• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

5 tycoons who want to close the wealth gap

Objective Voice said:
Problem: Once the majority of industry lay in the hands of a small few, it becomes increasingly difficult for others to jump into the market. Put simple: the big fish quickly gobble up the little fish either through out-pricing them or buying them out. But that's on the side of dwindling competition. Consumers are the bigger threat to perpetual profits.
Click to expand...

In 12,000 years of capitalism, we still havent gotten to that point. So why would we think that would ever happen? Capitalism is self correcting if you leave it alone.
 
I get so sick of the bloated rich people spouting off like buffet.

buffet thinks he should pay more taxes yet takes every single write off that he can to pay the least amount of taxes possible. doesn't he realize that he can cut a check straight to the US treasury put down on the check what it is for? yet he doesn't do it yet he thinks he should pay more.

People are always complaining about amazons pay for their workers depending on the position 8-10 dollars unless you are managment. so if the guy thinks they should make more than why doesn't he pay it himself? why does he need government to force him to pay it?

lip service is all this non-sense is. let them walk the talk.

they won't do it. all talk no action, but it makes people drool of how good these guys are.

Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan, etc ... spent years and year building a massive fortune of wealth. so large that the 3 of them combined held more money than that federal budget in multiple years. they then toward the end of their life decided to give it away.

these guys just do lip service and see what i say. when it comes down to it they won't put their money where their mouth is.
 
Oh, yeah, these are rich guys that get it! LOL! NOT! These guys don't get it and are A-holes. If they got it, they would give their own money and not try to get legislation passed to take money away from people that have earned it. What a bunch of jerks.
 
It makes total sense for the people at the top to advocate narrowing the gap. I mean, unless they were talking about 95% capital gains taxes (which they aren't) or 100% estate taxes (which they aren't), small dents in their wealth are going to be completely unnoticeable.

The gap itself has only grown through inflation (a bad thing) and wealth creation (a good thing!). Zero, on the other hand, has stayed zero, due to the laws of mathematics.

To reiterate that point - the ceiling has gone up while the floor stayed the floor.

The richest of the rich will continue to be (practically) infinitely richer than the poorest of the poor. To say this gap has widened is like saying infinity is more than nothing. Well, duh. We've always known that. So, what is it to them if they reduce their fortunes and control by a tiny, tiny fraction. They stay on top, and by a wide margin.

They lose nothing, while the cost of entering the market (i.e. new competition) goes up.

Stupid sheep. Continue believing whatever your chosen team tells you to believe... continue bleating their pre-selected chorus.
 
Warren Buffett's Deals Come at Taxpayers' Expense - Reason.com

Perfect example of what we're saying. Buffet calls for govt to force income equality while making sure his own money stays out of taxpayers hands, so he can resell million dollar properties (to minimum wage workers im sure) and aquire more wealth. Capitalism is fine. Being a capitliast while calling for socialism is not.
 
grip said:
5 tycoons who want to close the wealth gap





Five billionaires that GET IT, that if average people don't have enough money, they can't buy their products.



Warren BUFFETT: THE BILLIONAIRE PIED PIPER

Buffet advocated for a progressive estate tax before members of Congress, saying in 2007, "Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."

Ron UNZ: THE REPUBLICAN WHO FAVORS A RAISE

Frustrated with the gridlock in Congress, Unz is pouring his own money into a November ballot measure that would increase the minimum wage in California to $12 an hour in 2016.

At that level, he said in an interview with The Associated Press, "every full-time worker would be earning almost exactly $25,000 and every full-time worker couple $50,000. Under normal family circumstances, those income levels are sufficiently above the poverty threshold that households would lose their eligibility for a substantial fraction of the various social welfare payments they currently receive, including earned-income tax credit checks, food stamps and housing subsidies."

Unz, whose fortune comes from founding Wall Street Analytics Inc., argues that by not paying a living wage, companies are forcing the government to subsidize them through massive welfare spending.

Nick HANAUER: HELPING PEOPLE BUY WHAT AMAZON SELLS

Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer believes the growing wealth gap threatens the economic system that has given him his wealth.

If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.

"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy," he said in an interview with the AP last summer.

Steve SILBERSTEIN: THE QUIET ADVOCATE

Silberstein took a step into the spotlight when he produced the documentary "Inequality for All," featuring former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. It premiered last year at the Sundance Film Festival.

"He's one of the quiet leaders of the entire movement toward wider prosperity," Reich said. "An increasing number of wealthy businesspeople are becoming concerned that the economy can't function without a strong middle class to keep it going."

Silberstein told the AP his views are not so different from that original American industrialist, Henry Ford, who famously paid his factory workers enough to purchase one of the cars that came off his assembly line.

"As a result he became rich," Silberstein said. "If the economy goes well, everybody does well, including the wealthy."

Leo HINDERY: THE TITAN WHO WANTS TO PAY MORE TAXES

The 66-year-old argues that giving rich people tax breaks makes no economic sense because people like him don't put their extra dollars back into the economy.

"Do you think I don't own every piece of clothing, every automobile? I already have it. You spend money. Rich people just get richer," he told the AP.

Hindery credits his Jesuit upbringing with giving him the tools to look beyond his own economic advantages.

"How can we believe in the American dream when 10 percent of the people have half the nation's income? It's immoral, I think it's unethical, but I also think that it's bad economics," Hindery said. "The only people who can take exception to this argument are people who want to get super rich and don't care what happens to the nation as a whole."



More politicians should read this article, to get a hint at what's wrong with the economy.
Click to expand...

Why is it that every election year we hear Warren Buffets name over and over again and in between we don't?
 
GottaGo said:
When I see them voluntarily signing over the majority of their wealth to low income groups or voluntarily paying more on their taxes then they are required to, perhaps I'll bother to listen to them.

Until then, it's just a droning in my ears.
Click to expand...

Even if they did that the money would end up back inthe same place in a short amount of time.
 
Mason66 said:
Why is it that every election year we hear Warren Buffets name over and over again and in between we don't?
Click to expand...

The Prophet from Omaha is an economic and stock guru, so he's considered politically relevant?
 
ludin said:
I get so sick of the bloated rich people spouting off like buffet.

buffet thinks he should pay more taxes yet takes every single write off that he can to pay the least amount of taxes possible. doesn't he realize that he can cut a check straight to the US treasury put down on the check what it is for? yet he doesn't do it yet he thinks he should pay more.

People are always complaining about amazons pay for their workers depending on the position 8-10 dollars unless you are managment. so if the guy thinks they should make more than why doesn't he pay it himself? why does he need government to force him to pay it?

lip service is all this non-sense is. let them walk the talk.

they won't do it. all talk no action, but it makes people drool of how good these guys are.

Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan, etc ... spent years and year building a massive fortune of wealth. so large that the 3 of them combined held more money than that federal budget in multiple years. they then toward the end of their life decided to give it away.

these guys just do lip service and see what i say. when it comes down to it they won't put their money where their mouth is.
Click to expand...

Um, Buffet has given away more money than anyone on the planet basically.
 
Deuce said:
Um, Buffet has given away more money than anyone on the planet basically.
Click to expand...
yet complains he doesn't pay enough in taxes while taking every tax deduction possible.

if he really wants to pay more then well don't claim all those itemized deductions and take the standard deduction that everyone else does.
write a check to the federal treasury if you don't think the government is getting enough of your money.

we are not talking about how much money they give away but how much they think they should pay or not pay to the federal government and employee's.

no it just sounds good in sound bites.

the guy from amazon thinks people should be paid 13-15 dollars an hour then let his company start doing it because they don't. typical job at amazon pays 8-10 depending.

just lip service that people eat up and can't see the BS for what it is.
 
Deuce said:
Um, Buffet has given away more money than anyone on the planet basically.
Click to expand...

He doesnt have a problem with income inequality so long as hes the one earning it, spending a bunch of it, and then distributing the rest.
 
ludin said:
yet complains he doesn't pay enough in taxes while taking every tax deduction possible.

if he really wants to pay more then well don't claim all those itemized deductions and take the standard deduction that everyone else does.
write a check to the federal treasury if you don't think the government is getting enough of your money.

we are not talking about how much money they give away but how much they think they should pay or not pay to the federal government and employee's.

no it just sounds good in sound bites.

the guy from amazon thinks people should be paid 13-15 dollars an hour then let his company start doing it because they don't. typical job at amazon pays 8-10 depending.

just lip service that people eat up and can't see the BS for what it is.
Click to expand...

I do not own a gun but I am in opposition to blanket handgun bans. Am I a hypocrite?
 
Deuce said:
I do not own a gun but I am in opposition to blanket handgun bans. Am I a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

not the same thing at all. you don't have to own a gun to be against handgun bans.
 
The term tycoon doesn't seem to have the same cache as it used to have.
 
Their hands are tied. I can't possibly think of a way that they could pay more taxes or pay their employees more.... :roll:

FYI: Billionaires almost uniformly support any government program that causes greater financial burden on their smaller rivals.
 
Uhg.....income disparity is a empty left wing narrative. Just a tool used to divert attention away from whats really destroying the middle class.

Leftist led Governments and their economic policies ALWAYS eventually nail the middle class.

Look at Argentina and Venzuela. Who tried price controls and who nationalized industries.

Look at Japans head long dive into a Keynesian "solution" thats turning into a disaster.

Japan's PM is urging their Corporations to increase wages as its Government is wiping out the savings and wealth and purchasing power of its citizens by tanking their currency.

Stupid.

When your policies target the discretionary income via mandated cost increases ( ObamaCare ) and or Keynesian malfeasnace that winds up tanking your currency, OF-COURSE the Middle Class are going to be hit.

These clowns can talk and offer up opinions, but they're not offering up solutions.

Real solutions and not some self destructive ridiculous attempt to put more money in peoples pockets by raising the minumum wage.

Its been 5 years. Its NOT working. Government policies and mandates centered on "fairness" and demagogy are making things worse, ALL OVER THE WORLD.


When I here this nonsense I immediately assume the source is just parroting this lunacy because it fits his ideology.

Its hard to believe anyone actually buus this crap.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
I don'tIt's the message of promoting industries to consider the employee, more of an asset by paying better wages and benefits, rather than simply relegating them as disposable resources. These employees are the same people who support corporations with purchases.
.
Click to expand...

Why in the world would Gimbels pay their employees more so they could buy more stuff at Macy's ?
 
KLATTU said:
Why in the world would Gimbels pay their employees more so they could buy more stuff at Macy's ?
Click to expand...


Because Gimbels wants to buy Macy's?

It's not rocket science. If I want my company to compete against really solid performers and they have good talent, then it makes sense, I'd pay to get the same. The backbone and structure of a corporation is it's staff and if you have poorly paid, unhappy personnel, it'll be reflected in the quality of their work.
 
grip said:
Because Gimbels wants to buy Macy's?

It's not rocket science. If I want my company to compete against really solid performers and they have good talent, then it makes sense, I'd pay to get the same. The backbone and structure of a corporation is it's staff and if you have poorly paid, unhappy personnel, it'll be reflected in the quality of their work.
Click to expand...

Yes that makes sense. I thought you were implying that employers should pay people more so they would buy stuff from other corporations, thus creating some type of cooperative shangr-la where everybody benefits.
 
Who cares?! It would be a drop in the ocean if they all dumped everything at once. Think I'm wrong? Recall seeing the debt marque in New York moving faster than the eye can see and brain comprehend? No matter what there will always be poor.
 
KLATTU said:
Yes that makes sense. I thought you were implying that employers should pay people more so they would buy stuff from other corporations, thus creating some type of cooperative shangr-la where everybody benefits.
Click to expand...

Well, if people don't have enough disposable income to buy anything but the basic commodities, then the utilities (water, cable, electric, gas), rent/mortgage, groceries, department stores and gas stations would be the only ones making much of a profit. The economy picks up steam, when more purchases are being made all around. A stagnant or depressed economy from lack of sales, is not really good for anyone. And poorly paid employees don't have enough to buy the extra stuff.
 
grip said:
Well, if people don't have enough disposable income to buy anything but the basic commodities, then the utilities (water, cable, electric, gas), rent/mortgage, groceries, department stores and gas stations would be the only ones making much of a profit. The economy picks up steam, when more purchases are being made all around. A stagnant or depressed economy from lack of sales, is not really good for anyone. And poorly paid employees don't have enough to buy the extra stuff.
Click to expand...

Well I guess I was right . You do buy into shangri-la economics. In the real world, busineses tend to be glad if comptetitors go out of businees and don't give a Sh$t if companies in other industries do well unles it affetcs them.
Companies tend to pay workers the least amount they can get away with and still maximize profits. Before you blow a circuit , please remember that the Dodgers just paid Clayton Kershaw 215 million usiinhg that paradigm. That is the LEAST amount they thought they could pay him and guarantee he would not work elswhere. Employers don't pay based on the societal welfare.
 
KLATTU said:
Well I guess I was right . You do buy into shangri-la economics. In the real world, busineses tend to be glad if comptetitors go out of businees and don't give a Sh$t if companies in other industries do well unles it affetcs them.
Companies tend to pay workers the least amount they can get away with and still maximize profits. Before you blow a circuit , please remember that the Dodgers just paid Clayton Kershaw 215 million usiinhg that paradigm. That is the LEAST amount they thought they could pay him and guarantee he would not work elswhere. Employers don't pay based on the societal welfare.
Click to expand...

I know how capitalism and competitive business works. And for the most part, it's an effective system but ultimately it can be destructive towards people, because it's becoming about something, other than - core valued based on human success. The whole purpose of the industrial revolution and business success models is to bring improvement to the human race. When we lose sight of that, then the whole thing is in danger of going down the crapper.

I'm not talking about destroying or completely changing the way corporations operate, merely adding a philosophy of "humans first", or I guarantee we'll either ALL float together or sink.

Athletes are like CEO's, over paid egomaniac's.
 
grip said:
I know how capitalism and competitive business works. And for the most part, it's an effective system but ultimately it can be destructive towards people, because it's becoming about something, other than - core valued based on human success. The whole purpose of the industrial revolution and business success models is to bring improvement to the human race. When we lose sight of that, then the whole thing is in danger of going down the crapper.

I'm not talking about destroying or completely changing the way corporations operate, merely adding a philosophy of "humans first", or I guarantee we'll either ALL float together or sink.

Athletes are like CEO's, over paid egomaniac's.
Click to expand...

Again- nice idea in philosphy. Won't ever work in real life( Human nature).
Capitalism was never based on "core values of human success. "
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

Thus it was, is and always shall be.
 
KLATTU said:
Again- nice idea in philosphy. Won't ever work in real life( Human nature).
Capitalism was never based on "core values of human success. "
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

Thus it was, is and always shall be.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy. It's an individually competitive system for resources, rewarding effort, education, experience and circumstance but is done in a communal setting. Governments whose duty it is to protect and ensure the domestic tranquility, rights to freedom and pursuit of happiness, would not allow capitalism in it's current form, if it were to lead to an overall decline in prosperity.

Being short sighted in this regard and claiming 'human nature' will defeat us, has to be unacceptable for our species to evolve and civilization to continue. It's still a group effort, overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom