Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

How much money should one person have?

Do you think that individuals should be able to hoard basic resources like money at the expense of others?

People like Jeff Bezos to me are the absolute height of obscenity. His person net worth is more than the GDP of half the world's nations. One person. Why?

Through a law or through simple self-choice, shouldn't there be some cap on how much money a person or a family should be allowed to hoard?

by Anonymousreply 109June 8, 2021 12:56 AM

[quote]People like Jeff Bezos to me are the absolute height of obscenity. His person net worth is more than the GDP of half the world's nations. One person. Why?

I struggle to believe someone like that can earn all that money legitimately or honestly or ethically. That's kind of the point reached where I no longer believe "well if a person works hard for it, they are entitled to it". It's obscene, you're right.

by Anonymousreply 1May 4, 2021 8:54 AM

Like do you really need a $400 million Dollar yacht?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2May 4, 2021 8:58 AM

Isn't there also a point where goods can't really get any better too? Or at least there are diminishing returns the more expensive you get? I often think that when I look at even everyday products you might buy.

by Anonymousreply 3May 4, 2021 9:00 AM

One of Jenny Holzer's truisms is "People who don't work with their hands are parasites."

I feel people like this describes Bezos and his ilk. You cannot get that rich without exploiting a large number of people.

by Anonymousreply 4May 4, 2021 9:03 AM

Exactly, R4! I can't see how it could be any other way.

by Anonymousreply 5May 4, 2021 9:05 AM

R3 Yes, that's an unstated part of my question. It's selfish at so many other people's expenses—but it's also utterly pointless except for ego building. There's zero practical reason to have or want as much money as Bezos has. There's no good reason for any single human being or family to have more than, I don't know, $25 million in net assets. Even that is way too much in my opinion, but it seems like a fair limit for people who might argue about living in expensive cities, etc.

Bezos, Bloomberg, everyone of their ilk disgusts me.

by Anonymousreply 6May 4, 2021 9:26 AM

We should tax the super rich until they are only mildy rich and if they choose to move elsewhere, they can take the exploitation services with them.

by Anonymousreply 7May 4, 2021 10:22 AM

At what point does someone cross the 'American dream' line and deserve to be resented for their assets instead of admired for them?

People seem to universally admire Oprah for being a multibillionaire and Madonna for her worth. But isn't a billion also WAY too much, just super-excessive personal greed, despite people having worked hard to make money from humble beginnings?

by Anonymousreply 8May 4, 2021 10:30 AM

I came from a broken home and as a youngster had to wear the same jeans to school every day for awhile. I remember them being damp from hand washing them the day before because we didn’t have a dryer.

For me in my 20’s, the height of wealth was finding store tags on clothing in thrift stores. Clothing that wealthy people never ever bothered to wear even once.

by Anonymousreply 9May 4, 2021 10:37 AM

Don't you think if one squirrel took all the nuts except just the minimum necessary for the other squirrels to barely survive the winter, the other squirrels would eventually retaliate en masse and redistribute the community's resources?

Why are we dumber than that?

by Anonymousreply 10May 4, 2021 10:40 AM

[quote] Madonna for her worth

Madonna is not a billionaire.

by Anonymousreply 11May 4, 2021 10:45 AM

Which is why I wrote "for her worth" and not "for her billions," R11.

by Anonymousreply 12May 4, 2021 10:50 AM

You didn’t need to mention her at all, as she is not a billionaire. Your Vadgestanism is showing.

by Anonymousreply 13May 4, 2021 11:00 AM

R13 I started this thread and this thread is not dedicated to billionaires. It's about people who have more money than any one person should have.

What is your problem?

by Anonymousreply 14May 4, 2021 11:11 AM

There surely has to be a point where you don't need any more money? What do the super-rich actually need it for? They're going to end up dead just like everyone else, so why not use it to do good?

I was going to suggest establishing charitable funds but if these people paid their due taxes there would probably be no need for charity in the first place, at least in the first world.

I have no idea where you'd set the level though. I've never been especially driven or greedy. As long as I've got a roof over my head, food on the table, enough to have holidays and buy what I need I don't need any more.

by Anonymousreply 15May 4, 2021 11:24 AM

It's mind boggling to think there is absolutely **nothing** beyond your financial reach.

Everything except immortality.

by Anonymousreply 16May 4, 2021 11:24 AM

Give me 10 mill and I’m good.

by Anonymousreply 17May 4, 2021 11:26 AM

Fundamentally flawed logic.

Difference between income and wealth.

Difference between cash and asset.

Difference between work with your hands and work with your brain.

by Anonymousreply 18May 4, 2021 11:26 AM

[quote] I was going to suggest establishing charitable funds but if these people paid their due taxes there would probably be no need for charity in the first place, at least in the first world.

I've learned working at nonprofits that foundations can help and foundations can hurt, even with good intentions. The Gates Foundation had good intentions moving into education, and then their leaders unilaterally changed education for the worse by their own design, and schools followed the money. The foundation's work did a lot of damage to public education, destabilized it and then bailed out when it couldn't fix the problems it caused. Meanwhile, schools became dependent on Gates money and were left to suffer.

And then there are people like Kochs who set up foundations specifically to make rich people richer and to make society less equitable.

No one should have enough money to supplant a federal government's investments in things like education and political systems. Yet we are all conditioned to believe that philanthropists are great people who do great things because they give money away. In reality, they are people who have too much money, who must give some away for tax breaks, and they wield the power to change systems that work pretty well for the worse just by writing checks to people who want their money.

by Anonymousreply 19May 4, 2021 11:30 AM

Calvin and Hobbes from 1987

When 20 million was a lot.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20May 4, 2021 11:40 AM

[quote]It's mind boggling to think there is absolutely **nothing** beyond your financial reach...Everything except immortality.

I know we all have to go sometime but before we do, let's try one more time to figure out a way to take it with us.

by Anonymousreply 21May 4, 2021 11:42 AM

People who want to regulate the amount of money/success that others obtain legally and ethically should spend more time figuring out why they are underachievers.

by Anonymousreply 22May 4, 2021 11:48 AM

R22 Our worldviews are too mismatched to debate one another.

My question relates to individual hoarding of assets that adversely affects a community, a nation or a world.

Your answer presumes that the answer to this problem is that the person who identifies inequity as a problem should hoard a greater share of limited resources.

by Anonymousreply 23May 4, 2021 11:51 AM

The bigger issue for me is that the government fails to properly tax these people and enforce it. Facebook, Amazon, Trump and so on - they get away with tax avoidance, fancy schemes to avoid tax, and it's blatantly unfair.

by Anonymousreply 24May 4, 2021 11:56 AM

Anti-competition laws are BS when they allow people like Bezos and Zuckerberg to become corporate overlords.

If the feds taxed at increasingly higher rates, up to, say, 95 percent at a billion dollars, that would certainly temper ambitions and encourage capitalistic competitiveness, since the super rich would find something else to do once they reached their compensation ceiling, allowing room for others with other ideas to move in and keep progress going.

by Anonymousreply 25May 4, 2021 12:00 PM

[quote]As long as I've got a roof over my head, food on the table, enough to have holidays and buy what I need I don't need any more.

Absolutely agreed, I've always felt like this too.

by Anonymousreply 26May 4, 2021 12:14 PM

Humans are a stupid species sometimes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27May 4, 2021 12:16 PM

Physically, you can only be in one place at a time, interacting with a limited amount of things. Why accumulate so much property and stuff?

by Anonymousreply 28May 4, 2021 12:22 PM

[quote]My question relates to individual hoarding of assets that adversely affects a community, a nation or a world.

The majority of Bezos's wealth is Amazon stock which - he owns 53.2 million shares.

The value of Amazon stock comes from its operations. For years Amazon operated at a loss or barely breakeven. It took years for Amazon to have sufficient reach and scale for it to dominate - just as it took Walmart decades to have the scope and scale it does today.

Scale and so-called economies of scale are widely misunderstood concepts. People complain about Walmart, but continue to shop there because of its lower prices for goods. That lower price is a function of being able to leverage everything from purchasing power to efficient warehouse and distribution hubs to sales and market - and yes, paying its employees garbage. However, even if Walmart didn't exist, retail employees working for smaller chains or mom and pop shops are not going to be paid meaningfully higher wages while at the same time would likely be paying more for the goods they'd previously bought from Walmart.

Scale is a stair step function where the height and length of each step are shorter and higher earlier while becoming lower and longer later as scale increases. Smaller margins over higher volumes enables companies like Amazon and Walmart to spread its fixed costs over many more units. This is true for its suppliers. If you can sell enough of your toilet paper or Tide detergent to cover your fixed costs, it benefits your business - that's why companies are willing to make concessions to their purchasing power.

Summary: Bezos's wealth is mostly derived from Amazon stock (which isn't really as liquid as folks might believe for him). Amazon's value has increased as a function of improved operations over the years and better margins as its reach, and thus scale, have increased. Without companies like Amazon and Walmart, its likely that consumer prices would go up because manufacturers would no longer achieve their own scale and cover their fixed costs as quickly.

It's one of the reasons that there has been an inversion if prices over the years between manufactured goods vs. labor. It used to be that stuff was expensive and people were cheap. Now, people are expensive and stuff itself is cheap.

Thank you for attending my TED talk.

by Anonymousreply 29May 4, 2021 1:28 PM

I think people should be able to have and save as much money as they can earn. However, a basic [italic]LIVING[/italic] wage (i.e., at least $12 per hour, though many suggest $15 per hour, while others have noted, if wages had kept up with current productivity levels, $22 per hour would be the minimum wage today) should be signed into law to match inflation and protect those who are vulnerable to parasitic business practices.

The idea that this or that job is “not worth” a living wage is both preposterous and Machiavellian in its attempts to maintain not just profits but basic - and some might say excess - comfort at the very top of the economic pyramid. The argument that “businesses will suffer” is also a distortion of the truth: Businesses will have to adjust and no longer be seen as a way to become wealthy on the backs of others and the dime of the customer. Running a business through which one can earn and maintain a healthy income may not seem as desirable as “getting rich quick,” but, then again, that’s no one else’s problem but those who are interested in or already actively running a business.

Furthermore, a minimum wage should take into account not just what a particular job entails, but the time and physicality - the [italic]life[/italic] - of the person fulfilling said job. A human life is not nor should be cheap. Regardless of a person’s education or duties, when fulfilling job requirements, a human being is committing their time, energy, and life to do so. Some businesspeople argue, “Get an education if you want to earn more!” I say, lower your standards just a notch beneath wealthy or truly run your own business and do the work yourself!

by Anonymousreply 30May 4, 2021 2:15 PM

As long as it's earned honestly one should have as much money as one wants, and can make.

by Anonymousreply 31May 4, 2021 2:19 PM

The reality is - after having a certain amount of money, money doesn't mean anything and it's just a way to flex power that no individual should have the right to have.

There's a meme that says anyone who makes a billion should then be forced to opt-out of any future endeavors, the person gets an "I won Capitalism" trophy and a dog park names after them.

I agree with that - but I would even put that number at much lower. Having more than 250 million just makes you weird, and not in a good way.

by Anonymousreply 32May 4, 2021 2:20 PM

Cap wealth and extract it from the hoarders. We foo it at the other end of the wealth spectrum, time to do it at the top.

by Anonymousreply 33May 4, 2021 3:12 PM

Either you are a failure in life or you’re not.

by Anonymousreply 34May 6, 2021 9:46 AM

[...]

by Anonymousreply 35May 6, 2021 9:49 AM

R14 - funny, Hitler kind of went with that as well as Stalin. Leaves out all people who work with their brain like analysts, accountants and other intellectuals. Obviously, extremist regimes lumped them in with assholes like Bezos. It's how Eastern Europe got to where it is...once Stalinism hit, the intellectuals were either killed or silenced. The results are obvious.

by Anonymousreply 36May 6, 2021 10:13 AM

I don't care, really, about any material possession other than my books. I have spent a significant amount of money across my life to build my personal library. Perhaps I am a hoarder of books, and I own far more than I will ever realistically read. But I feel a large personal library gives one a feeling of immortality: there is not a single book on my shelf, no matter now dry or impractical or technical, that I don't have at least some small desire to engage with one day. I cannot die before I read everything on my shelf, right?

I think, however, that the hoarding of knowledge -- even in the material form of books -- is far less odious than the hoarding of wealth.

by Anonymousreply 37May 6, 2021 10:19 AM

Can you imagine the good that could be done if one would spread the money around? Vaccinations for many common diseases, fresh water, decent homes, playgrounds, sports-fields......only the actions of the just smell sweet and blossom in their dust.

by Anonymousreply 38May 6, 2021 10:29 AM

I’m always surprised at how many of these billionaires emerge from the United States. I thought the Us system was set up to prevent the emergence of an oligarchy/aristocracy, and yet Koch/Gates/Bezos/Zuckerberg/Musk/etc. certainly have a level of wealth and influence which exceeds almost anyone in history. Indeed the Us systems seems a real abominaion because of the level of influence these people can buy.

I’m growing more radical as I get older, I think. I see nothing really admirable in a billionaire’s philanthropy. It seems to me that they are returning a mere fraction of the unearned wealth they have hoarded at the expense of a more economically just society. And when it comes to their interest in environmental/charitable causes, I am incredibly cynical. When I see Bill Gates becoming the largest owner of US farmland, I don’t think he’s doing it to benefit others. I just wonder how he intends to exploit his position to make even more profit and gain even more power.

by Anonymousreply 39May 6, 2021 11:49 AM

As long as it is earned legally and they are paying their fair share of taxes, a person should be able to have as much money as they can they earn.

by Anonymousreply 40May 6, 2021 12:03 PM

[quote] How much money should one person have?

It depends on the person, OP. I’m certain were it you with all the money, you’d have a different tune.

When you invent or create the next big thing that everyone wants to buy (like Microsoft), see how you feel about anyone saying “you can only earn so much money before we confiscate the rest.”

If you invent a better mousetrap and the entire world wants to buy it from you, should you decline the sales because, after all, oh that’s just too much money for me to have?

by Anonymousreply 41May 6, 2021 12:11 PM

They don't pay their fair share of taxes. They get out of paying taxes legally because they give money to politicians who set up the legal and justice systems to be unfair in rich people's favor, and we all now know it.

by Anonymousreply 42May 7, 2021 2:24 AM

A lot of people in this thread clearly have no background in economics, supply chains, finance, accounting, or human nature for that matter. Just coming up with arbitrary numbers of what's "fair" or supporting the seizure of property because that helps you believe you're a good person is childish at best and authoritarian at worst. A utopia will not just magically bloom with everyone living their eudaimonic moment. There are a lot of problems with this thinking, not the least of which is that everyone is going to have a different idea of what's fair, and when of course it's their property being seized, the system becomes a problem.

Capitalism is FAR from perfect but it has raised billions of people out of poverty over the last two centuries.

by Anonymousreply 43May 7, 2021 3:06 AM

[quote] [R3] Yes, that's an unstated part of my question. It's selfish at so many other people's expenses—but it's also utterly pointless except for ego building. There's zero practical reason to have or want as much money as Bezos has. There's no good reason for any single human being or family to have more than, I don't know, $25 million in net assets. Even that is way too much in my opinion, but it seems like a fair limit for people who might argue about living in expensive cities, etc.

I don't begrudge the wealth but I think they should be taxed accordingly. You should not be able to exploit others to accumulate wealth AND avoid paying back into the capitalist democracy that enables your prosperity.

by Anonymousreply 44May 7, 2021 4:47 AM

R43 I like your post. And it sent me to the dictionary

[quote] Psychologists conceive of happiness in two different ways: hedonic happiness, or pleasure and enjoyment, and eudaimonic happiness, or meaning and purpose. Some psychologists champion either a hedonic or an eudaimonic idea of happiness. Most agree, however, that people require both hedonia and eudaimonia to flourish.

by Anonymousreply 45May 7, 2021 5:04 AM

thank you R45

by Anonymousreply 46May 7, 2021 7:40 PM

[quote] everyone living their eudaimonic moment.

I did that once and almost got arrested.

by Anonymousreply 47May 8, 2021 6:53 PM

r20 too funny

Calvin on the economy

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 48May 19, 2021 11:57 AM

Notice though, our USA government has become the business center for corporations. Not good for a nation’s longevity!

We’re spiraling into an awful mess.

by Anonymousreply 49May 19, 2021 12:41 PM

I'm with R19. I don't care how many cars or boats or houses a rich person owns. But when the super rich use their accumulated wealth to affect the entire economy and public policy and to shape the world into the one they want, they just have too much influence for an individual, or family.

Billionaires should be taxed out of existence.

by Anonymousreply 50May 19, 2021 1:00 PM

The Untied States wouldn't even exist if JP Morgan (the individual) hadn't bailed us out financially.

We need more corporations and businesses that create jobs in America for Americans, with a living wage. And, those corporations need taxed too. Not enough so they can't profit but more than they have been.

by Anonymousreply 51May 19, 2021 2:00 PM

As much money as they can make it earn. Billionaires are fine with me. They or someone did something leading to a demand which brings in money.

This is why athletes are paid more than individual teachers. There is a demands and they work in the free market. Their skills are rare and billions of people are interested in watching them display their talents every year.

by Anonymousreply 52May 19, 2021 2:09 PM

I agree with R52: people who provide on-demand skills, services, or products should not be penalized or limited because other citizens find value in their activity.

The critics focus on the wrong thing.

by Anonymousreply 53May 19, 2021 2:58 PM

This is r52, better questions that would help the type of people I know would be:

What should the minimum wage be in 2021?

How many vacation and sick days should be the minimum for every job in America? Ideally, full-time workers should get at least 4 weeks worth of vacation time that starts as a bundle on January 1st with roll over minimums for excess vacation time. That should increase to 6 weeks after 6 years with any company. No more of that accrual bullshit. Companies with employees that on average use less than 75% of their vacation time should be investigated to ensure employers aren't discouraging Americans from enjoying their time away. Part-time workers should get 3 weeks off per year at least with the same setup where it moves up to 5 weeks after 6 years on the job.

We should be talking about corporate tax cuts tied to increases in employee salaries or benefits like re-education.

We should be talking about the capital gains tax rates. We should also find a way to tax millionaire and billionaire on the loans they take out against their stocks and assets which is the the basis of incomes for the truly wealthy such as Jeff Bezos, because those loans are taxed t a lower rate. When they need money they don't just use their stock dividend, they take out low interests bank loans. Their income is reinvested and uses to pay off these minor loans. This is how the rich stay wealthy and why we aren't collecting the type of taxes we should receive.

We should also nationalize healthcare and pay off student loans for our doctors, teachers, and police. police work should require at least a psychology degree. Start with a public option but get the ball rolling.

We should remove the caps on the Social Security rates.

by Anonymousreply 54May 19, 2021 3:38 PM

I don't feel like there should be a personal limit, but I do feel like there should be some sort of legal obligation to donate to good causes. With that much wealth, I would feel a moral responsibility to make the world a better place - you can still live like an absolute god even if you donated just 10% of your wealth. In fact, having that much money and NOT using it to help people in need I actually consider to be evil.

by Anonymousreply 55May 20, 2021 8:19 AM

R55 Here's a problem with that: Some super-rich people like the Gateses create their own philanthropies and determine that "good causes" include eradicating malaria and HIV, which is great, and overhauling the US education system, which was disastrous and which is supposed to be publicly funded but willingly took the Gates' money and fell apart as a result. At the same time, other super-rich people like the Kochs create their own philanthropies and determine that "good causes" include making the super rich richer and breaking down the democratic foundation of our government.

When any single person or family has as much money as a government, then that single person or family has the power to unilaterally underwrite the implementation of their own interests in a way that rivals collective community values and the collective tax base. Why should anyone have so much power?

Philanthropy is great until philanthropists have totally fucked up values and the "good causes" they support include lowering taxes for the wealthy, prohibiting abortion, denying rights to LGBT people, preventing black people from voting, etc.

by Anonymousreply 56May 20, 2021 8:25 AM

[quote] This is why athletes are paid more than individual teachers. There is a demands and they work in the free market. Their skills are rare and billions of people are interested in watching them display their talents every year.

Yes, when “talents” involve repetitively dribbling a ball and throwing it into a hoop or putting a ball into a cup in the grass; let us prioritize this over supporting, nurturing and educating millions of youth in a country that is clearly struggling with inequality, neglect and poverty.

Sure. Sure. /s

No wonder the USA is rapidly devolving and spiraling downward.

Priorities PEOPLE....

by Anonymousreply 57May 20, 2021 8:54 AM

Here are some of the "good causes" that super-rich people can advance with their disproportionate wealth.

As a fun bonus for them, their donations to causes that suit their interests are big fat tax writeoffs and get them lots of free publicity as do-gooders.

Also, the Trump foundation gets to launder its own money and avoid taxes while missppropriating those funds for personal indulgences with no legal repercussions because the family is rich and connected, and the Clinton foundation paid Chelsea Clinton $9 million from 2009 through 2020 for her noble and charitable board service.

Wealthy people's charitable work is really admirable. It's an admirably deceptive way to quietly get richer while advancing a personal agenda and getting lots of press and awards and new opportunities (highly paid speaking gigs, board appointments, book deals) based on 'charitable work.'

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 58May 20, 2021 9:34 AM

r57 soccer plays make way more money than American athletes even if they play for a 2nd world team. Like i said BILLIONS care about sports world wide which is why their athletes make billions if added up for all sports. Yes, if the dribbling or throwing things into cups at a professional level was as easy as getting a 4 year education degree (which almost anyone can manage) then it wouldn't be paid a hell of a lot less. You don't see speed walking dominating ESPN highlights.

by Anonymousreply 59May 22, 2021 2:11 AM

Person need enough money for beautiful box of joolry.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 60May 22, 2021 2:21 AM

Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg – all disgusting parasites.

They should donate all of their personal wealth above $2 billion to the American people, through direct payments paid from a UBI fund. They wouldn't have that immense wealth if we weren't shopping on Amazon 24/7, buying Tesla cars, or posting on Facebook. The people should get something back for making these companies TRILLION dollar enterprises. But of course, these soulless lizard people will continue to hoard the wealth.

by Anonymousreply 61May 22, 2021 2:35 AM

The super rich/wealthy have also priced out the world for the rest of us, with the cost of real estate and housing at exorbitant amounts. Housing shouldn't be a goddamn luxury item. I hate this world

by Anonymousreply 62May 22, 2021 2:41 AM

Wanted to say reference R6 and say that these "expensive cities" wouldn't be so insanely expensive if it weren't for the billionaires and multimillionaires.

by Anonymousreply 63May 22, 2021 2:43 AM

R50 I have to admit that if I had this sort of money I'd probably just buy an ordinary if nice house, a better used car and spend the rest on public policy and to shape the world into the one I want. What the hell else could I do with all that money anyone. I dont like boats and I dont want my own plane, and I cant drive more than 2-3 cars realistically and no more than one at a time! Making the world around me a safer, nicer place seems like a much better use of that sort of money then a bloody great big boat, a new Bentley or a house so big I could have all my friends live in it and still have space left over. And whats the point of having more than one house? Its just extra hassle. I might get a kayak though.

The thing with spending it on public policy and shaping the world into the one I want, is it wouldnt just benefit me, it'd benefit everyone else around me

by Anonymousreply 64May 22, 2021 2:56 AM

Mitt Romney -- a former venture capitalist -- should not have his capital gains taxed at a lower rate than my income.

by Anonymousreply 65May 22, 2021 4:27 AM

[quote] They wouldn't have that immense wealth if we weren't shopping on Amazon 24/7, buying Tesla cars, or posting on Facebook.

So they created something that, by your own admission virtually everyone is paying to use, and you want to punish them?

Why have Mom & Pop stores gone out of business? Not because of Amazon, but because Amazon created a better way of doing things and those shops didn’t keep up.

by Anonymousreply 66May 22, 2021 11:52 AM

[quote] I have to admit that if I had this sort of money I'd probably just buy an ordinary if nice house, a better used car and spend the rest on public policy and to shape the world into the one I want.

[quote] The thing with spending it on public policy and shaping the world into the one I want, is it wouldnt just benefit me, it'd benefit everyone else around me

But the problem is that’s exactly what the Kochs et al. are doing, shaping the world into what [bold]they[/bold] want. That’s not a good thing.

by Anonymousreply 67May 22, 2021 11:54 AM

[quote] [R57] soccer plays make way more money than American athletes even if they play for a 2nd world team. Like i said BILLIONS care about sports world wide which is why their athletes make billions if added up for all sports. Yes, if the dribbling or throwing things into cups at a professional level was as easy as getting a 4 year education degree (which almost anyone can manage) then it wouldn't be paid a hell of a lot less. You don't see speed walking dominating ESPN highlights

Exaggerate much?

BILLIONS don’t care about professional sports. They do care about the quality of their own lives which is impacted by things like EDUCATION, financial well-being and decency.

You continue to advocate for sports celebrities to be vaulted as exquisitely wealthy while specifically denying “teachers” in the process.

Seems as though you, yourself, could benefit from an education from said “teachers”.

by Anonymousreply 68May 22, 2021 12:09 PM

[quote] Why have Mom & Pop stores gone out of business? Not because of Amazon, but because Amazon created a better way of doing things and those shops didn’t keep up.

Think not, R66.

Mom and Pop Stores don’t partake of the predatory practices employed by Bezos and his hypercapitalist henchmen.

Amazon is not some brilliant, quality company.

Please.

by Anonymousreply 69May 22, 2021 12:14 PM

All immense wealth involves theft

by Anonymousreply 70May 22, 2021 12:16 PM

R8 Oprah is a completely different situation. Oprah actually earned her fortune manually during 25 years hosting her #1 in the ratings talk show.

She labored by physically hosting that show for 25 years. She didn't own an ecommerce company that just printed mass sums of money. She used her skills and talents as an interviewer on camera for decades to earn what she has today.

I don't begrudge a person like Oprah because I know she actually earned her wealth and advertisers paid her well to do it.

Oprah isn't the same as Zuckerberg Bezos Gates Musk or Buffett, or the Koch's etc. She actually worked for hers.

by Anonymousreply 71May 22, 2021 1:35 PM

It's the same thing with actors. They put in labor through their line of work. They have to physically put in work and preform while creating a movie or television show etc. So they're putting in physical work to earn those salaries and become wealthy.

I'm not the only person who sees it this way. I've heard other people make the same argument about actors and the labor they put into making a movie or television show. Versus these big tech executives who just make vast fortunes through ecommerce companies where they basically print mass sums of money.

by Anonymousreply 72May 22, 2021 1:50 PM

[quote] She labored by physically hosting that show for 25 years.

Exactly.

by Anonymousreply 73May 22, 2021 2:00 PM

[quote] Versus these big tech executives who just make vast fortunes through ecommerce companies where they basically print mass sums of money.

How ridiculous. No one is printing money. They created something that was popular enough that most of the world wanted to buy it in one form or another, and did.

What about those others who weren't successful for one reason or another? Shall we AskJeeves?

by Anonymousreply 74May 22, 2021 2:03 PM

Your mommies should have taught you that “life isn’t fair” before you turned eight years old.

by Anonymousreply 75May 22, 2021 2:32 PM

R66, but we the people literally made it possible for these companies to exceed the boundaries of what was possible. We made them into TRILLION dollar enterprises. At this point, we deserve a share of the profits. Most people can't afford to buy stocks, so redistribute some of that money to Americans in the form of direct payments. We have far passed the point where these companies are just "making a profit", they are unimaginably wealthy off the back of poor people's labor and suffering and they need to pay it forward in some substantial way.

Now more than ever would be a good time to do this, by the way. Most of the country is suffering financially and it's only gonna get worse.

by Anonymousreply 76May 22, 2021 4:01 PM

Money isn’t a resource. It’s lazy, entitled millennials and zees who want to characterize it as such. It’s a measure of value.

by Anonymousreply 77May 22, 2021 4:18 PM

r54, If you run for office I volunteer to be your champagne manager.

A simple tax code would solve the problem. Tax at 100 percent above a certain amount but... I would allow the richest people to pick 50 percent pet projects so they could put their name on stuff and give them credit.

Corporations should have a mathematical formula that tops out CEO salaries.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 78May 22, 2021 4:19 PM

[quote] but we the people literally made it possible for these companies to exceed the boundaries of what was possible. We made them into TRILLION dollar enterprises. At this point, we deserve a share of the profits.

The people of the United States weren’t the only purveyors of these services, not by far. Should those countries who use Facebook or Amazon be just given free money too?

I find it ludicrous that someone who built something that everyone wants a piece of shouldn’t reap the rewards of that. I hate Bill Gates with an unbridled passion, but he made Windows the most ubiquitous operating system and made PCs available to everyone’s home because they became easy to use. Suddenly everyone wanted to buy his products. The government should step in and say, “nope. You’ll make too much money for doing that. We’re putting a stop to that”?

by Anonymousreply 79May 22, 2021 7:01 PM

r51

Yes it would have existed. Not the same way but it wasn't going anywhere.

by Anonymousreply 80June 7, 2021 12:20 PM

Meanwhile, Kylie Jenner is experiencing declining sales of her makeup and shareholders are starting to panic.

Hope she saved her money. Celebrity brands only go but so far, than people start to move on.

But we'll see.

by Anonymousreply 81June 7, 2021 1:36 PM

[quote] than people start to move on.

Oh, dear!

by Anonymousreply 82June 7, 2021 1:51 PM

I think a better question is what is the minimum standard of living that should be mandated so that people are able to live decent lives.

by Anonymousreply 83June 7, 2021 1:56 PM

none

by Anonymousreply 84June 7, 2021 2:03 PM

R79 yeah but the tech giants are piggybacking off the creation of the internet, that was created using the public tax dollars. They also make nothing tangible if we're being honest -- walmart has a similar system as Amazon, so if Amazon went belly up tomorrow, nothing would be greatly affected by it, because it's just a website. No matter how many people want to pretend they're the Wright brothers, Edison, Ford, Vanderbilt, etc., they're not. At least those ventures vastly improved everyone's life by providing transportation, utilities, infrastructure, etc. They became wealthy but so did society.

My point being, these tech giants offer society very little in return, for the money they make.

I'm actually not for naming an arbitrary ceiling on earnings, but I am disgusted with the worth being attached to these people -- they're called "geniuses", influence politics, run abusive work places, etc., when a large factor is that they were just lucky enough to come out of the right crotches.

It's almost like a sickness that we have to lie about their roots, as if having wealth and connections at birth didn't play a role whatsoever. I can promise you I'd be very successful if I had been born to a rich family. It takes money to make money. There's a reason only 5% of people change the economic class they were born to -- and it's not because 95% are bums.

I have a feeling the reason we're forced to play this game is that if we acknowledge wealth and success usually depends on more than how hard one works, it might lead to attempts to help the majority that went lucky enough to get a loan from our parents. We'd have to confront the reality that no, the "American Dream" isn't achievable through hard work alone. The wealthy would have to admit they started ahead.

by Anonymousreply 85June 7, 2021 2:08 PM

[quote] accountants and other intellectuals

Gee, I've never thought of accountants as intellectuals.

by Anonymousreply 86June 7, 2021 2:14 PM

Well said R85

by Anonymousreply 87June 7, 2021 2:22 PM

And there's a lot more to gaining financial stability than "hard work". There's other things to focus on that could help people other than the hard numbers -- the credit system is poorly designed, the IRS audits poor people 8x more than millionaires, the stock market is a playground for the wealthy, there's more saftey nets for the rich, education is not created equal, money is involved in politics, etc.

There's a lot of people that don't understand what being poor means; how the system is stacked against you, beyond just the class you're born into -- credit is used to determine interest rates, obtaining housing, what you're charged for car insurance, etc. One late bill can tank credit 100 pts. One medical emergency can ruin you.

The fees for late bills is another thing -- you end up paying hundreds more in "late fees", even for one day, and utilities are becoming more costly bu the year.

Having to live cheap means paying for it -- shittier food, energy hogs for appliances, more car repairs, not going to medical checkups, shitty home environment (rodent droppings, living ontop of old toxic waste dumps, water damage/ mold, etc), limited life outside of working, missed educational opportunities, etc.

Sometimes I wonder how many people are out there that could've left a mark, but didn't have the opportunity because of shitty schooling, not having money for hobbies, not having parents that could support them, etc.

by Anonymousreply 88June 7, 2021 2:23 PM

Just a simple game of Monopoly will show how easily rich people see themselves as entitled and deserving rather than lucky.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 89June 7, 2021 2:25 PM

Has there ever been one of these multi-billionaires who took on the affordable housing issue in a serious way?

I know Eli Broad paid lip service to this 25 years ago, but turns out he was in it to buy and sell the associated tax credits (which he made a fortune doing.)

by Anonymousreply 90June 7, 2021 2:44 PM

Jeff Bezos is rich because of other people. Instead of buying at a retail store, people have moved on to an online retail store. Of course, he also branched into other things, but what started as an online book store has become huge. People need to get off the couch and go shopping physically. More importantly, retailers, cities, and suburbs need to realize that they need to innovate and provide stores that do not need driving miles away.

by Anonymousreply 91June 7, 2021 2:48 PM

And now Bezos wants to go to space. Dude - think for one second about your legacy and do some good for the world.

I like that he saved the Washington Post - but what the fuck has he done? Besides pay no corporate taxes and just make excessive profit?

by Anonymousreply 92June 7, 2021 2:49 PM

R92 I agree with you. To have that much wealth and to NOT be contributing more of it to the benefit of the world does just seem evil to me.

Though I am very much an Amazon customer so I'm complicit I guess.

by Anonymousreply 93June 7, 2021 2:56 PM

Chiiile… Testify, R85!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 94June 7, 2021 3:00 PM

I don’t shop on Amazon as much as I used to. I’ve gotten quite a few low quality and even counterfeit products lately. Delivery times are much longer. And prices aren’t that great.

I’ll still buy books there and I watch stuff on Amazon prime, but that’s about it. Everything else I can get for less at Target.

by Anonymousreply 95June 7, 2021 3:01 PM

R95 Similar here. We use them for rare items that stores don't carry, but for the most part, it kind of sucks. I'll never get used to buying certain things I can't touch or see in front of me (like clothing). I'm always surprised at how many people laugh about the cheap shit they end up with, that's nothing like what they were expecting (like tiny furniture, cheap plastic made products, weird clothes, etc).

Books are pretty reliable (you know what you're getting). If it weren't for stores not carrying what I've needed (like car parts), my online shopping would probably be down to once or twice a year.

A lot of these tech companies are making bank off data too, which is annoying AF. The US is a failure when it comes to protecting consumers. At least we used to have some power through things like the BBB and being able to speak to someone in person, but those days are gone.

by Anonymousreply 96June 7, 2021 3:23 PM

Each person should have precisely eleven dollars.

by Anonymousreply 97June 7, 2021 3:25 PM

R92 He not only “saved” it, he controls it and uses it stealthily to promulgate his opinions and agenda.

by Anonymousreply 98June 7, 2021 3:26 PM

[quote] being able to speak to someone in person,

You’re not asking forcefully enough.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99June 7, 2021 3:51 PM

What amazes me is that all these wealthy people claiming to worship capitalism would squash any kind of competition, and they RELY on deliberate government intervention that allows for them not to be taxed in the jurisdiction that is effectively their head office.

We can assume that Bezos lives in the US and doesn't commute to the Cayman Islands or wherever every day to get to the office.

by Anonymousreply 100June 7, 2021 4:03 PM

[quote] It's almost like a sickness that we have to lie about their roots, as if having wealth and connections at birth didn't play a role whatsoever.

It's not a sickness; it's part of the con.

Think about how many super-wealthy politicians you hear constantly declaring that their grandfather worked in a factory, their grandfather worked in a mine, their grandfather was in a war.

It's an efficient and maddeningly effective cover story for people with trust funds who are inviting themselves into the corrupt inner circle of politics.

People like the Bushes move from Connecticut to Texas and then run ridiculous campaigns based on images of them being beer-swilling cowboys, sports fans, rough-and-tumble ranchers. Preposterous. Yet it works every time.

by Anonymousreply 101June 7, 2021 6:01 PM

r43...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. Capitalists have FOUGHT to keep people in poverty...always have, always will. There are an awful lot of Capitalist supporters on this thread that have either forgotten, or were never taught OUR history. After the Great Depression (which lasted 15 years) FDR created the New Deal...which essentially established the middle class through programs like SS, Unemployment Insurance, a minimum wag and a Federal Jobs program that put over 15 million civilians to work. FDR was not a progressive, but the coalition that pushed him to implement those programs were. That coalition was so large and so strong and things were so bad economically that he had to listen. Those policies were so popular with the American people HE WAS REELECTED 3 TIMES AFTER THAT. When he died, businesses and the 1% went to work to start dismantling everything he established...thats why you see the working middle class dissipating over the past 50 years. First, they put term limits on the Presidency...god forbid another Democrat gain control and make the Capitalists pay. Next they set about dividing and destroying the coalition...that coalition btw was made up of Communists, Socialists and Labor Unions. They passed Taft/Hartley which eroded union membership, made States :right to work" States, and did away with collective bargaining. Next they went after the Communists and drove them out of the US...see McCarthyism. Then they demonized the Socialists claiming they were the same as Communists...and continue to do so to this day...i.e. everything meant to benefit THE MAJORITY in this country is labeled Socialism. Mind you, none of their actions had anything to do with Communism and Socialism...it was all about breaking up the Coalition...and it continues to this day through political division about things that dont affect peoples lives. But thats the point. People are too distracted by the purposeful divisions to realize that we all basically want the same things...jobs, income, safety, etc...which prevents us from joining together AS A MAJORITY to stand against Capitalism. Thats why the majority of politicians...both sides...protect and defend Capitalism. Its all about power and money and not people.

by Anonymousreply 102June 7, 2021 6:31 PM

^^^ I forgot to add they also did away with the Federal Jobs program....you know, Big Government is bad and all that...meaning Big Government is harder to control so we need to keep it small...and why should we, Capitalists have to compete with the wages and benefits paid by the Government if we can get around it and increase profits

by Anonymousreply 103June 7, 2021 6:36 PM

I said TESTIFY, R102 and R103!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 104June 7, 2021 6:42 PM

Completely agree R102 & R103.

The "culture wars" are nothing but stupid political distractions that to many fall for.

I hope people wake up one day and see that our elected officials don't give a damn about us, especially with in the Republican party etc.

by Anonymousreply 105June 7, 2021 9:35 PM

I wanted to also add that FDR proposed a 100% tax on any income over $25,000 (todays equivalent, $400,000)....The Republicans demanded a compromise...90%. The effective rate after deductions and loopholes...47%. When people ask why the Middle Class is shrinking....thats why. Not a single elected official has had the balls to do it again for fear of retaliation. The Capitalists made it their mission then, and through today, to make sure it never happens again. And FDR was not the most popular President because of WW2, it was because HE TAXED THE RICH and spread the wealth around. And for those defending Capitalism, how did that work out for us during Covid ? We were totally unprepared, and the Capitalists did not want to come off of their profits to make sure we were...but had no problem sticking their hand in the kitty...thats why there wasnt enough money to help small business and others. Anyone intersted can look up the New Deal and FDR and learn about all he did for the working class and how politicians dismantled everything...from education, to jobs, to welfare, etc.

by Anonymousreply 106June 7, 2021 11:23 PM

Everybody should only have $1 since everything will be provided by the government!

by Anonymousreply 107June 7, 2021 11:28 PM

r107....make a joke ( I hope its a joke), but when Corporations and the 1% were heavily taxed, surprise, surprise, companies still flourished, peoples livelihoods flourished, communities flourished, moral was high and the economy flourished. Paying tax does not prevent you from making a profit...it prevents you from raping your workers , the communities and the government, who btw provides massive amounts of corporate welfare and tax dollars to provide roads, etc they need to operate. And remember, without Labor, there would be no PROFIT.

by Anonymousreply 108June 7, 2021 11:33 PM

R102/103/106 I want you inside of me deeply…

by Anonymousreply 109June 8, 2021 12:56 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!