IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 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
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 11:55 PM   #2
RolandRat
Muse
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 925
Many a penny to be made from misery.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 11:56 PM   #3
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,012
I'm sure it will be trickling down to us in say....two weeks?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 12:07 AM   #4
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
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?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 06:08 AM   #5
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 59,496
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
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.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 09:14 AM   #6
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,117
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 11:00 AM   #7
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,253
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 11:46 AM   #8
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,238
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
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.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 11:47 AM   #9
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 59,496
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
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.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 12:20 PM   #10
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
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.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 12:21 PM   #11
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 12:21 PM   #12
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
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.
__________________
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.

Last edited by dudalb; 26th November 2020 at 12:24 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 02:15 PM   #13
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,798
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
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! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
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.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 02:51 PM   #16
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 02:52 PM   #17
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 03:01 PM   #18
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 03:08 PM   #19
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,576
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
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.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 03:17 PM   #21
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,798
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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 View Post
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.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
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.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 04:07 PM   #24
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,117
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 04:21 PM   #25
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,117
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 04:38 PM   #26
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,798
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 04:44 PM   #27
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,798
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
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! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
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?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 05:35 PM   #29
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,798
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
.....
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.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 06:46 PM   #31
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,798
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 07:05 PM   #32
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
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.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 07:07 PM   #33
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 07:09 PM   #34
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 50,334
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 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 View Post
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."
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 08:05 PM   #37
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,798
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
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.
__________________
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! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 08:30 PM   #38
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
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...
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 08:50 PM   #39
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,798
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
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?
__________________
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! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 09:12 PM   #40
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.