Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you're assuming Steve Jobs and Bill Gates retired and went fishing it would mean the end of Apple and Microsoft, you need to ask yourself why Ford didn't fold when Henry died. To move aside and make room for someone else underlies the principle of horizontal vs vertical distribution of wealth.The problem with that thinking (IMHO) is that the government would have less money. An example, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc would have no motive to continue their innovations as soon as they reached the 20 million dollar mark. Why not retire and go fishing? Consequently, we would have far fewer jobs which would lead to less money in our society that government could tax.
But if either of those two chose to remain at the helm for pure ego satisfaction there is no reason why they couldn't -- provided their personal assets remained at the $20 million maximum.
...to charitable causes?
I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.
I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.
In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.
How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?
What you're talking about is the kind of competitive jealousy that drives many to strive for more, and more, and more. Behaviorists regard this limitless compulsion as a mental disorder and most religions regard such covetous jealousy as sin. Which I'm sure you, as an Irish Catholic, are well aware of.Caring how much your neighbors have is not rational nor emotionally healthy. The manifestation of greed when it comes to other peoples property is the only mental disorder I see here.
You do realize that foundations are ways to hide money from the government. They set them up and donate some but keep the rest under the guise of running the foundation. It's a scam.
The "flat tax" idea has been plugged into the Libertarian playbook by the super-rich and would only be fair if everyone's earnings were the same.I shudder at the thought of a country where the definition of a happy and comfortable life is dependent on the government. How much money can a citizen keep till he becomes associated with hoarders? How many children can you have before the government decides that you are becoming less happy and comfortable? How many cars is the government going to allow you to have till they decide that you're becoming decadent and unhelpful to the general rules of governmental abstinence. The thing about freedom is that it's so hurtful and unfair sometimes. It's still better than letting the politicians govern your values by confiscating your private property. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing our overly complex ridiculous tax code. A simple flat tax would fix much of our problems I believe. Also, what part about a government unable to balance a budget is supposed to make me comfortable with their financial expertise?
If you earn $50,000 and the flat tax is 20 percent, you pay ten thousand dollars, which means you can't afford braces on your kid's crooked teeth , or to replace your dying car, or to fix your leaking roof, etc. But one who earns $10,000,000 will pay two million in taxes, leaving only eight million to get along on, which means he's stuck with the same yacht for another year, or he'll have to fly commercial to the Bahamas rather than hire a private, jet, etc.
In other words, there is a point at which the flat tax is a real burden only on the lower class. Because beyond a certain point it becomes irrelevant in real terms. Taxation is not expected to by painless -- but everyone should feel the pain. Not just the little people. The fundamental meaning of America is the end of aristocracy.
Twenty million -- no more. And a progressive tax rate. The rich stay rich, just a little less rich.
When the electric company comes to turn off your lights they aren't interested in how much manufacturing knowledge you have. I'm sure you know that. So why present such a specious argument?Knowing when you have enough is rational. Wanting more, even when you have more than enough, is not. It is the manifestation of greed, which is a mental disorder.Greed is never a problem, unless people are fearful.
And what is wrong with wanting more?
This dont make sense to me. I am so rich in manufacturing knowledge but their is so much more to learn every day. So your saying their is a limit on how much a guy can try to get if money was his thing?
What you're talking about is the kind of competitive jealousy that drives many to strive for more, and more, and more. Behaviorists regard this limitless compulsion as a mental disorder and most religions regard such covetous jealousy as sin. Which I'm sure you, as an Irish Catholic, are well aware of.Caring how much your neighbors have is not rational nor emotionally healthy. The manifestation of greed when it comes to other peoples property is the only mental disorder I see here.
Yes, obviously I am singling out billionaires when it comes to responsibility. It is a matter of excess. Do you notice I am not including millionaires in this topic?
What excess? Do you understand that it is possible to be a billionaire and not actually have any cash available?
Are you kidding me? Who the fuck donates millions of dollars in cash?
Are you kidding me? Who the fuck donates millions of dollars in cash?
you are not understanding. What he means is someones' assets can show he is a billionaire, yet in actuality it is all on paper. He has no cash available unless he were to convert, as an example, stocks into cash by selling them. And depending on the market he could end up with much less than the worth it had been declared. Just one of many examples.
Can you imagine those billionaires that have most of their worth in stocks, commodities, etc. suddenly having to sell them all and what would then happen to the economy?
I think you exaggerate how much disposable money a billionaire has access to.
Of course there is. Once you've bought/invested all you could ever need, anything left over is "excess". Something you have no use for is what we call "useless".
And just what is this definition of "all you need"? And who determines what it is anyone "needs"
I can give you a laundry list of things I think you need and don't need is that OK with you?
You have absolutely no right to tell anyone else what they need or don't need. It's none of your business.
Reading discomprehension must be contagious.
Nobody suggested dictating what somebody else needs. You started this out by saying there's no such thing as "excess". So I gave a definition that disproves that. And right in that definition, it's the owner of that money making his own decision on what he needs.
That's all there is to it. Stop plugging in irrelevant shit.
If you're assuming Steve Jobs and Bill Gates retired and went fishing it would mean the end of Apple and Microsoft, you need to ask yourself why Ford didn't fold when Henry died. To move aside and make room for someone else underlies the principle of horizontal vs vertical distribution of wealth.The problem with that thinking (IMHO) is that the government would have less money. An example, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc would have no motive to continue their innovations as soon as they reached the 20 million dollar mark. Why not retire and go fishing? Consequently, we would have far fewer jobs which would lead to less money in our society that government could tax.
But if either of those two chose to remain at the helm for pure ego satisfaction there is no reason why they couldn't -- provided their personal assets remained at the $20 million maximum.
I see a very serious problem coming for a nation whose government refuses to impose regulations necessary to preserve its economic integrity, which is the present situation in the U.S.What you're talking about is the kind of competitive jealousy that drives many to strive for more, and more, and more. Behaviorists regard this limitless compulsion as a mental disorder and most religions regard such covetous jealousy as sin. Which I'm sure you, as an Irish Catholic, are well aware of.Caring how much your neighbors have is not rational nor emotionally healthy. The manifestation of greed when it comes to other peoples property is the only mental disorder I see here.
What I'm talking about is a kind of competitive jealousy? Damn straight I am! It's better than a competitive grasping of other people's property.
You claim that most religions regard jealousy as sin. Actually, I think envy is considered the ultimate sin. Yes, there is a difference between the two even if there are also similarities. Anyway, I don't really give a damn about which God regards me as a sinner. Unlike your assumption, I'm not an Irish Catholic, I'm an Irish Atheist.
Just out of curiosity, do you see any possible problems coming from a government who decides how much money an individual should have? Seriously?
...to charitable causes?
I am not suggesting that we come up with laws that requires billionaires to give to charity, but I do think billionaires have a responsibility to use part of their fortune to better mankind.
I have a lot of respect for billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who plan to give half their fortune to charity after they die. To me, that is the right thing to do.
In your opinion, how much should a billionaire give while they are still alive? Throw out a percentage.
How much money should a person give if they are worth 1 billion? 5 billion?
Apple didn't fall apart. Its stock took a temporary dive because of negative anticipation on the part of timid shareholders. But that was to be expected and recovery is assured by consumer loyalty. Based on everything I've read, Apple's overall integrity is intact and its future is dependent more on the national economy than any other factor.I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure Apple did fall apart when Jobs retired, which is why they asked him to come back.
I see a very serious problem coming for a nation whose government refuses to imposes regulations necessary to preserve its economic integrity, which is the present situation in the U.S.What you're talking about is the kind of competitive jealousy that drives many to strive for more, and more, and more. Behaviorists regard this limitless compulsion as a mental disorder and most religions regard such covetous jealousy as sin. Which I'm sure you, as an Irish Catholic, are well aware of.
What I'm talking about is a kind of competitive jealousy? Damn straight I am! It's better than a competitive grasping of other people's property.
You claim that most religions regard jealousy as sin. Actually, I think envy is considered the ultimate sin. Yes, there is a difference between the two even if there are also similarities. Anyway, I don't really give a damn about which God regards me as a sinner. Unlike your assumption, I'm not an Irish Catholic, I'm an Irish Atheist.
Just out of curiosity, do you see any possible problems coming from a government who decides how much money an individual should have? Seriously?
When this Nation was established it was impossible for the Founders to anticipate the kind of phenomenal economic growth the coming industrial revolution would enable. But if they could have I am sure they would have included provisions in the Constitution which would prohibit the kind of counterproductive abuses and the hoarding which slowly but surely are transforming our democratic republic into a corporatocracy, which inevitably will become fascist.
Only in your minuscule little paranoid head.
That's reality as demonstrated by noting what those who call themselves liberals support. They wouldn't disagree with a single item on the platform of the American Communist Party.
And I'm sure they'll be ecstatic to know they have a seven-year-old brat with jelly all over his face to speak for them. What a time saver.
