam.org.nz/news-media/...obal-recovery/

Today, we, the undersigned millionaires, ask our governments to raise taxes on people like us. Immediately. Substantially. Permanently.

The impact of this crisis will last for decades. It could push half a billion more people into poverty. Hundreds of millions of people will lose their jobs as businesses close, some permanently. Already, there are nearly a billion children out of school, many with no access to the resources they need to continue their learning. And of course the absence of hospital beds, protective masks, and ventilators is a painful, daily reminder of the inadequate investment made in public health systems across the world.

The problems caused by, and revealed by, Covid-19 can’t be solved with charity, no matter how generous. Government leaders must take the responsibility for raising the funds we need and spending them fairly. We can ensure we adequately fund our health systems, schools, and security through a permanent tax increase on the wealthiest people on the planet, people like us."

You can read the full letter and signatories list here

https://www.millionairesforhumanity.com/

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

So having great business acumen, investing wisely and being willing to risk failure all have nothing to do with financial success. Got it!
.....

That's a tiny step from saying "If they've got it, they must deserve it." But as Elizabeth Warren and others have explained, they benefit from a vast government and social structure that protects their property, resolves their disputes, helps deliver their products and services, and trains their workers. As President Obama said "You didn't build that." If Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates etc. only had half their wealth, or a quarter, do you think they would have worked less hard, taken fewer risks, etc. etc.?

And Trump is purportedly a multi-billionaire. Did he get it by being smart and investing wisely?

smartcooky · 26th November 2020, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

That's a tiny step from saying "If they've got it, they must deserve it."

Nope, it was a DIRECT rebuttal you your claim, namely

"they have these vast fortunes only because of current tax policies"

Originally Posted by Bob001

But as Elizabeth Warren and others have explained, they benefit from a vast government and social structure that protects their property, resolves their disputes, helps deliver their products and services, and trains their workers.

Yes, they do, but you said it was the only reason "they have these vast fortunes"

I dispute your characterization of the source of their wealth.

Originally Posted by Bob001

As President Obama said "You didn't build that.". If Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates etc. only had half their wealth, or a quarter, do you think they would have worked less hard, taken fewer risks, etc. etc.?

1. You quote Obama's "You didn't build that" and then go right on to mention two people who actually did build that! Sheesh

2. And if Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates only had half their wealth, or a quarter, they would still have vast wealth, and people like you would still want to tax them more.

Originally Posted by Bob001

And Trump is purportedly a multi-billionaire. Did he get it by being smart and investing wisely?

He inherited his wealth, and then cheated, lied and broke the law to keep it. His whole point is to accumulate wealth because he's narcissisticly obsessed with it, and nothing he does with his money is for the benefit of anyone but himself. He's a good example of a bad rich person (and the "rich" tag might be debatable with all those millions of dollars of loans coming to term next year) but we should not be tarring the likes of Buffet, Gates, Musk, Bezos etc, with that brush.

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

.....
1. You quote Obama's "You didn't build that" and then go right on to mention two people who actually did build that! Sheesh

....

You're being willfully obtuse. "That" refers to the vast legal and social infrastructure that allowed them and helped them to build their businesses unimpeded. They didn't do it alone. If you look closely at their particular histories, Gates engaged in quite a number of shady, anti-competitive stunts to achieve his success, and Amazon's primary advantage for many years was that it could avoid/evade state sales taxes, undercutting its brick and mortar competition by six to 10 percent on that basis alone. Some of their business practices could make them the legitimate subjects of anti-trust action. The bottom line is that nobody succeeds on their own, luck has a bigger role than the successful will admit, and the tax code doesn't have to favor capital over labor.

smartcooky · 26th November 2020, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

You're being willfully obtuse. "That" refers to the vast legal and social infrastructure that allowed them and helped them to build their businesses unimpeded. They didn't do it alone. If you look closely at their particular histories, Gates engaged in quite a number of shady, anti-competitive stunts to achieve his success, and Amazon's primary advantage for many years was that it could avoid/evade state sales taxes, undercutting its brick and mortar competition by six to 10 percent on that basis alone. Some of their business practices could make them the legitimate subjects of anti-trust action. The bottom line is that nobody succeeds on their own, luck has a bigger role than the successful will admit, and the tax code doesn't have to favor capital over labor.

And now you have sidestepped all the other points I made (presumably because you've got no rebuttal)

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 07:05 PM

The Alternative to a Market based economy..which meand Capitalism in one form or another..is a "Command"economy, where the Government makes all the decision instead of the marketplace. It has been tried time and time again,and has failed time and time again. Even countries that are suppodedly Marxist have pretty much agandoned it...Chine for a example. it CINO..Communist In Name Only.
If you want to talk about the wealthy paying their fair share..which in the US they do not...yes. But not the state totally dominating the economy.

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And now you have sidestepped all the other points I made (presumably because you've got no rebuttal)

Problem is some people seem to have a "It's OK to be sucessful to a certain degree but beyond that the Government should keep you from being too sucessful" attitude. It does not work like that in the real world.

dudalb · 26th November 2020, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Nope, it was a DIRECT rebuttal you your claim, namely

"they have these vast fortunes only because of current tax policies"

Yes, they do, but you said it was the only reason "they have these vast fortunes"

I dispute your characterization of the source of their wealth.

1. You quote Obama's "You didn't build that" and then go right on to mention two people who actually did build that! Sheesh

2. And if Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates only had half their wealth, or a quarter, they would still have vast wealth, and people like you would still want to tax them more.

He inherited his wealth, and then cheated, lied and broke the law to keep it. His whole point is to accumulate wealth because he's narcissisticly obsessed with it, and nothing he does with his money is for the benefit of anyone but himself. He's a good example of a bad rich person (and the "rich" tag might be debatable with all those millions of dollars of loans coming to term next year) but we should not be tarring the likes of Buffet, Gates, Musk, Bezos etc, with that brush.

Trump would never have made a dime without Daddy's money.
I am not hostile to inherited wealth,but a ssomeone said, the only person who is fit to handle a huge amount of inherited weatlh is the person who would have made it on his or her own.

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And now you have sidestepped all the other points I made (presumably because you've got no rebuttal)

Your points can be summarized as "Rich guys deserve it."

Bob001 · 26th November 2020, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

The Alternative to a Market based economy..which meand Capitalism in one form or another..is a "Command"economy, where the Government makes all the decision instead of the marketplace. It has been tried time and time again,and has failed time and time again. Even countries that are suppodedly Marxist have pretty much agandoned it...Chine for a example. it CINO..Communist In Name Only.
If you want to talk about the wealthy paying their fair share..which in the US they do not...yes. But not the state totally dominating the economy.

Nobody's talking about capitalism vs. communism, or the government running everything. I'm happy to have the rich keep all they can grab, after all Americans have accessible health care, good public schools and affordable higher education, reliable public transportation, good jobs at living wages, roads and bridges that aren't collapsing, etc., etc. Not too different from Scandinavia, Germany and other parts of the Western world, all of which are capitalist democracies. That's my idea of "paying their fair share."

smartcooky · 26th November 2020, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Your points can be summarized as "Rich guys deserve it."

From others, I might expect such a gutless response, but you're better than that - and you know it.

Venom · 26th November 2020, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

The Alternative to a Market based economy..which meand Capitalism in one form or another..is a "Command"economy, where the Government makes all the decision instead of the marketplace. It has been tried time and time again,and has failed time and time again. Even countries that are suppodedly Marxist have pretty much agandoned it...Chine for a example. it CINO..Communist In Name Only.
If you want to talk about the wealthy paying their fair share..which in the US they do not...yes. But not the state totally dominating the economy.

Why do you go here every time in these discussions...

smartcooky · 26th November 2020, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

Why do you go here every time in these discussions...

Because that is what he believes on the subject at hand?

Why do you keep asking?

Venom · 26th November 2020, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Because that is what he believes on the subject at hand?

Why do you keep asking?

The subject? I haven't seen any post that warrants a response about market vs command economy.

I'm not a mind reader, but there are proposals like a wealth tax that some on the progressive end would like. No I'm not necessarily advocating for that either. I don't know if they would successfully raise revenue or reduce income inequality or even if they could get the wealthy to pay.

But some critics just seem too eager to jump right into the "oh no, the socialists are here" mode.

25th November 2020, 11:54 PM	#1
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Billionaires win again The nation's billionaires have added a trillion dollars to their wealth since March. Quote: On March 18, according to a report Collins and his colleagues published last week, America’s 614 billionaires were worth a combined $2.95 trillion. When the markets closed on Tuesday, there were 650 billionaires and their combined wealth was now close to $4 trillion. In the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, American billionaires’ wealth grew by a third. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/o...lionaires.html

25th November 2020, 11:55 PM	#2
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 925	Many a penny to be made from misery.
RolandRat Muse Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 925

26th November 2020, 12:07 AM	#4
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,671	Republicans were right! Trickle-up economics does work!
	__________________ So what are you going to do about it, huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do?

26th November 2020, 06:08 AM	#5
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,496	Originally Posted by RolandRat Many a penny to be made from misery. How does one invest in misery? Is it an ETF? I appreciate that nobody likes billionaires but not all of them actively seek out horror to exploit, while cackling evilly in their Scrooge McDuckian vault. Most investors just buy shares and funds and if the market goes up, so does their wealth from it. How is that wicked of them? My investments went up, too, although I did literally nothing to make them do so. The tide lifts my boat whether I'm in it or not.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

26th November 2020, 09:14 AM	#6
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,117	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey How does one invest in misery? Is it an ETF? I appreciate that nobody likes billionaires but not all of them actively seek out horror to exploit, while cackling evilly in their Scrooge McDuckian vault. Most investors just buy shares and funds and if the market goes up, so does their wealth from it. How is that wicked of them? True... some of them have taken positions which are wealth-neutral or wealth-adverse... for example, Buffett has endorsed Democratic candidates and suggested that he should be paying a bigger proportion of his income in taxes compared to his secretary. But, many wealthy people do support the republicans... i.e. the group that has policies that 1) benefit the wealthy, and 2) harm society (especially lower classes). For every Warren Buffet (someone who is against wealth inequality), I can point to a Charles Koch (who donates to republican causes).
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

25th November 2020, 11:56 PM	#3
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	I'm sure it will be trickling down to us in say....two weeks?

26th November 2020, 11:00 AM	#7
The_Animus Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,253	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey How does one invest in misery? Is it an ETF? I appreciate that nobody likes billionaires but not all of them actively seek out horror to exploit, while cackling evilly in their Scrooge McDuckian vault. Most investors just buy shares and funds and if the market goes up, so does their wealth from it. How is that wicked of them? My investments went up, too, although I did literally nothing to make them do so. The tide lifts my boat whether I'm in it or not. While there are rare exceptions, most billionaires are billionaires because they've exploited the workers and taken a disproportionately large portion of the value those workers have created.
The_Animus Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,253	__________________ Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them.

26th November 2020, 11:46 AM	#8
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,238	Originally Posted by The_Animus While there are rare exceptions, most billionaires are billionaires because they've exploited the workers and taken a disproportionately large portion of the value those workers have created. Maybe? They appear to be billionaires because they in aggregate possess some thing people have proposed purchasing at a prices that total a billion dollars. Also, I wouldn't blame the person who made the best offer to those employees for being exploitive. That is like saying a person is bad for only offering a quarter of their sandwich when everyone else didn't even offer a sandwich.

26th November 2020, 11:47 AM	#9
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,496	Originally Posted by The_Animus While there are rare exceptions, most billionaires are billionaires because they've exploited the workers and taken a disproportionately large portion of the value those workers have created. Which is a generality. I thought the point of this thread was some new evil wrought by the pandemic.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

26th November 2020, 12:20 PM	#10
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Thw "workers should control the means of productions" philispoply so many hold here has worked so damn well in the past....
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

26th November 2020, 12:21 PM	#11
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Which is a generality. I thought the point of this thread was some new evil wrought by the pandemic. Nha, it is just "Any body who has more money then I do is evil" stuff.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

26th November 2020, 02:15 PM	#13
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,798	Originally Posted by Segnosaur True... some of them have taken positions which are wealth-neutral or wealth-adverse... for example, Buffett has endorsed Democratic candidates and suggested that he should be paying a bigger proportion of his income in taxes compared to his secretary. Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions to good causes and charities.. $14.7 billion or just over 16% of his $90 billion net worth between 2014 and 2018 In 2006, he pledged to gradually give more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropic foundations. "In my entire lifetime, everything that I've spent will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I've made. The other 99% plus will go to others because it has no utility to me,so it's silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It's doing me no good." 2014 - 2018 Warren Buffett - $14.7 billion for health & poverty alleviation Bill & Melinda Gates - $9.9 billion, for health & poverty alleviation George Soros - $3 billion, for protect voting rights and reforming the criminal-justice system Michael Bloomberg - $3 billion, for climate change & health Walton Family - $2.3 billion, for education & environment research Jim & Marilyn Simons - $1.65 billion, for STEM research These are not pledges, this is the money that actually reached the intended beneficiaries. These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold. I just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money" attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

26th November 2020, 02:16 PM	#14
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey How does one invest in misery? Is it an ETF? I appreciate that nobody likes billionaires but not all of them actively seek out horror to exploit, while cackling evilly in their Scrooge McDuckian vault. Most investors just buy shares and funds and if the market goes up, so does their wealth from it. How is that wicked of them? My investments went up, too, although I did literally nothing to make them do so. The tide lifts my boat whether I'm in it or not. The issue is not any particular thing that any particular billionaire does. The issue is a tax and social code that allows the unlimited concentration of wealth. The Walton heirs hold over 200 billion dollars. If inheritance and capital gains taxes were higher, and Walmart was required to pay better wages to its 2 million employees, the Waltons would still be plenty rich, but not quite so much. The Koch brothers also inherited their wealth, and have used a big part of it to influence public policy to their benefit. Etc., etc. A nation founded on principles of equality and equal opportunity should not allow the creation of a multi-generational oligarchy.

26th November 2020, 02:22 PM	#15
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by smartcooky Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions to good causes and charities.. $14.7 billion or just over 16% of his $90 billion net worth between 2014 and 2018 In 2006, he pledged to gradually give more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropic foundations. "In my entire lifetime, everything that I've spent will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I've made. The other 99% plus will go to others because it has no utility to me,so it's silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It's doing me no good." 2014 - 2018 Warren Buffett - $14.7 billion for health & poverty alleviation Bill & Melinda Gates - $9.9 billion, for health & poverty alleviation George Soros - $3 billion, for protect voting rights and reforming the criminal-justice system Michael Bloomberg - $3 billion, for climate change & health Walton Family - $2.3 billion, for education & environment research Jim & Marilyn Simons - $1.65 billion, for STEM research These are not pledges, this is the money that actually reached the intended beneficiaries. These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold. I just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money" attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics. 1/ What percentage of their total wealth have they chosen to donate, and what percentage of that was tax-deductible? 2/ Why is it better to allow them to choose pet projects -- often to their own benefit -- than to tax them in the public interest? The link above notes that in the U.S. roughly 650 individual people -- not corporations or other entities -- control four trillion dollars. Suppose they only held $2 trillion? How much public education, health care, infrastructure repair etc. would two trillion bucks buy? Many Western countries have plenty of rich people, yet they still provide a social safety net vastly superior to ours. The way we do things is not the only way things can be done.
	Last edited by Bob001; 26th November 2020 at 02:24 PM.

26th November 2020, 02:51 PM	#16
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by smartcooky Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions to good causes and charities.. $14.7 billion or just over 16% of his $90 billion net worth between 2014 and 2018 In 2006, he pledged to gradually give more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropic foundations. "In my entire lifetime, everything that I've spent will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I've made. The other 99% plus will go to others because it has no utility to me,so it's silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It's doing me no good." 2014 - 2018 Warren Buffett - $14.7 billion for health & poverty alleviation Bill & Melinda Gates - $9.9 billion, for health & poverty alleviation George Soros - $3 billion, for protect voting rights and reforming the criminal-justice system Michael Bloomberg - $3 billion, for climate change & health Walton Family - $2.3 billion, for education & environment research Jim & Marilyn Simons - $1.65 billion, for STEM research These are not pledges, this is the money that actually reached the intended beneficiaries. These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold. I *just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money"* attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics**. Neither do I. If you want to talk about the rich paying their fair share, yes. I think the 2018 tax break they got should be repealed. But this blind "Rich People are Evil" attitude is just plain stupid. And the whole Marxian "Surplus Value" theory someone just cited is pure crap.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

26th November 2020, 02:52 PM	#17
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by Bob001 1/ What percentage of their total wealth have they chosen to donate, and what percentage of that was tax-deductible? 2/ Why is it better to allow them to choose pet projects -- often to their own benefit -- than to tax them in the public interest? The link above notes that in the U.S. roughly 650 individual people -- not corporations or other entities -- control four trillion dollars. Suppose they only held $2 trillion? How much public education, health care, infrastructure repair etc. would two trillion bucks buy? Many Western countries have plenty of rich people, yet they still provide a social safety net vastly superior to ours. The way we do things is not the only way things can be done. Agreed, but I detect just plain dislike of the wealthy in your posts.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

26th November 2020, 03:01 PM	#18
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by smartcooky Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions to good causes and charities.. $14.7 billion or just over 16% of his $90 billion net worth between 2014 and 2018 In 2006, he pledged to gradually give more than 99% of his wealth to philanthropic foundations. "In my entire lifetime, everything that I've spent will be quite a bit less than 1% of everything I've made. The other 99% plus will go to others because it has no utility to me,so it's silly for me to not transfer that utility to people who can use it. It's doing me no good." 2014 - 2018 Warren Buffett - $14.7 billion for health & poverty alleviation Bill & Melinda Gates - $9.9 billion, for health & poverty alleviation George Soros - $3 billion, for protect voting rights and reforming the criminal-justice system Michael Bloomberg - $3 billion, for climate change & health Walton Family - $2.3 billion, for education & environment research Jim & Marilyn Simons - $1.65 billion, for STEM research These are not pledges, this is the money that actually reached the intended beneficiaries. These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold. I *just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money"* attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics**. Neither do I. If you want to talk about the rich paying their fair share, yes. I think the 2018 tax break they got should be repealed. But this blind "Rich People are Evil" attitude is just plain stupid. And the whole Marxian "Surplus Value" theory someone just cited is pure crap.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

26th November 2020, 03:08 PM	#19
Mader Levap Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,576	Originally Posted by smartcooky Which he does anyway by donating billions upon billions This is quite typical modus operandi for old rich. Drop few billions at end of life for some charities, that surely will make up for many, many decades of abuse, exploitation and influencing law to your advantage while shafting the rest. It worked for Nobel and robber barons of old, it works for current crop of modern version of nobility. Sucker is born every minute and you are one of them.
	__________________ Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.

26th November 2020, 03:14 PM	#20
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by dudalb Agreed, but I detect just plain dislike of the wealthy in your posts. I admire and respect people who have become successful -- and rich -- through their own talents and efforts. Michael Jordan and Bruce Springsteen earned every dollar. The problem I have is with the accumulation of vast wealth, often inherited, and the political power it confers. You could argue that Sam Walton and his brother earned their money by building a global powerhouse from scratch. But why should their kids be sitting on $200 billion? I repeat, the tax codes that allow it are not carved in stone.
	Last edited by Bob001; 26th November 2020 at 03:16 PM.

26th November 2020, 03:17 PM	#21
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,798	Originally Posted by Bob001 1/ What percentage of their total wealth have they chosen to donate, and what percentage of that was tax-deductible? In Buffet's case, its 16%, the proportion varies to a couple of percent to over 35%. But why is this even relevant Originally Posted by Bob001 2/ Why is it better to allow them to choose pet projects -- often to their own benefit -- than to tax them in the public interest? 1. These are donations. Why on earth should a donor of money not get to decide what the causes they want to give to? 2. Would you trust your government to spend your donated money wisely? I would not!
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 26th November 2020 at 03:28 PM.

26th November 2020, 03:22 PM	#22
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by dudalb Agreed, but I detect just plain dislike of the wealthy in your posts. Relevant quotes: 1/ "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac 2/ “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -- attributed to John Steinbeck

26th November 2020, 03:29 PM	#23
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by smartcooky In Buffet's case, its 16%, the proportion varies to a couple of percent to over 35%. But why is this even relevant 1. These are donations/ Why on earth should a donor of money not get todecide what the causes they want to give to? 2. Would you trust your government to spend your donated money wisely? I would not! They can donate to whatever they want. The point is that they have these vast fortunes only because of current tax policies. I say tax them more for education, health care, infrastructure, etc., etc.. The society's basic needs shouldn't be dependent on the whims of a few fat cats. I note that you are in New Zealand. You benefit from a tax-supported social safety net that would be considered the wildest radical extremism in the U.S.
	Last edited by Bob001; 26th November 2020 at 03:30 PM.

26th November 2020, 04:07 PM	#24
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,117	Originally Posted by Bob001 They can donate to whatever they want. The point is that they have these vast fortunes only because of current tax policies. I say tax them more for education, health care, infrastructure, etc., etc.. The society's basic needs shouldn't be dependent on the whims of a few fat cats. Some of these wealthy donors would probably be OK with being taxed more... but the republicans in government are reducing their taxes. If the government is saying "We don't want your money", what are they to do?
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

26th November 2020, 04:21 PM	#25
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,117	Originally Posted by smartcooky These are just a few of the many billionaires who give away parts of their wealth. Others include Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Chuck Feeney, Hansjoerg Wyss, Pierre Omidyar, Gordon & Betty Moore, John & Laura Arnold. I just don't get the "billionaires are mean, greedy bastards and should be stripped of their money" attitude that seems to prevail on the left of politics. I guess the big question is, how many rich people do give away a large portion of their wealth, and how many hold onto it? Are the Warren Buffets a tiny minority (the exception that proves the rule) or is it common? And how many give a lot, compared to those that just give a small, token amount? Quote: Quote: 2/ Why is it better to allow them to choose pet projects -- often to their own benefit -- than to tax them in the public interest? 1. These are donations. Why on earth should a donor of money not get to decide what the causes they want to give to? 2. Would you trust your government to spend your donated money wisely? I would not! On the other hand.... allowing billionaires to assume "the government will just waste the money" and pick who to donate to opens things up for abuse... What if the 'generous' billionaire donated to far-right christian organizations because they believed it was better for society?
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

26th November 2020, 04:38 PM	#26
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,798	Originally Posted by Bob001 They can donate to whatever they want. The point is that they have these vast fortunes only because of current tax policies. So having great business acumen, investing wisely and being willing to risk failure all have nothing to do with financial success. Got it! Originally Posted by Bob001 I say tax them more for "education, health care, infrastructure, etc., etc.." The society's basic needs shouldn't be dependent on the whims of a few fat cats. I guess you didn't read my post properly, you know, the bit where I told you these people gave for things such as "education, health care, infrastructure, etc., etc.." and research into science, technology, engineering & mathematics. Originally Posted by Bob001 I note that you are in New Zealand. You benefit from a tax-supported social safety net that would be considered the wildest radical extremism in the U.S. Yep, and guess what... many of the programmes and institutions which form part of that "safety net" are funded privately, from donations, by the rich, because the NZ Government either does not fund them sufficiently, or not at all! Funded by Sir Michael Friedlander Dyslexia Research Regenerative and stem cell medicine for children with severe conditions Funded by Dame Rosie Horton Starship Foundation (a children's hospital) Breast Cancer Foundation Rautakauri Music Therapy Trust World Child Cancer Yellow Belle for NZ Women’s Refuge Abbeyfield NZ Athlae Lyon Starship Research Trust Macular Degeneration Research University of Auckland’s Centre of Brain Research Funded by Sir David Levene Outward Bound Trust Parkinson’s New Zealand Halberg Trust North Shore Hospice. Funded by Gareth Morgan Jasmine Charitable Trust (aimed at alleviating poverty in the developing world.) One Acre Fund (helps subsistence farmers in Africa develop their land and manage crops so they can sell them at a profit). Funded by Neal and Annette Plowman Next Foundation. Rotoroa Island Trust Teach First NZ Funded by the Todd Family The Todd Foundation - list of recipients too numerous to list here http://www.toddfoundation.org.nz/who-we-funded ... and these are just a few. The Charitable trusts, foundations and recipients listed above receive little or no government support. Most of them would not even exist were it not for the generosity of these private philanthropists. Its why I don't trust the government to spend my tax money wisely - too many snouts in the trough. Originally Posted by Mader Levap This is quite typical modus operandi for old rich. Drop few billions at end of life for some charities, that surely will make up for many, many decades of abuse, exploitation and influencing law to your advantage while shafting the rest. It worked for Nobel and robber barons of old, it works for current crop of modern version of nobility. Sucker is born every minute and you are one of them. Either of you ever hear of "The Buffet Rule"? In 2006, Warren Buffett said he only paid 19% in federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% despite making much less money. "How can this be fair?" he asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. "How can this be right?" There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning". The Buffett Rule, named after him, would implement a higher minimum tax rate for taxpayers in the highest income bracket, to ensure that they do not pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans. On April 16, 2012, the bill received 51 affirmative votes, but was stopped by a Republican filibuster that required 60 votes to proceed to debate and a vote on final passage. Buffet sets that to rights by giving away truckloads of money - some people ARE willing to put their money where their mouth is... literally!! I'm not saying that all millionaires/billionaires are nice, generous people, I just object to the unfair tarring of them all with the same brush.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

26th November 2020, 04:44 PM	#27
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,798	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Some of these wealthy donors would probably be OK with being taxed more Indeed they are... https://www.oxfam.org.nz/news-media/...obal-recovery/ Today, we, the undersigned millionaires, ask our governments to raise taxes on people like us. Immediately. Substantially. Permanently. The impact of this crisis will last for decades. It could push half a billion more people into poverty. Hundreds of millions of people will lose their jobs as businesses close, some permanently. Already, there are nearly a billion children out of school, many with no access to the resources they need to continue their learning. And of course the absence of hospital beds, protective masks, and ventilators is a painful, daily reminder of the inadequate investment made in public health systems across the world. The problems caused by, and revealed by, Covid-19 can’t be solved with charity, no matter how generous. Government leaders must take the responsibility for raising the funds we need and spending them fairly. We can ensure we adequately fund our health systems, schools, and security through a permanent tax increase on the wealthiest people on the planet, people like us." You can read the full letter and signatories list here https://www.millionairesforhumanity.com/
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

26th November 2020, 05:05 PM	#28
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by smartcooky So having great business acumen, investing wisely and being willing to risk failure all have nothing to do with financial success. Got it! ..... That's a tiny step from saying "If they've got it, they must deserve it." But as Elizabeth Warren and others have explained, they benefit from a vast government and social structure that protects their property, resolves their disputes, helps deliver their products and services, and trains their workers. As President Obama said "You didn't build that." If Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates etc. only had half their wealth, or a quarter, do you think they would have worked less hard, taken fewer risks, etc. etc.? And Trump is purportedly a multi-billionaire. Did he get it by being smart and investing wisely?

26th November 2020, 05:35 PM	#29
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,798	Originally Posted by Bob001 That's a tiny step from saying "If they've got it, they must deserve it." Nope, it was a DIRECT rebuttal you your claim, namely "they have these vast fortunes only* because of current tax policies"* Originally Posted by Bob001 But as Elizabeth Warren and others have explained, they benefit from a vast government and social structure that protects their property, resolves their disputes, helps deliver their products and services, and trains their workers. Yes, they do, but you said it was the only reason "they have these vast fortunes" I dispute your characterization of the source of their wealth. Originally Posted by Bob001 As President Obama said "You didn't build that.". If Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates etc. only had half their wealth, or a quarter, do you think they would have worked less hard, taken fewer risks, etc. etc.? 1. You quote Obama's "You didn't build that" and then go right on to mention two people who actually did build that! Sheesh 2. And if Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates only had half their wealth, or a quarter, they would still have vast wealth, and people like you would still want to tax them more. Originally Posted by Bob001 And Trump is purportedly a multi-billionaire. Did he get it by being smart and investing wisely? He inherited his wealth, and then cheated, lied and broke the law to keep it. His whole point is to accumulate wealth because he's narcissisticly obsessed with it, and nothing he does with his money is for the benefit of anyone but himself. He's a good example of a bad rich person (and the "rich" tag might be debatable with all those millions of dollars of loans coming to term next year) but we should not be tarring the likes of Buffet, Gates, Musk, Bezos etc, with that brush.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

26th November 2020, 06:24 PM	#30
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by smartcooky ..... 1. You quote Obama's "You didn't build that" and then go right on to mention two people who actually did build that! Sheesh .... You're being willfully obtuse. "That" refers to the vast legal and social infrastructure that allowed them and helped them to build their businesses unimpeded. They didn't do it alone. If you look closely at their particular histories, Gates engaged in quite a number of shady, anti-competitive stunts to achieve his success, and Amazon's primary advantage for many years was that it could avoid/evade state sales taxes, undercutting its brick and mortar competition by six to 10 percent on that basis alone. Some of their business practices could make them the legitimate subjects of anti-trust action. The bottom line is that nobody succeeds on their own, luck has a bigger role than the successful will admit, and the tax code doesn't have to favor capital over labor.
	Last edited by Bob001; 26th November 2020 at 06:27 PM.

26th November 2020, 06:46 PM	#31
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 16,798	Originally Posted by Bob001 You're being willfully obtuse. "That" refers to the vast legal and social infrastructure that allowed them and helped them to build their businesses unimpeded. They didn't do it alone. If you look closely at their particular histories, Gates engaged in quite a number of shady, anti-competitive stunts to achieve his success, and Amazon's primary advantage for many years was that it could avoid/evade state sales taxes, undercutting its brick and mortar competition by six to 10 percent on that basis alone. Some of their business practices could make them the legitimate subjects of anti-trust action. The bottom line is that nobody succeeds on their own, luck has a bigger role than the successful will admit, and the tax code doesn't have to favor capital over labor. And now you have sidestepped all the other points I made (presumably because you've got no rebuttal)
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

26th November 2020, 07:05 PM	#32
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	The Alternative to a Market based economy..which meand Capitalism in one form or another..is a "Command"economy, where the Government makes all the decision instead of the marketplace. It has been tried time and time again,and has failed time and time again. Even countries that are suppodedly Marxist have pretty much agandoned it...Chine for a example. it CINO..Communist In Name Only. If you want to talk about the wealthy paying their fair share..which in the US they do not...yes. But not the state totally dominating the economy.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

26th November 2020, 07:07 PM	#33
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by smartcooky And now you have sidestepped all the other points I made (presumably because you've got no rebuttal) Problem is some people seem to have a "It's OK to be sucessful to a certain degree but beyond that the Government should keep you from being too sucessful" attitude. It does not work like that in the real world.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

26th November 2020, 07:09 PM	#34
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by smartcooky Nope, it was a DIRECT rebuttal you your claim, namely "they have these vast fortunes only* because of current tax policies"* Yes, they do, but you said it was the only reason "they have these vast fortunes" I dispute your characterization of the source of their wealth. 1. You quote Obama's "You didn't build that" and then go right on to mention two people who actually did build that! Sheesh 2. And if Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates only had half their wealth, or a quarter, they would still have vast wealth, and people like you would still want to tax them more. He inherited his wealth, and then cheated, lied and broke the law to keep it. His whole point is to accumulate wealth because he's narcissisticly obsessed with it, and nothing he does with his money is for the benefit of anyone but himself. He's a good example of a bad rich person (and the "rich" tag might be debatable with all those millions of dollars of loans coming to term next year) but we should not be tarring the likes of Buffet, Gates, Musk, Bezos etc, with that brush. Trump would never have made a dime without Daddy's money. I am not hostile to inherited wealth,but a ssomeone said, the only person who is fit to handle a huge amount of inherited weatlh is the person who would have made it on his or her own.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

26th November 2020, 07:16 PM	#35
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by smartcooky And now you have sidestepped all the other points I made (presumably because you've got no rebuttal) Your points can be summarized as "Rich guys deserve it."

26th November 2020, 07:22 PM	#36
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,636	Originally Posted by dudalb The Alternative to a Market based economy..which meand Capitalism in one form or another..is a "Command"economy, where the Government makes all the decision instead of the marketplace. It has been tried time and time again,and has failed time and time again. Even countries that are suppodedly Marxist have pretty much agandoned it...Chine for a example. it CINO..Communist In Name Only. If you want to talk about the wealthy paying their fair share..which in the US they do not...yes. But not the state totally dominating the economy. Nobody's talking about capitalism vs. communism, or the government running everything. I'm happy to have the rich keep all they can grab, after all Americans have accessible health care, good public schools and affordable higher education, reliable public transportation, good jobs at living wages, roads and bridges that aren't collapsing, etc., etc. Not too different from Scandinavia, Germany and other parts of the Western world, all of which are capitalist democracies. That's my idea of "paying their fair share."