5 tycoons who want to close the wealth gap

5 tycoons who want to close the wealth gap

These advocates point to notions of fairness and admit to twinges of guilt, but the core concern driving all of them — left, right and libertarian — is a belief that the economy doesn't function efficiently when the wealth gap is wide.

"Names like Carnegie, Mellon and Rockefeller — the (Warren) Buffet and (Bill) Gates of their days — grace universities, museums and medical centers in part because the originators of those fortunes gave back," Norton said. "In the same way that some businesspeople are now taking steps to address climate change due to its effects on costs and revenues ... the notion that inequality can be bad not just for ethical reasons, but for financial reasons, is one that is increasingly embraced by businesspeople."

Click to expand...

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.

Buffets buys and sells companies. Unz sells market analysis software. Amazon sells everything and advertising, and people have no problem affording it (as evidenced by Hanueres wealth). Silberstein sells automated library systems. Hinderey buys and sells companies. In short no average person could ever afford what they sell (except amazon which people have no problems buying from).

Great idea - how about if he's so concerned about disparity, pay the people of the companies you own a better wage.

Don't tell others what they should do.

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...

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.

It's not that I oppose closing the wealth gap, it's that I oppose their hypocrisy.

Gipper said:

Great idea - how about if he's so concerned about disparity, pay the people of the companies you own a better wage.

Don't tell others what they should do.

Click to expand...

Assuming you have set a good example, what is wrong with suggesting (not "telling") others of your philosophies?

If you only invest in yourself, and not your society, you may be within your rights but in the long term, you may share a common regret.

I'd rather be a rich man in a rich nation instead of a rich man in a poor nation. We can see how badly this has worked in other countries.

Those people have argued for and obtained every possible tax break and exemption in the tax code. In short, they are lying and pure hypocrites.

Nor is this anything ANY Democratic politician or Republican can talk about. The debt reduction committee - bipartisan senior retired members of both political parties - explained that the super rich write the tax code so talking about the tax rates is irrelevant. That is why they proposed a no-exceptions flat tax.

The Democratic Party and Republican Party totally rejected the idea because they would significantly reduce how much the politicians of both parties can profit by prostituting themselves personally and politically.

Nor would inheritance taxes change anything for the super rich. All talk of taxing the rich always come out in real terms meaning more taxes against home and pop businesses and the upper middle class.

Taxes people more does not increase the income of the poor or anyone.

specklebang said:

Assuming you have set a good example, what is wrong with suggesting (not "telling") others of your philosophies?

If you only invest in yourself, and not your society, you may be within your rights but in the long term, you may share a common regret.

I'd rather be a rich man in a rich nation instead of a rich man in a poor nation. We can see how badly this has worked in other countries.

Click to expand...

Where are you seeing "suggestions"? They're trying to legislate policy.

On what planet is that a suggestion? Can I choose which laws to follow?

Gipper said:

Where are you seeing "suggestions"? They're trying to legislate policy.

On what planet is that a suggestion? Can I choose which laws to follow?

Click to expand...

They spend tens of millions lobbying for these 'suggestions' too, instead of spending it on actually helping people.

jonny5 said:

They spend tens of millions lobbying for these 'suggestions' too, instead of spending it on actually helping people.

Click to expand...

It honestly wouldn't shock me if they were arrogant enough to believe that they are their own lobbyists.

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...

I don't really expect, nor desire them turning over their wealth. It also wouldn't be fair for them alone to pay more personal income taxes.

It'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.

If I were King of all the companies of the world and someone ask me, "Would you rather outsmart everyone, and take their money to the point of breaking the system, or do you want to be King of 'well to do' people?" I wouldn't want to rule a world full of bums, because I made them that way. That's not even a question and it only makes sense that some of the corporate money, put back into the economic cycle, would benefit everyone from corporations, governments to workers.

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...

In spite of the umbrage some posters are taking at the five billionaires you mention,
there is no question that this is a good faith attempt at starting a dialogue that needs to be started, by you and the billionaires.
I commend you for that .

Gipper said:

Where are you seeing "suggestions"? They're trying to legislate policy.

On what planet is that a suggestion? Can I choose which laws to follow?

Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing the "rich guys" list that started with Buffet. None of them can legislate anything, they can only opinionate© just like we can. Nothing we discuss here becomes law because we suggest it. Neither does Mr. Buffet et al.

If I'm missing your point, please explain and I will read it carefully.

eace

grip said:

I don't really expect, nor desire them turning over their wealth. It also wouldn't be fair for them alone to pay more personal income taxes.

It'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.

If I were King of all the companies of the world and someone ask me, "Would you rather outsmart everyone, and take their money to the point of breaking the system, or do you want to be King of 'well to do' people?" I wouldn't want to rule a world full of bums, because I made them that way. That's not even a question and it only makes sense that some of the corporate money, put back into the economic cycle, would benefit everyone from corporations, governments to workers.

Click to expand...

It's the hypocrisy of people like them, who are all about 'do what I say, not what I do'. No one is forcing them to do turn over their wealth, but if their concern was genuine, THEY would take the lead, instead of thinking everyone else should.

NIMBY said:

In spite of the umbrage some posters are taking at the five billionaires you mention,
there is no question that this is a good faith attempt at starting a dialogue that needs to be started.
I commend you for that .

Click to expand...

We can't force corporate entities to treat people better, wage wise. They have to come to that conclusion themselves, maybe when they start eating each other up because of lack of sales and profits? Oooops,,, already happening.

Destroying the middle class for the sake of a form of capitalism, turned into plutocracy, will be the ruin of Western dominance and success.

GottaGo said:

It's the hypocrisy of people like them, who are all about 'do what I say, not what I do'. No one is forcing them to do turn over their wealth, but if their concern was genuine, THEY would take the lead, instead of thinking everyone else should.

Click to expand...

I'd rather have a misguided hypocrite on my side, than an honest opponent that destroys me. At least I could eventually appeal to the hypocrite, the opponent that destroys, leaves obliteration in their wake.

grip said:

I'd rather have a misguided hypocrite on my side, than an honest opponent that destroys me. At least I could eventually appeal to the hypocrite, the opponent that destroys, leaves obliteration in their wake.

Click to expand...

Misguided? No one forced them to take the route they did in getting where they are. They chose that path. Hard work and taking advantage of every opportunity, to turn around and say 'well, I've got mine, now you all should not do what I did and be fair to people.'

Until they walk the walk, what they have to say is meaningless.

specklebang said:

I thought we were discussing the "rich guys" list that started with Buffet. None of them can legislate anything, they can only opinionate© just like we can. Nothing we discuss here becomes law because we suggest it. Neither does Mr. Buffet et al.

If I'm missing your point, please explain and I will read it carefully.

eace

Click to expand...

The best suggestions are made by example. None of these people are doing what they are suggesting, their lack of action speaks much louder than their words.

By the way the wealthy are not inherently smarter than the average bipedal hairless monkey.:mrgreen:

I can't say it any better than you have.
At first glance, this looks like round two of philanthropy.
As one example of Round one, Rockefeller built the road between the Tetons and Yellowstone, an awesome gift to this Nation.

How many towns/cities are eternally grateful for the Libraries that Carnegie gave them, such as mine?
I'm not saying that these Gilded Agers were perfect by any means.
However, they gave back to the Nation and are the inspiration behind so many of the Philanthropic Foundations to come after them .

grip said:

We can't force corporate entities to treat people better, wage wise. They have to come to that conclusion themselves, maybe when they start eating each other up because of lack of sales and profits? Oooops,,, already happening.

Destroying the middle class for the sake of a form of capitalism, turned into plutocracy, will be the ruin of Western dominance and success.

Click to expand...

opcorn2:

GottaGo said:

Misguided? No one forced them to take the route they did in getting where they are. They chose that path. Hard work and taking advantage of every opportunity, to turn around and say 'well, I've got mine, now you all should not do what I did and be fair to people.'

Until they walk the walk, what they have to say is meaningless.

Click to expand...

You said they were hypocrites, that isn't a misguided person?

And who says that all rich people take advantage of everyone, ALL the time?

I would say their opinion is more prominent and meaningful, than anyone else's, because of their status.
Who knows better than not to be evil, than the Devil?

grip said:

It'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.

Click to expand...

That's B.S. It's about closing the wealth gap via wealth redistribution, primarily taxes on the wealthy, min wage, and salary caps.

The hypocrisy is what some point out as the absurdity. They pillaged our markets to earn billions. And by pillage I mean freely engaged with others who freely engaged in a marketplace that valued their contribution significantly. Now that they are ultra-wealthy, they sing a new tune. How convenient.

But the real absurdity IMO is that the market simply isn't valuing things the way some dreamy people believe it should. People don't' really want to take advantage of all our marketplace has to offer, all the amazing access to information and learning, ridiculously inexpensive education and the most prosperous economy in human history, in the universe. No, that's not good enough, they want their cake and eat it too. And liberals are here telling them that indeed, that's the way to reach their dreams, to take from others and just keep up with the mediocrity and their dreams will come to them.

You can want the wealth gap to be closed. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good dream, I'm being serious. But you can't force people to behave the way you want them to. You can't force a parent to raise their child with skills that our market values. They drink softdrinks and watch TV and absentee parent, and they live their own dream...much to your dismay. And you can't change that by INCENTIVIZING them, and anyone with sense can admit that.

grip said:

You said they were hypocrites, that isn't a misguided person?

And who says that all rich people take advantage of everyone, ALL the time?

I would say their opinion is more prominent and meaningful, than anyone else's, because of their status.
Who knows better than not to be evil, than the Devil?

Click to expand...

A hypocrite is not necessarily 'misguided'. They could be very intentionally that way, giving lip service to what they think people want to hear, and many won't look past that to see that they aren't following through on their own level. A hypocrite is not necessarily someone who is just wealthy, it's someone who says one thing, and does another.

NIMBY said:

I can't say it any better than you have.
At first glance, this looks like round two of philanthropy.
As one example of Round one, Rockefeller built the road between the Tetons and Yellowstone, an awesome gift to this Nation.

How many towns/cities are eternally grateful for the Libraries that Carnegie gave them, such as mine?
I'm not saying that these Gilded Agers were perfect by any means.
However, they gave back to the Nation and are the inspiration behind so many of the Philanthropic Foundations to come after them .

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, that the old money like Henry Ford, seemed to understand paying his employees enough to buy his cars was a winner.

Look at Gates, redirecting the wealth of his corporation towards his foundation.

I'm not advocating the extremes of "over taxing the rich" or "redirecting corporate wealth" thru force. I just think it's about time that the old model of screw them all, as much as possible for market share, has to change. Our definition of success can't be purely based, on excess material wealth.