Should Billionaires Exist?

[bomberfox]

Exactly, like that famous Joseph Keppler cartoon from 1889, "The Bosses of the Senate"

View attachment 67583222

We've got to keep re-learning the lessons of history.

Im just glad i learned before the consequences started to really set in. We are in a new gilded age.

 

[forn]

Demanding that billionaires don't exist - isn't that just resentment?

 

[Questerr]

Yes, that is what a marriage is.

Most do, including Mackenzie Scott. Some do not, mainly heirs. But the thread question isn't asking about estate taxes, it's asking whether billionaires should exist.

Interesting. So spouse co-creates their partner's business?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Incomes have flatlined since supply side economics came into play.

No they haven't. They have continued to increase.

That said, supply side economics is suboptimal, and incomes would have likely done better across the board with more demand side focused policy. But it is inaccurate to say that they flatlined. Real incomes continued to increase.

 

[Gatsby]

Interesting. So spouse co-creates their partner's business?

Yes.

 

[bomberfox]

No they haven't. They have continued to increase.

That said, supply side economics is suboptimal, and incomes would have likely done better across the board with more demand side focused policy. But it is inaccurate to say that they flatlined. Real incomes continued to increase.

Compared to before the rate of climb has extremely flatlined. Supply side economics is a bad joke.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Compared to before the rate of climb has extremely flatlined. Supply side economics is a bad joke.

You are correct that supply side economics is a bad joke, but real incomes are still higher now than they were then.

 

[bomberfox]

You are correct that supply side economics is a bad joke, but real incomes are still higher now than they were then.

The rate of climb and the ability to adjust for inflation has not. Its nearly flatlined.

 

[Cordelier]

Im just glad i learned before the consequences started to really set in. We are in a new gilded age.

That's pretty hard to deny.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And you need to get past the propaganda that wealth is limitless. It isn't. There's only a finite supply of it. That's what gives it value.

Really?

Finite?

LOL...

Goodbye. It is pointless talking to people like you.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Should an economy be structured so that billionaires exist while people live on the street and can't afford healthcare? And no matter what anyone says, an economy that allows billionaires is structured that way. The free market is a myth. There is only a government that serves the rich and facilitates the accumulation of wealth and power to this degree.

Why even ask our opinion, then?

 

[Cordelier]

Really?

Finite?

LOL...

Goodbye. It is pointless talking to people like you.

That economics, man. That's why they call it the dismal science. Scarcity is the only thing that gives anything value.

 

[coyote505]

Should an economy be structured so that billionaires exist while people live on the street and can't afford healthcare? And no matter what anyone says, an economy that allows billionaires is structured that way. The free market is a myth. There is only a government that serves the rich and facilitates the accumulation of wealth and power to this degree.

Not sure if you think socialism is the answer. A Russian friend, daughter of a still Communist family, and former USSR govt. diplomatic employee, thought about it. "Socialism only works at the point of a gun, and even then, only in the short term."

 

[hecatmoggie]

people have always disliked and found it easy to blame wealthier minorities for their troubles than take on responsibility and focus on their own lives.

everybody except a very small handful people have people wealthier than they are

remember - you're a very wealthy person in the eyes of many people in this world - you are, I am, all the people who voted "NO" are very wealthy to many

you figure all those in the world would ban your wealthy if they could ?

 

[Cordelier]

everybody except a very small handful people have people wealthier than they are

remember - you're a very wealthy person in the eyes of many people in this world - you are, I am, all the people who voted "NO" are very wealthy to many

you figure all those in the world would ban your wealthy if they could ?

You ever find a $20 bill laying on the sidewalk?

 

[Paratrooper]

This just seems like weaponized envy to me. Why should we get to dictate how successful another person can be?

 

[Safiel]

Billionaires should exist.

Trillionaires should exist, when and if they come into existence.

Wealth envy notwithstanding.

Indeed, the presence of a large number of billionaires correlates to a higher standard of living for all.

Humans have a right to life, liberty and property, namely their own extant property.

There is no right to any particular distribution of the wealth of society, nor is there a right for any particular person to possess any wealth at all.

The question of distribution of wealth is beyond the purview of government.

I am not a Christian, but the commandment "thou shalt not covet" is quite well taken.

 

[Cordelier]

Billionaires should exist.

Trillionaires should exist, when and if they come into existence.

Wealth envy notwithstanding.

Indeed, the presence of a large number of billionaires correlates to a higher standard of living for all.

Humans have a right to life, liberty and property, namely their own extant property.

There is no right to any particular distribution of the wealth of society, nor is there a right for any particular person to possess any wealth at all.

The question of distribution of wealth is beyond the purview of government.

I am not a Christian, but the commandment "thou shalt not covet" is quite well taken.

Have to disagree with you there. In the 50's and 60's, we had much less concentration of wealth and the middle class was thriving.

I think an excessive concentration of wealth points to an inefficient economy... much like an engine running too rich will lead to sub-optimum performance.

 

[Peter]

Respectfully, that is wildly incorrect. Though it is true that culture is impacted by economic institutions and changes, the baseline conditions - the key drivers - are cultural.

Yep, Britain will remain how it is inspite of how the economy is as will France.
We are our culture and we will remain who we are.
More money is just a bonus.

 

[Peter]

Billionaires should exist.

Trillionaires should exist, when and if they come into existence.

Wealth envy notwithstanding.

Indeed, the presence of a large number of billionaires correlates to a higher standard of living for all.

Humans have a right to life, liberty and property, namely their own extant property.

There is no right to any particular distribution of the wealth of society, nor is there a right for any particular person to possess any wealth at all.

The question of distribution of wealth is beyond the purview of government.

I am not a Christian, but the commandment "thou shalt not covet" is quite well taken.

How exactly does it help to have one person have a trillion dollars?
This idea that any argument against the existence of billionaires or above is pure wealth envy is childishly simplistic.
I'm quite happy with the wealth I have and don't want any of the billionaires money, what I want is for the money to be used for the good of everyone.

 

[hecatmoggie]

You ever find a $20 bill laying on the sidewalk?

sure

and I grew up in generational poverty ... and I made my way in life and have done pretty well overall

and you know what?

If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world. If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world. Knowing that ... if you asked the 99% of the world if people so much richer than they are should exist ... do you think they have a valid point ?

Income in perspective: America's poor are among the world's wealthy

Elizabeth Hovde writes: Americans have a horribly unhealthy view of -- and relationship with -- money, even though as a society we seem more interested in our unhealthy relationship with food.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Decypher]

Humans have a right to life, liberty and property, namely their own extant property.

There is no right to any particular distribution of the wealth of society, nor is there a right for any particular person to possess any wealth at all.

Says who?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Ironically, the resentful are also the greedy ones. What have they done lately to improve the job market? Improved somebody else's life? Complaining about job creators and those who pay most of the country's taxes doesn't count.

Agreed.

It's kind of like "Those who can, do. Those who can't, complain.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I'm amused by how some leftists think. They really do think they're heroes in some grand narrative clash between good and evil. That's one of the reasons I call it a religion - it scratches the same itch (ultimate purpose) that conventional religion does for normal people.

It's a form or Hubris. An overbearing pride in just existing, not for any special qualities, talents, or intelligence. Nope, just the delusional belief that they are morally superior.

 

[cpwill]

There are factors beyond an individual's control.... like the tax code. It's impossible to make a completely neutral tax code. It's always either going to be more favorable to the wealthy (supply side) or to the middle class (demand side).

That is a misnomer. Supply and Demand differ wildly depending on what is being supplied and demanded, and generally include both wealthy and middle class (who are also wealthy).

Which bit do you need explaining? It’s no secret that many employees of these sorts of companies require governmental assistance to augment their low wages.

Many low-skill workers do indeed receive some form of government support, as we have broadly expanded the scope of those programs.

But you are making a leap to "therefore companies are benefiting by that much", when that is not in evidence.

For example, my son started working at minimum wage when he was 14, scooping ice cream at a local joint. If you had cut - say, Medicaid - on a Thursday, there is not a single forcing function in the world that would have forced that employer to increase his employee's hourly rate on Monday. The same is true of the Hardees down the street - who also would not have had to increase wages if Medicaid had been cut.

Their labour produces the wealth,

Respectfully, it does not. Labor assists in producing the wealth, in cooperation with capital, planning, and other inputs.

If you would like an example, a simple test: Choose the hardest worker you know, and have hem plow a field with whatever tool they can make on their own. They can have 10 hours a day to work as hard as they like. I will compete with them by merely sitting on my butt, for 5 hours a day atop a tractor, which I will use.

but they are not sufficiently compensated for it

If their labor is worth more value than their current compensation, then they have a fantastic opportunity - they can point this out to gain a raise, or, should their employer refuse to pay them what their labor is worth, they can go work for an employer who will.

Unfortunately, many people's labor is not at worth what we wish it was. If someone's value added on a job is less than $8 an hour, then that means an employer cannot afford to hire them unless the total cost (salary, benefit, tax, regulatory, and training) of doing so is less than $8 an hour.

and instead rely on the taxpayer to survive. Even if your claim about these sorts of jobs reducing government services is true, it still doesn’t mean the wealth isn’t stolen.

It is not stolen. IF you wanted to apply your framework, then the actual result (see point about reducing government services) observed would be that corporations that offer low-skill positions subsidize the government, not the other way around.

I don't agree with that framework, because those two things are not connected. If the Government were to increase (say) TANF payments by 10% tomorrow, Wal-Mart could not get away with lowering it's salary by a commensurate amount the day after. If the Government cut WIC entirely, BurgerKing would not be forced against its will to raise its wages.