View Poll Results: Should a multi-billionaire settle for 2 jets instead of 3, 7 homes instead of 10 etc?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes (if it means serving the greater good)

    12 24.49%
  • No (no one has the right to decide how much wealth is too much)

    37 75.51%
Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 207

Thread: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

  1. #11
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,218

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    It is a shame if they do envy or covet their wealth. However, if hoarding wealth hurts others, then there is a problem.

    The extremely wealthy have impacted you more than you realize or are willing to admit.

    Couldn't agree more, I try to better my situation every day. However, some people are dealt a crappy hand in life and they also try to better themself ... however, for some bettering themselves to get out of poverty, is simply not attainable. I imagine those people have some hatred toward the extremely wealthy. I am just speculating though ... they could love the extremely wealthy and show eternal gratitude for the great things they have done to give them a leg up .. again just speculating ... I dunno, what do you think?
    Oh, please forgive me everyone. This is going to stray far afield.

    You know we are going to disagree, but maybe we can disagree agreeably. First, I don't understand whose business it is if a wealthy person hoarded their money. My guess is very few do. Many billionaires made it by building a large corporation from nothing, i.e. Gates, Jobs, etc. Their capital is highly still at work in the corporations and not sitting in a bank as someone here has intimated. Also, when they sell the corporations, they often invest that money in other instruments, i.e. stocks, bonds, etc. When they do this, the money helps other corporations and that is good for the economy. So, I think it is over-generalizing here to say what funds are available to the billionaires.

    I'm not sure how you could possibly know how the wealthy have impacted my life, but I'll let yo explain it to me.

    There are poor due to mental or physical handicaps. If they really cannot help themselves, then they should receive assistance. I believe that assistance should be as follows: Family, private or religious charities, local government, county government, and lastly state government. The closer the aid is the more knowledgeable the people offering the aid are of the recipient's real needs.

    There are poor who have made poor decisions or who have lived lives of vices instead of virtues. These people need assistance, but not permanent assistance. They need help to learn how to become self-sufficient. The assistance they get should come from: Family, private or religious charities, local government, county government, and lastly state government. The difference with these people and those with real prohibiting handicaps is that the aid here should come with agreements and actions from the recipients to change their ways. No agreement. No aid. No positive steps toward goals, no aid. This is about responsibility.

    I could tell you about my background, but it is a personal experience and I cannot prove what I could tell you. Let me just say that I was not raised in even middle-class luxury. The good news is that through hard work and being driven to succeed, as I have said elsewhere, I have lived the American Dream. If I can make it, others can and should. We need to aim people in the right direction and you do not do that by tossing money from Washington to them. A Senator from California doesn't know what the problem is with a poor person in the Ozarks. Again, we would be much better helping people close to home.

  2. #12
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,218

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    But what if that fair rate meant that they would have to get rid of one of their private jets and a few of there several homes?
    Well, if the income tax rate was 20% and everyone paid 20% less maybe $5,000 for each spouse and up to two children, if they had to sell a private jet, then they are not true billionaires, are they? Sell one! Somehow, I bet we differ over what a fair rate is. Heeheeeee!

  3. #13
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    Oh, please forgive me everyone. This is going to stray far afield.

    You know we are going to disagree, but maybe we can disagree agreeably. First, I don't understand whose business it is if a wealthy person hoarded their money. My guess is very few do. Many billionaires made it by building a large corporation from nothing, i.e. Gates, Jobs, etc. Their capital is highly still at work in the corporations and not sitting in a bank as someone here has intimated. Also, when they sell the corporations, they often invest that money in other instruments, i.e. stocks, bonds, etc. When they do this, the money helps other corporations and that is good for the economy. So, I think it is over-generalizing here to say what funds are available to the billionaires.

    I'm not sure how you could possibly know how the wealthy have impacted my life, but I'll let yo explain it to me.

    There are poor due to mental or physical handicaps. If they really cannot help themselves, then they should receive assistance. I believe that assistance should be as follows: Family, private or religious charities, local government, county government, and lastly state government. The closer the aid is the more knowledgeable the people offering the aid are of the recipient's real needs.

    There are poor who have made poor decisions or who have lived lives of vices instead of virtues. These people need assistance, but not permanent assistance. They need help to learn how to become self-sufficient. The assistance they get should come from: Family, private or religious charities, local government, county government, and lastly state government. The difference with these people and those with real prohibiting handicaps is that the aid here should come with agreements and actions from the recipients to change their ways. No agreement. No aid. No positive steps toward goals, no aid. This is about responsibility.

    I could tell you about my background, but it is a personal experience and I cannot prove what I could tell you. Let me just say that I was not raised in even middle-class luxury. The good news is that through hard work and being driven to succeed, as I have said elsewhere, I have lived the American Dream. If I can make it, others can and should. We need to aim people in the right direction and you do not do that by tossing money from Washington to them. A Senator from California doesn't know what the problem is with a poor person in the Ozarks. Again, we would be much better helping people close to home.
    You seem to essentially be suggesting welfare, which is the wrong way to go about it. For the most part, it's not that these people are lazy or something, it's just that they can't find a job to work at. What's needed isn't assistance until they can find a job, it's more jobs to find. That's why public works programs are more effective than welfare.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  4. #14
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,218

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough. If jet planes and houses were non-scarce resources, I wouldn't care how many you had. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and they're not.
    I'm not sure I understand all of what you said, but what do you mean by "as long as everyone has enough?"

  5. #15
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Setting aside all that envy/jealousy gobbledygook ... do you understand how hoarding resources affects others that need those resources?
    Some billionaire "hoarding" resources does not effect me. The billionaires have what they have because they earned it just like you and I have have what we have because we earned it.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #16
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,218

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    You seem to essentially be suggesting welfare, which is the wrong way to go about it. For the most part, it's not that these people are lazy or something, it's just that they can't find a job to work at. What's needed isn't assistance until they can find a job, it's more jobs to find. That's why public works programs are more effective than welfare.
    We are in agreement about jobs. I am not talking about today, but I am talking about any day. For my purposes, unemployment could be 4% and I still would want to do what I propose. I put the assistance in the priority of how it should be handled. Is family helping a family member welfare? Is private or religious charity welfare? In the order of these two steps, no government has to be involved. Next, I did not get into specifics as to how each person would be assisted. If the person has no employment due to a layoff or company went out of business, then a public works program would probably be appropriate.

    All I am saying is that people should be helped and not by the Federal Government. It should be tied to achieving self-sufficiency assuming the person is mentally and physically capable.

    Does this clarify a bit for you?

  7. #17
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    You know we are going to disagree, but maybe we can disagree agreeably. First, I don't understand whose business it is if a wealthy person hoarded their money. My guess is very few do. Many billionaires made it by building a large corporation from nothing, i.e. Gates, Jobs, etc. Their capital is highly still at work in the corporations and not sitting in a bank as someone here has intimated. Also, when they sell the corporations, they often invest that money in other instruments, i.e. stocks, bonds, etc. When they do this, the money helps other corporations and that is good for the economy. So, I think it is over-generalizing here to say what funds are available to the billionaires.
    O.K. so some may not sit on their money .. but some is not all
    Additionally, I don't see how lining other corporate richies is helping the less fortunate .. indeed if all the wealth is passed back and forth between wealthy buddies, when exactly will the less fortunate be helped?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I'm not sure how you could possibly know how the wealthy have impacted my life, but I'll let yo explain it to me.
    Umm .. you don't think politicians make decisions based on financial contributions from "interest groups", i.e. the wealthy? last time I checked, public policy affects all citizens

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    There are poor due to mental or physical handicaps. If they really cannot help themselves, then they should receive assistance. I believe that assistance should be as follows: Family, private or religious charities, local government, county government, and lastly state government. The closer the aid is the more knowledgeable the people offering the aid are of the recipient's real needs.
    I couldn't agree with you more

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    There are poor who have made poor decisions or who have lived lives of vices instead of virtues. These people need assistance, but not permanent assistance. They need help to learn how to become self-sufficient. The assistance they get should come from: Family, private or religious charities, local government, county government, and lastly state government. The difference with these people and those with real prohibiting handicaps is that the aid here should come with agreements and actions from the recipients to change their ways. No agreement. No aid. No positive steps toward goals, no aid. This is about responsibility.
    Again, I couldn't agree more

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I could tell you about my background, but it is a personal experience and I cannot prove what I could tell you. Let me just say that I was not raised in even middle-class luxury. The good news is that through hard work and being driven to succeed, as I have said elsewhere, I have lived the American Dream. If I can make it, others can and should.
    Again, I couldn't agree more (however as you pointed out, there are circumstances where reaching certain levels is not possible) .. additionally, the only way everyone would be able to "make it" would be if wage differentials were evened out ... companies need workers and workers need employers, that does not mean there needs to be ridiculous income differentials ... additionally, there can only be a certain number of business owners, doctors, CEO's etc. (the typically high paying positions), therefore, the competition is too great for everyone to "make it" ... however that could be fixed by evening out pay differentials

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    We need to aim people in the right direction and you do not do that by tossing money from Washington to them. A Senator from California doesn't know what the problem is with a poor person in the Ozarks. Again, we would be much better helping people close to home.
    Again, I couldn't agree more ... surprise!

  8. #18
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,218

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Setting aside all that envy/jealousy gobbledygook ... do you understand how hoarding resources affects others that need those resources?
    Are you saying this is a zero-sum game?

  9. #19
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    I'm not sure I understand all of what you said, but what do you mean by "as long as everyone has enough?"
    Enough for a comfortable existence. A house or apartment big enough for their family, some appliances, a few basic luxuries, health care, quality education, maybe a car. That kind of thing. They shouldn't have to go deep into debt to afford any of those things, either.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  10. #20
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    We are in agreement about jobs. I am not talking about today, but I am talking about any day. For my purposes, unemployment could be 4% and I still would want to do what I propose. I put the assistance in the priority of how it should be handled. Is family helping a family member welfare? Is private or religious charity welfare? In the order of these two steps, no government has to be involved. Next, I did not get into specifics as to how each person would be assisted. If the person has no employment due to a layoff or company went out of business, then a public works program would probably be appropriate.

    All I am saying is that people should be helped and not by the Federal Government. It should be tied to achieving self-sufficiency assuming the person is mentally and physically capable.

    Does this clarify a bit for you?
    Yeah, I see what you mean. I disagree that having a government provided job necessarily makes you non self sufficient, though. In my opinion, there are certain sectors that the government handles better than the free market, and those sectors should be directly controlled by the government. I'm guessing we probably disagree on what those sectors are.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •