Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 26  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The "Need" To Be Wealthy
2 years ago  ::  Oct 15, 2015 - 9:52PM #1
F1fan
Posts: 13,500
For those of you who think it is fine that the rich are using their money as a means to get richer, and do so at the cost of the rest of the economy, do you completely disregard the needs of the many for the desires of the few?  

Do you really think it makes sense that people who have found a way to accumulate (not earn through work) more money that they can never spend is a sane thing to allow when the net result is less money circulating commercially among the rest of the citizens?  If so, explain how it makes sense from the perspective of maintaining a sound economy.

And also explain why you think the extremely wealthy are compelled to accumulate more money that they could ever use during their lives, and the lives of their children. 
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 15, 2015 - 10:06PM #2
Girlchristian
Posts: 13,685

Oct 15, 2015 -- 9:52PM, F1fan wrote:

For those of you who think it is fine that the rich are using their money as a means to get richer, and do so at the cost of the rest of the economy, do you completely disregard the needs of the many for the desires of the few?  

Do you really think it makes sense that people who have found a way to accumulate (not earn through work) more money that they can never spend is a sane thing to allow when the net result is less money circulating commercially among the rest of the citizens?  If so, explain how it makes sense from the perspective of maintaining a sound economy.

And also explain why you think the extremely wealthy are compelled to accumulate more money that they could ever use during their lives, and the lives of their children. 



I think anyone that earns money or is smart enough to invest it in a way that it earns money should be able to keep their money. You do realize that most of the wealthiest Americans did, indeed, 'earn' their money, right? Either by building companies or creating products that the world can't live without. I mean, I assume you're not claiming that Bill Gates didn't really work his way to his wealth or Bezos doesn't work every day or Kalanick (founder and creator of Uber), or the many others in the list of the wealthiest Americans that do actually work and did earn their money..


What is your answer? Take money from others? How do you justify taking the money from someone like Zuckerberg who did build a product and still works? 

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 15, 2015 - 10:47PM #3
Druac
Posts: 14,509

When the greed begins affecting others and the overall economy, I say it is time we do something about it. Don't steel it or take it, TAX the living hell out of them...particularly the speculative practices of banks and other financial institutions and particularly those that use loopholes and offshore accounts to shelter them from taxes...at least start there.


Use that money to help small businesses and those in need and to rebuild our infrastructure and educate the masses.




#FEELTHEBERN



Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2015 - 11:13AM #4
looshawn
Posts: 3,006

Oct 15, 2015 -- 10:06PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Oct 15, 2015 -- 9:52PM, F1fan wrote:

For those of you who think it is fine that the rich are using their money as a means to get richer, and do so at the cost of the rest of the economy, do you completely disregard the needs of the many for the desires of the few?  

Do you really think it makes sense that people who have found a way to accumulate (not earn through work) more money that they can never spend is a sane thing to allow when the net result is less money circulating commercially among the rest of the citizens?  If so, explain how it makes sense from the perspective of maintaining a sound economy.

And also explain why you think the extremely wealthy are compelled to accumulate more money that they could ever use during their lives, and the lives of their children. 



I think anyone that earns money or is smart enough to invest it in a way that it earns money should be able to keep their money. You do realize that most of the wealthiest Americans did, indeed, 'earn' their money, right? Either by building companies or creating products that the world can't live without. I mean, I assume you're not claiming that Bill Gates didn't really work his way to his wealth or Bezos doesn't work every day or Kalanick (founder and creator of Uber), or the many others in the list of the wealthiest Americans that do actually work and did earn their money..


What is your answer? Take money from others? How do you justify taking the money from someone like Zuckerberg who did build a product and still works? 




Here's the thing GC. We're out here in the 21st century and still the only thing that Progressives can come up with is that ALL wealthy Americans have taken ALL the money, is hiding all that money and NO one is sharing it.


Somehow I hear that Obama is responsible for improving unemployemt over the years. Did Saint Obama give them all those jobs, or could some of those jobs come from...some of those greedy, selfish, conglomerates? 


Yup GC, The Left will mindlessly attack the wealthy. And when I say "wealthy", in the eyes of the Left, it's always the old school kind of wealthy. But as I mentioned, we're in the 21st century and the Left somehow misses that when it come to this wealth thing. 


Thanks to the Internet, there are plenty of wealthy, young, (with Zuckerberg being a leading example) and rich Americans - all who have earned it. But do you ever hear anything from Progressives about the rich vs. poor and ever hear them mention Mark Zuckerberg?? Nah...we'll hear Gates or Koch or GE.


Facebook actually created 4 young billionaires. http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/04/luxury/young-rich-billionaires-under-40/


Then we have young Americans who are multi-millionaires for creating online sites such as Groupon, WordPress, Mozilla Firefox, and Mashable to name a few. 
www.incomediary.com/top-young-entreprene...


And then think about online Google and Priceline. You ever see the latest stock prices of those two monsters?


www.nasdaq.com/symbol/pcln


See, Progressives will charge against all the wealthy. Unless you're young and popular and don't provide jobs.


Besides, doing so might interfere with things on the Internet.




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2015 - 11:31AM #5
F1fan
Posts: 13,500

Oct 15, 2015 -- 10:06PM, Girlchristian wrote:

I think anyone that earns money or is smart enough to invest it in a way that it earns money should be able to keep their money. You do realize that most of the wealthiest Americans did, indeed, 'earn' their money, right? Either by building companies or creating products that the world can't live without. I mean, I assume you're not claiming that Bill Gates didn't really work his way to his wealth or Bezos doesn't work every day or Kalanick (founder and creator of Uber), or the many others in the list of the wealthiest Americans that do actually work and did earn their money..



You're really not answering my questions.  there are hedge fund managers who make multiple millions by just moving money around, which doesn't create anything.  And the tax rate on many of these funds is around 10%.  That is how Mitt Romney's tax rate was less than 15% while ordinary middle class people see rates 20-25%.  Some of these folks do earn money by creating real services, but they also have the political influence to affect tax rates that allow them to pay less in tax than average folks making only 50K a year.  That represents part of the questions I'm asking.


What is your answer? Take money from others?



Taking money from others is essentially what we want for a sound economy.  It is the moving money between people for services and products that makes society work, and that is because taxes fund the very basis our society needs to function.  If the economy suffers because there is less of the cash needed for commerce then society as a whole suffers.  This is what we are seeing with many states and their budget woes.  Kansas has tried to cut hundreds of millions to public schools, and that has affected the education the kids are getting.  Who has benefitted?  The wealthy with lower tax rates.  The belief was that these wealthy people would invest more.  They don't.  The wealthy aren't motivated by moral concern or altruism.  They tend to want to accumulate more.  Why is that helpful for society?  Should we just let that happen?  Cut taxes for the super wealthy and let them accumulate more cash?


How do you justify taking the money from someone like Zuckerberg who did build a product and still works? 




As if I'm suggesting we drain his bank acount and leave him with (how much do you make a year?  That much) and let him figure out his life next year.  


No, I'm not saying that.  I'm saying tax law has favored the rich (who can afford to pay more) and put more burden TWICE on the middle class.  No significant lower taxes for the middle class and more cost to the middle class because states have less money to pay for social services.  One friend who moved from Missouri to kansas this summer found out she had to pay $200 for each of her three kids to rent iPads for school.  That ios because the state didn't fund the schools the money the state Constitution required.  What did Brownback do?  He fought the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling for the state to pay the money required.  The net result?  My friend having to pony up $600 while alreasdy stretched thin.  She had no choice in the matter.


It is these types of circumstances I'm asking about.  Does the need for the super wealthy getting richer supercede the needs of middle class families who struggle?


Is it a hard question?  If so, let's talk about why it is hard.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2015 - 11:41AM #6
F1fan
Posts: 13,500

Oct 16, 2015 -- 11:13AM, looshawn wrote:

Here's the thing GC. We're out here in the 21st century and still the only thing that Progressives can come up with is that ALL wealthy Americans have taken ALL the money, is hiding all that money and NO one is sharing it.



See, you can't even be honest.


Somehow I hear that Obama is responsible for improving unemployemt over the years. Did Saint Obama give them all those jobs, or could some of those jobs come from...some of those greedy, selfish, conglomerates?



Many of those jobs are minimum wage, and we know corporations are making record profits.  The arguments against minimum wage have relevance to small business, but when huge corporations are benefitting greatly, and paying upper management huge salaries, then we have to question the ethics.  It goes back to the exploitation during the Industrial revolution.


Yup GC, The Left will mindlessly attack the wealthy. And when I say "wealthy", in the eyes of the Left, it's always the old school kind of wealthy. But as I mentioned, we're in the 21st century and the Left somehow misses that when it come to this wealth thing.



Sorry, there's quite a bit of thought going into it.  Perhaps you should stop exaggerating, be honest, and think yourself.


Thanks to the Internet, there are plenty of wealthy, young, (with Zuckerberg being a leading example) and rich Americans - all who have earned it. But do you ever hear anything from Progressives about the rich vs. poor and ever hear them mention Mark Zuckerberg?? Nah...we'll hear Gates or Koch or GE.



Kochs inherited their wealth.


And yes there are perhaps hundreds of people who were able to make it big.  How about you, are you one of these?  


This American Dream thing doesn't apply to the vast majority of 300 million Americans.  This illustrates my point, why look at those few who happened to make it big and ignore the real substantial part of society?  Note it's these people having money that makes the millionaires possible, so they have an interest in a society that has income.


Facebook actually created 4 young billionaires. http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/04/luxury/young-rich-billionaires-under-40/


Then we have young Americans who are multi-millionaires for creating online sites such as Groupon, WordPress, Mozilla Firefox, and Mashable to name a few. 
www.incomediary.com/top-young-entreprene...


And then think about online Google and Priceline. You ever see the latest stock prices of those two monsters?


www.nasdaq.com/symbol/pcln


See, Progressives will charge against all the wealthy. Unless you're young and popular and don't provide jobs.


Besides, doing so might interfere with things on the Internet.




So?  How is this relevant to the majority of Americans struggling to make ends meet?  there are a number of posters here on Bnet who complain about not being able to afford their health care costs.  Your solution is what?  Applaud a few people who are billionaires?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2015 - 11:45AM #7
F1fan
Posts: 13,500

Oct 15, 2015 -- 10:47PM, Druac wrote:


When the greed begins affecting others and the overall economy, I say it is time we do something about it. Don't steel it or take it, TAX the living hell out of them...particularly the speculative practices of banks and other financial institutions and particularly those that use loopholes and offshore accounts to shelter them from taxes...at least start there.



I noticed no comment about this sort of activity by others.  


Any conservatives have a comment about this?  For it, against it?  Don't be shy.


Use that money to help small businesses and those in need and to rebuild our infrastructure and educate the masses.



Right.  I've had a number of small businesses over the years and had success and failure.  I sure as hell had no real access to money apart from credit cards because to get a busness loan meant so much work that it would have taken time away from doing business.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2015 - 11:49AM #8
Girlchristian
Posts: 13,685

Oct 16, 2015 -- 11:45AM, F1fan wrote:


Oct 15, 2015 -- 10:47PM, Druac wrote:


When the greed begins affecting others and the overall economy, I say it is time we do something about it. Don't steel it or take it, TAX the living hell out of them...particularly the speculative practices of banks and other financial institutions and particularly those that use loopholes and offshore accounts to shelter them from taxes...at least start there.



I noticed no comment about this sort of activity by others.  


Any conservatives have a comment about this?  For it, against it?  Don't be shy.


Use that money to help small businesses and those in need and to rebuild our infrastructure and educate the masses.



Right.  I've had a number of small businesses over the years and had success and failure.  I sure as hell had no real access to money apart from credit cards because to get a busness loan meant so much work that it would have taken time away from doing business.  




I think it's extremely naieve to assume that if we tax the hell out of the rich (what defines rich, btw? what salary are you talking?) that the gov't will turn around and give that money to infrastructure or small business...

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2015 - 11:57AM #9
MMarcoe
Posts: 20,907

Oct 15, 2015 -- 9:52PM, F1fan wrote:

For those of you who think it is fine that the rich are using their money as a means to get richer, and do so at the cost of the rest of the economy, do you completely disregard the needs of the many for the desires of the few?  

Do you really think it makes sense that people who have found a way to accumulate (not earn through work) more money that they can never spend is a sane thing to allow when the net result is less money circulating commercially among the rest of the citizens?  If so, explain how it makes sense from the perspective of maintaining a sound economy.

And also explain why you think the extremely wealthy are compelled to accumulate more money that they could ever use during their lives, and the lives of their children. 



I'm not one of these people, in case anyone thought otherwise.


1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is the original nothingness of the universe.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2015 - 12:05PM #10
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

Oct 15, 2015 -- 9:52PM, F1fan wrote:

For those of you who think it is fine that the rich are using their money as a means to get richer, and do so at the cost of the rest of the economy, do you completely disregard the needs of the many for the desires of the few? 



So ... what do you think is the solution F1??  Socialized ownership of all capital and means of production?? .... HOW then do you keep the Elites, the LEFTISTS ELITES, who created the monster you so hate, ... how do you keep them from gaming the system??

Oct 15, 2015 -- 9:52PM, F1fan wrote:

Do you really think it makes sense that people who have found a way to accumulate (not earn through work) more money that they can never spend is a sane thing to allow when the net result is less money circulating commercially among the rest of the citizens?  If so, explain how it makes sense from the perspective of maintaining a sound economy.



No .. it doesn't make sense.  But then, you are asking the wrong people.  Large Corporate interests and the BANKS are the invention of LEFTISTS ELITES ... who seek control and authority by holding the populace captive in their dictatorial state.

Oct 15, 2015 -- 9:52PM, F1fan wrote:

And also explain why you think the extremely wealthy are compelled to accumulate more money that they could ever use during their lives, and the lives of their children. 



Now .. this one is easy.  It's called EVOLUTION!!  over the last 10,000 years, humans evolved such that the one who can provide the resources, gets all the women.  Some people have inherited the ability to lie, cheat, steal, scheme, form alliances, and all other sorts of "social instruments" to better their prospects.  If you take another mans resources ... you get to have his women as well. [you'll note throughout history .... invaders kill all the men, and take the women].


Such is the case where "competition" exists, and alliances are made.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 26  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook