Hoarding Money Cures Diseases

Moderate Right said:

I was responding to YOUR post which said, "I have no idea why you continuously cite movie execs and ticket prices, you have a choice to by a ticket for a first run, or wait a year and rent it for a buck at redbox, the choice is yours, no one is forcing you".

I responded, "How is that different than a person who has a choice of working for company X or company Y or not working at all? People can choose to quit Walmart where they make $10 per hour and the CEO's get massively wealthy off of their labor and go to work for some mom and pop that pays $10 per hour where the business owners do not get wealthy".

Click to expand...

I know you have no conceptual cognition of the difference between a consumer of tickets.....and a worker's choice of making $10 per at corp x or mom/pops.

There is no logical argument made there.......and you still won't reach any conclusion on the point of my saying I have no love for "Hollywood elites"......

Stop calling me.

Moderate Right said:

Mark Zuckerberg is going to give $3 billion toward eliminating all diseases. Bill Gates has also donated billions, not to mention many of the other one percenters. If they weren't one percenters they wouldn't be able to do this and if there were tax or other laws in place not allowing one percenters to be one percenters in the first place then they wouldn't be able to do it either.

Click to expand...

Probably not, because that tax money would have already been levied and spent on medical research and other pro-social items. Furthermore, it would have been allocated on a basis of public perceived need, not on the whim of a couple of individuals (whose whims might change overnight).

jmotivator said:

It is a good point. Without the ability to amass large sums of cash these heavy lift projects wouldn't be possible by anyone other than the federal government.

It is no small point that, while Gates and Buffet and Zuckerberg push for liberal tax policies, when dealing with their OWN money they would much rather decide where their money goes through philanthropy than just hand it to the Federal government to spend.

Click to expand...

That is so ridiculous. When did Gates and Zuckerberg push for tax policies that would be confiscatory, there would be no billionares? Answer: Never.

When did Gates and Zuckerberg push for tax policies that would eliminate charitable giving? Answer: Never.

Moderate Right said:

How is that different than a person who has a choice of working for company X or company Y or not working at all? The left tried to claim that it was a good thing that Obamacare has allowed people to quit their jobs and not work at all because they had the freedom to do so

Click to expand...

When was this claim made? Sometimes I worry you must hear voices or something with these absurd claims you make about the left.

Ganesh said:

Probably not, because that tax money would have already been levied and spent on medical research and other pro-social items. Furthermore, it would have been allocated on a basis of public perceived need, not on the whim of a couple of individuals (whose whims might change overnight).

Click to expand...

The money would have already been spent and wasted by the government on something else. That's all they know how to do.

SouthernDemocrat said:

When was this claim made? Sometimes I worry you must hear voices or something with these absurd claims you make about the left.

Click to expand...

I was responding to someone else's post who did say that. Apparently you didn't read that post.

Moderate Right said:

The money would have already been spent and wasted by the government on something else. That's all they know how to do.

Click to expand...

Really because actually much if not most basic research is funded by the public sector. Basic Science Can't Survive without Government Funding - Scientific American

Moderate Right said:

The money would have already been spent and wasted by the government on something else. That's all they know how to do.

Click to expand...

I know you are committed to your ideas about government waste, so I won't even try and enlighten you.

Here is an idea to contemplate though. You do not like the idea of authoritarian people telling you the way society is going to be. Give me liberty, or give me death! Trash those power grasping warlords in Washington! Let the people decide. OK so far?

Then why would you allow some of the most critical decisions in society today to be made by a small group of unelected, non-responsible, unrepresentative, non-transparent people who may or may not have the nation's interests at heart? If someone has gotten rich by any sort of dodgy means, you will now submit to their authority, although you have no more input into their actions than a hapless Somali victim has over his local warlord, but not to elected people, for whom you actually do have some control over, small, but still of significance?

This is the curiosity of the uber-right mindset, the deification of business notables, in the same way those in the middle ages talked up the virgin mary.

Ganesh said:

I know you are committed to your ideas about government waste, so I won't even try and enlighten you.

Here is an idea to contemplate though. You do not like the idea of authoritarian people telling you the way society is going to be. Give me liberty, or give me death! Trash those power grasping warlords in Washington! Let the people decide. OK so far?

Then why would you allow some of the most critical decisions in society today to be made by a small group of unelected, non-responsible, unrepresentative, non-transparent people who may or may not have the nation's interests at heart? If someone has gotten rich by any sort of dodgy means, you will now submit to their authority, although you have no more input into their actions than a hapless Somali victim has over his local warlord, but not to elected people, for whom you actually do have some control over, small, but still of significance?

This is the curiosity of the uber-right mindset, the deification of business notables, in the same way those in the middle ages talked up the virgin mary.

Click to expand...

Talk about conspiracy theories. There are a lot of ifs ands or buts in that post. My post merely said that if Zuckerberg hadn't accumulated all of his wealth then he wouldn't have been able to donate 3 B's to help fight diseases. Same with Gates. If you think government is so great, why don't we just get rid of all Big Pharma (and little pharma) and put the government in charge of making drugs and research and development? Wait a minute, forget I said that because you will probably jump on it as a good idea.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Really because actually much if not most basic research is funded by the public sector. Basic Science Can't Survive without Government Funding - Scientific American

Click to expand...

And that's a very valid argument if society relies on just basic science. We don't as what's Government funded basic science is just the first step in applying it to Society. It's private money that takes that basic discovery and turns into something society can use. In fact it's even private money pushing the basic discoveries now. Private money for years have been pushing for research into things the US Government is finally realize needs to be done.

Critter7r said:

.... in your dreams.

If we didn't have the income and wealth disparity that we have currently, the 1%-ers wouldn't be seen in the negative light in which they are currently seen .... but there'd still be 1%-ers.

The top 1% controls almost half of the wealth in this country and 20% of annual income, while the top 5% controls nearly 3/4 of the wealth and 35% of the income.

Click to expand...

You're completely skewing the analysis of the data. Although I believe this to be an innocent mistake on your part. You are merely regurgitating left-wing propaganda expertly delivered in a manner which would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Of course Goebbels didn't have the luxury of internet. Nonetheless you have fallen victim to a very deliberate attempt to spread communist/socialist propaganda. Take the time to trace back your source to the data they pretend to present with a non-biased analysis. Unfortunately this becomes all too necessary with the advent of the internet. It's all to easy for left-wing groups to set up 15 to 20 websites all controlled by a central group. They then source reputable data (even propaganda needs a minute thread of truth) only to perform a less than reputable analysis, twisting the statistics to such an extent no legitimate conclusion is drawn. This is followed by repeated sourcing from one member website to the next to lend some legitimacy. Eventually it becomes "inhaled" into the public consciousness as fact. Something all too easy due to the internet's almost omnipotent ability to filter out all but the most radical contention supporting one's search filter. You've fallen victim to it here I'm sorry to say. These particular quotes stem from the infowars folks whose communist agenda seeks to convince the ill informed their is a larger income and wealth disparity than is actually the case. MoveOn.Org, 99%rs, Occupy Wall street among others.

SMTA said:

Jerry Lewis raised millions for MD to no avail.

When diseases make more money than the cure, change will never take place.

See the common cold.

Click to expand...

Virus. We can't cure virus's yet.

CrabCake said:

Which diseases have they cured?

Oh...none.

Meanwhile, government-run vaccination programs have completely eradicated smallpox and nearly eradicated several dozen other diseases ranging from polio to yellow fever.

Click to expand...

In truth non-profits like the red cross. Unfortunately it resulted in the rapid transmission of HIV.

Moderate Right said:

Oh, so I guess you are saying that you would rather have Zuckerberg hoard his three billion dollars and not donate it to the fight to cure diseases.

Click to expand...

Personally I have no preference, care or concern what Zuckerberg does with his earnings. Whether he donates it to non-profits or sticks it in the bank or invests it. Non-profits are not a magic bullet in regards to insuring the efficient allocation of scarce resources. In fact non-profits are considerably less desirable in many regards. Non-profits are presented with a different set of motivations, not necessarily better.

Lafayette said:

Had taxation of 1Percenters been at the level they were pre-1960s (90%), there would be a sufficient amount of Federal Funds to conduct the research necessary. See here:
View attachment 67207802

We don't need 1Percenters employing a very minor percentage of their Wealth (to fund research) that was derived uniquely by INSUFFICIENT TAXATION of upper incomes ... Zuckerberg's wealth is estimated at about $57B, so giving away $3B is a piddling sum for him.

The recent history of the US, since Reckless Ronnie drastically reduced upper-income taxation in the 1980s is one of a relentless gusher of Income into Wealth due to ridiculously low upper-income taxation. And what will become of this wealth? Like the monarchies of Europe pre-19th century, it will be handed down dynastically to offspring who never worked a day in their lives to earn it.

The Tax System in America is wholly corrupt with exemptions and needs a vast overhaul ... And if a Donald Trump is proof of anything whatsoever relevant to American society today it is how a know-nothing can amass such wealth.

Of course, it helped mightily that his father left him a 40 megabuck fortune ...

We have created in America Dynastic Fortunes held by a select group of plutocrats who try to prevent any change in the tax-system that would arrest the gusher of low-taxed income that funds their fortunes, part of which is employed distorting the political process to maintain the status-quo ...
__________________

Click to expand...

Insufficient taxation? What would you consider sufficient? Taxation is well beyond sufficient. It has gotten to the point of detriment.

CrabCake said:

That's what eradication means when it comes to diseases. The disease is not known to exist on any living host. It exists only in vials.



What's your point? Governments eradicated the disease. What difference does the details of their methodology make? My point was that government vaccination programs eradicated a disease while hording money hasn't. What difference do the details of how the government did it make?



Actually the effort is being spearheaded by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), an organization created by the World Health Organization (a branch of the United Nations) in 1988. The four key partners in that initiative are: the World Health Organization, UNICEF, US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rotary. So, it was designed and created by the government, and is composed of three government bodies and one private non-profit. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is involved only in raising money for Rotary towards that initiative.

Click to expand...

Hoarding money? You have no concept of economics. By hoarding I assume you mean placing it in a bank vault somewhere. Even this doesn't relate the reality which more likely the sale of stocks or other assets to fund their donations. But lets say someone was "hoarding money" in a bank vault. This has no less value than any other direct investment. It's those "hoarded" dollars after all which are in turn lent out at over 10 to 1 to finance the endeavors of others. Be it investments in their own enterprises or the financing of homes. You aren't supposing he is hoarding billions of dollars under his mattress are you?

Ganesh said:

Then why would you allow some of the most critical decisions in society today to be made by a small group of unelected, non-responsible, unrepresentative, non-transparent people who may or may not have the nation's interests at heart?

Click to expand...

You do realize that's how it works at NIH, CDC, and any other Government agency that does some sort of granting of research money right? Directors go through to get Senate approval but the paper pushers do not.

Ganesh said:

If someone has gotten rich by any sort of dodgy means, you will now submit to their authority, although you have no more input into their actions than a hapless Somali victim has over his local warlord, but not to elected people, for whom you actually do have some control over, small, but still of significance?

Click to expand...

To me, I am not submitting to their authority, rather I am welcoming money into science that wouldn't be funded by the Government. I see it from this standpoint.. back in 1993 FERMI Labs had it's Superconducting Super Collider defunded by Congress and Bill Clinton.

danarhea said:

There is nothing wrong with greed. America was founded on greed, and when kept in check is a good thing. When allowed to run rampant, you end up with the conditions that existed in the 1890's, where coal miners were not thought of as human beings, but as pieces of equipment which could be run into the ground, and even killed, before replacing them with more pieces of equipment. I like capitalism, but I have seen the results of too much capitalism, and they are not pretty.

Click to expand...

I have to make a subtle correction here danarhea. America was not founded on greed. There is no more and likely far less greed under capitalism than historical socialist/communist economic systems. Something about living under a socialist system incapable of meeting the material needs of it subjects tends to heighten ones desires for the unobtainable. Greed is not exclusive to Capitalism. Greed is a natural characteristic of virtually all intelligent organisms. Capitalism merely seeks to exploit this trait to insure the most efficient use of scarce resources with multiple uses.

Lafayette said:

ALL EVIL LARGE AND SMALL



Crass ignorance, that thought.

Greed = intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

If that is the sort of world you want to live in, then I suggest you populate a distant planet. Whilst intelligent people here on earth try to "level the playing field".

And that does not mean, as Socialism goes, that we should all be earning the same or similar incomes. Neither should the absurd differences in taxation generate unfair Wealth. There is ample room for a market-economy to apply Capitalism towards investing in new products/services thus creating new markets - and Wealth. But fairly.

Where we got it monstrously wrong (at present) in the US was thinking that the inducement to do such required a massive reduction on upper-income taxation (introduced by Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s) as presently exists in the United States. - that actually started with (of all people) LBJ in the 1960s. See here:
View attachment 67207841

The direct result of America's Income Disparity (the worst of any developed nation as shown by the Gini Index) is a fundamental reason for the great number of families incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold. That insufficiently-taxed income could have served better purposes.

The situation in America will become more acute every day we waste not bringing Income Fairness to America. Which means what?

It means that we change our taxation system that allows individuals to amass excessively huge amounts of Wealth, and to pass it down dynastically within the family. Exactly the same kind of system that we had, once upon a time in America, and against which we fought a revolution.

We need Wealth as the prize for innovation, we don't need billionaires who haven't the foggiest notion of what to do with their Exaggerated Wealth* except to place it on Wall Street - to the great pleasure of those making millions managing it.

We have, as a nation, placed money at the heart of our existence. Money, money, money - the God of Mammon and the primary source of all evil large and small ...

*Zuckerberg just gifted 6% of his wealth to a good cause that should not need it - had it been taxed and spent intelligently by a government. Or governments, because Facebook is being investigated for avoiding taxes illegally (as much as $5B) in both Europe and the US.
______________________

Click to expand...

Are you sure you aren't just expressing your greed for OPM (other peoples money)? It seems to me you've failed to satiate your greed to the extent accomplished by the Waltons and Zuckerberg's of the world. In response you seek some other vehicle to obtain the wealth your equivalent greed prods but your lack of talent/value prevents.

LibDave said:

Virus. We can't cure virus's yet.

Click to expand...

Actually... there is two or three (depending on how you view it). DRACO which came from MIT and is having funding research problems, IBM's work. Those both have proven effective against every virus it's been tested against (even the common cold). Then you have the M13 from Israel which is being used to advance treatment for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

LibDave said:

In truth non-profits like the red cross. Unfortunately it resulted in the rapid transmission of HIV.

Click to expand...

And the funny part of this is... that the Red Cross (American) was given special status by Congress under Title 36 and Uncle Sam tend to fill it's coffers with money after big events.

gdgyva said:

well since incomes begets wealth, tell me what the bottom 20% as a whole have done to increase their share of the income?

have they stopped dropping out of school? no....

have they stopped having kids at ungodly young ages? no....

have they gone to vocational schools to increase their skill level so that they can increase their earnings? nope

so what has the bottom 20% been doing to try and increase their earnings, other than voting democratic and holding out their hand asking "may i have some more now"

sometimes personal responsibility has to be a part of this all....and i have yet to see that from the liberal or leftist point of view

Click to expand...

A well spirited argument gdgyva. But you've fallen for their disinformation here. There's more to their misdirection than you realize and they have suckered you into using their own poorly constructed analysis of the data. Look closely at the data they present. They make you think the bottom 20 percentile represents the poor. And that the top 20 percentile represents the rich. The impression this gives is also clouded by the fact it is natural to assume these are static classes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is the data is merely a snapshot in time.

Look deeper into the data they spew forth. The bottom 20% is in all likelihood you and me. And so is the middle and top 20 percentiles. What I mean by this is 90% of those categorized in the bottom 20 percentile are in fact between the ages of 18 and 27. These aren't the people who come to mind when you see this block labeled "Bottom 20%". The impression you get is these are the poor, as if their prospect in life is somehow less than those in the middle and upper percentile blocks. The truth is the vast majority of Americans (95%) start off in the bottom 20 percentile category. These tend to be 18 to 25 year old's going to school, getting married and having kids while building their skill sets for their future benefit. In fact many in this category have a negative net wealth (not surprising). This negative wealth is actually a credit to our system as even those without wealth are seen to have prospects sufficient to warrant the granting of loans to further their value.

As our population ages no other systems provides more opportunity for upward mobility. The vast majority of Americans progress from the bottom 20 percentile up through the ranks until they reach the height of their productivity and experience. It is here you find those categorized as the "top 20%r's" to be nothing more than those same bottom 20%r's, albeit at a later stage in life. They give you the impression these bottom 20%r's have no ability or prospect to achieve their fair shot at success. What really determines your success in life is how quickly and to what extent you traverse up these haphazardly delineated categories.

My 18 year old son is a fine young man, full of future prospects yet little in previously accumulated wealth. His prospects are in fact better than mine at his age despite the fact they portray him as a "bottom 20%r". Likewise my father in comparison to myself. It is here you discover the true nature of their deceit. There is much less of an income disparity than they portray and little to no slight in need of redress. In fact no system is more adept at insuring the prosperity of it's people than ours. And the more adept our system becomes the greater the income gap their flawed statistical analysis will present. The income gap they convey is in reality more representative of our average growth potential. Something we should be striving to increase not reduce.

It gets worse. They have twisted these statistics to the point beyond smoke and mirrors. They've taken it to a point where it can only be described as outright lies and attempts to deceive through the dissemination of propaganda. One such effort is their contention that the top 1% have more wealth than the combined wealth of 40+ percent of the nation. I in fact first heard this drivel in regards to a statement fully sourced on the internet (as if the internet was incapable of falsehoods) claiming the Walton family was worth more than the combined wealth of 43% of the country. On it's face I knew something wasn't right. After all, the Gates family is comparably wealthy and a cursory look at the Forbes 500 reveals the next 5 wealthiest Americans more than double the Walton family in wealth. And the value of all residential real estate holdings exceeds 15 Trillion. Commercial real estate exceeds even that by a few Trillion. Delving into their sourcing one finds the answer to the dilemma. They exclude real estate on the basis the true value of real estate can't be determined until it is sold. To their credit they also excluded the accounting of mortgage debt. Yet still their assertions made no sense. Looking closer one finds the bottom 41% of the nation actually has negative net wealth. These are far and away the aforementioned up-and-coming Americans after having invested in their education and training poised to enter their higher earning years. By this analysis I too have more wealth than 41% of the country combined. In fact the bum laying in the gutter on the street corner with a quarter in his pocket and no outstanding loans also has more wealth than 41% of the nation combined. The lack of veracity in this analysis is so aggregious as to be nothing short of a lie. Deliberate propaganda intended to promote their socialist/communist agenda.

FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST

LibDave said:

Are you sure you aren't just expressing your greed for OPM (other peoples money)? It seems to me you've failed to satiate your greed to the extent accomplished by the Waltons and Zuckerberg's of the world. In response you seek some other vehicle to obtain the wealth your equivalent greed prods but your lack of talent/value prevents.

Click to expand...

Have you got that wrong! "Other people's money?" Where did you see that?

You go rob a bank, and you take "other peoples money". You fabricate a system of taxation the reality of which is a flat-rate taxation that by means of manipulation allows for a meagre taxation rate of between 15/25% - now THAT IS REALLY TAKING OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY.

There is no difference whatsoever from a robber of a bank, and anyone who benefits from a tax-system that is fundamentally flawed. Both are Intrinsically Wrong; the former in terms of the law, and the latter in terms of honesty.

What is "honest"? Whatever is honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; meaning "upright and fair". Which is not our present system of upper-income taxation in America ...

The American system of upper-income fixed-rate taxation was at its inception by Ronald Reagan and remains today "fundamentally dishonest". The only means to correct that dishonesty is a Progressive System of Taxation and a transfer of funds to poorer elements of our society. How is that done:
*Less funding of the DoD, that does no good whatsoever for the larger class of Americans,
*The ability to obtain Tertiary Education free, gratis and for nothing allowing the poor to take the societal-escalator to a higher standard-of-living.
*A National Healthcare System that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg (figuratively), due to the extraordinarily high-cost of practitioners (doctors, nurses, etc.)

TAXABLE INCOME REDISTRIBUTION

That system of Tax Redistribution is best described here: America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. Its government is among the least., excerpt:

The most redistributionist countries on the planet tend not to be those with really progressive taxes. Instead, they're the countries that tax regressively but then direct that money overwhelmingly to poor residents.

Click to expand...

Thus causing Income Disparity, the worst of any developed nation as described by its Gini Index:

LibDave said:

Insufficient taxation? What would you consider sufficient? Taxation is well beyond sufficient. It has gotten to the point of detriment.

Click to expand...

If ignorance were bliss, you'd be in heaven.

The American system of upper-income fixed-rate taxation was at its inception by Ronald Reagan and remains today "fundamentally flawed and dishonest". The only means to correct that dishonesty is a Progressive System of Taxation and a transfer of funds to poorer elements of our society.

Here is how that is done:
*Less funding of the DoD, that does no good whatsoever for the larger class of Americans, which is fully 20% of the national budget.
*The ability to obtain Tertiary Education free, gratis and for nothing allowing the poor to take the societal-escalator to a higher standard-of-living.
*A National Healthcare System that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg (figuratively), due to the extraordinarily high-cost of practitioners (doctors, nurses, etc.)
*Ridding ourselves of the Reaganite Unfair Taxation, and replacing it by far more progressive taxation.

TAXABLE INCOME REDISTRIBUTION

That system of Tax Redistribution is best described here: America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. Its government is among the least., excerpt:

The most redistributionist countries on the planet tend not to be those with really progressive taxes. Instead, they're the countries that tax regressively but then direct that money overwhelmingly to poor residents.

Click to expand...

Thus causing Income Disparity, the worst of any developed nation as described by its Gini Index:


(BTW: The higher the Gini Index the "less fair" is the distribution of income.)