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 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 207

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

  1. #21
    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 jamesrage View Post
    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.
    What is up with you guys and the word "earn". You say it as if it is a sacred thing that rights all wrongs. Monopolizing a market isn't exactly earning anything (that's like going into an apple orchard, picking all the apples eating a few and putting the rest in storage to rot), nor is inheriting money.

    Here's a good example of not earning: being born with an extremely athletic body that ensures he/she will make millions or billions as a professional athlete. That person did not earn his/her body, they were born with ... a lower caliber athlete who was not so lucky to be born with what it takes could work just as hard if not harder and never make it.

    So technically the latter less able person is working harder and the star athlete is just reaping the rewards of their lucky innate abilities. What does earning have to do with that? I don't understand why you can't see that, in life, we are dealt cards and everyone does their best to play those cards. Unfortunately, some are born destined to make more money and they didn't earn there money, they were dealt a lucky hand.
    Last edited by MusicAdventurer; 07-20-11 at 04:02 AM.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-14-18 @ 01:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    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?
    On this, we are going to have to disagree. We have no right to another persons income or wealth; except for his contributing his fair share.

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    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
    Well, I guess I would like the liberals to stay out of my pockets. They have such sticky fingers. But, I really cannot think of any policy that crippled me. There were times when I was crippled, but I learned to stand again, dust myself off, and go at it again. Sorry, but on this one, I think you are off base.

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Again, I couldn't agree more (however as you pointed out, there are circumstances where reaching certain levels is not possible)
    If you are talking about the mentally or physically handicapped, then fine. If other, let me know.

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    .. 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
    No, again we are miles apart. The way to increase wages is to keep jobs in the U.S. and to ensure that employment is to the point where employers are begging for employees. I have some thoughts on how to do that, but, first, do you even agree with this premise? If you do, then outside of government intervention by further legislation, do you have any ideas how we could do this?

    Woof! It's nearly two AM and I have a busy day tomorrow. Later. Oh, by the way, I think we should share to the partisans here that you and I have reached some agreements. Well, maybe not. They might all have a stroke. Nite.

  3. #23
    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
    Are you saying this is a zero-sum game?
    Absolutely not .. people need rewards for success ... however, if those rewards are so great that it causes others to suffer, the rewards are too high .... essentially, as psychological research suggests, rewards only need to be attractive enough to promote more successful behavior

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    426

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

    There is a point where I become suspicious of wealth. Money doesn't appear out of nowhere. It comes from somewhere. These people tend to be as low key as possible, and if they say two words to you, it tends to be "family" and "God". But to be a billionaire...To fathom the sheer disproportion. My curiosity burns as to how a person comes to be a billionaire. Though I can't say for fact, I have a feeling many people find themselves on the wrong side of their success.

    However, if they come by their money legitimately, and their wealth is not used to undermine, distort, or disrupt the liberty of others, go right ahead. But extremely wealthy people are like black holes. The law tends to break down around them.

  5. #25
    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
    On this, we are going to have to disagree. We have no right to another persons income or wealth; except for his contributing his fair share
    I don't think I ever mentioned the wealthy not paying their fair share

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-14-18 @ 01:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

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

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    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.
    I think we have just hit another area of disagreement. Is it that you want taxpayers to just furnish every person who is in poverty all of these items? Surely not.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-14-18 @ 01:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Absolutely not .. people need rewards for success ... however, if those rewards are so great that it causes others to suffer, the rewards are too high .... essentially, as psychological research suggests, rewards only need to be attractive enough to promote more successful behavior
    Okay, I'm confused. Let's say a billionaire owns ten mansions, 3 Gulf Stream Jets, drives a Bugati and a Rolls, has an antique car collection, dresses to the nines, homes are furnished with furniture to match the style of the homes, buys original artwork, owns hundreds of throusands of shares of IBM, AT&T, Microsoft, 3M, Caterpillar, & Hallmark Cards, purchases a great deal of expensive jewelry for his wife, sends his kids to Harvand and MIT, etc., etc., etc.

    What does any of this have to do with rewards for success for those who are not wealthy? He may have provided employment in the home building if he had any of his mansions built. He may have had remodelers do the work in others. He helped employment in the private jet manufacturing industry, he has helped auctioneers who auction older cars, he has helped artwork dealers or art auctioneers, he helps employment at the Corporations for he buys stock, he helped jewelers and he help two higher educational institutions. He also helped clothing and furniture manufacturers and retail stores. Not only did he help all of these people, but there are tons of other people who were indirectly helped. For example, he may have helped people who manufacture faucets since the mansion he built has to have faucets and they may have been part of his remodeling. Also, he may and probably does give hundreds of millions to charities or is a patron of the arts and provides millions to art galleries or the local symphony.

    I don't see where any of this is bad. I don't see how this billionaire's success impedes mine or anyone elses. I don't see where this person's riches minimizes anyone's reward for success. Sorry, but I fail to see your point.

    As for having to have a reward attractive enough, what are you saying? If you are saying that some see welfare as being better than working, I understand that; however, that is why we need to end doling out money and not tying assistance to achievement. Not everyone will become a millionaire, but the poor can end up living a life of what is considered middle class. It takes following virtue and not vice to do so. When I say virtue, I mean things like personal responsibility, self-discipline, tenacity, hard work, frugality, and other virtues. Rewards may not come tomorrow morning, next week, a month from now, but they will come for those who practice those virtues.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-14-18 @ 01:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    I don't think I ever mentioned the wealthy not paying their fair share
    I apologize, I must have become too tired to read carefully last night. Here is what you said to which I was responding, but totally misread:

    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?

    After rereading what you said, I am a bit confused. Is it your contention that Warren Buffett gives money to Jack Welch, and Jack Welch gives money to Steven Jobs, and Steven Jobs gives money to Bill Gates... Oh wait, that last one would never happen. LOL!

    If you are saying that the only rewards are those that the billionaires have and they only share those rewards with each other, then that would be a zero-sum game. In my previous posting, I have shown where that is not the case. Perhaps, I am just misreading your thoughts again. If you wish to shed some more light on the subject, I would appreciate it.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-14-18 @ 01:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    What is up with you guys and the word "earn". You say it as if it is a sacred thing that rights all wrongs. Monopolizing a market isn't exactly earning anything (that's like going into an apple orchard, picking all the apples eating a few and putting the rest in storage to rot), nor is inheriting money.

    Here's a good example of not earning: being born with an extremely athletic body that ensures he/she will make millions or billions as a professional athlete. That person did not earn his/her body, they were born with ... a lower caliber athlete who was not so lucky to be born with what it takes could work just as hard if not harder and never make it.

    So technically the latter less able person is working harder and the star athlete is just reaping the rewards of their lucky innate abilities. What does earning have to do with that? I don't understand why you can't see that, in life, we are dealt cards and everyone does their best to play those cards. Unfortunately, some are born destined to make more money and they didn't earn there money, they were dealt a lucky hand.
    I think your first paragraph is an example of a zero-sum game and I don't believe that exists.

    As for the body, athletes train constantly to be the best. The name escapes me, but there was recently a running back who played for the San Diego Chargers who now plays for a different team who had a regimen for staying in top condition that most people could not think of doing. That is part of the reason he has become one of the all-time best running backs in the NFL. You don't just get born with the best body in the world and it stays that way. I'd even bet there are examples of 99 lb. weaklings who decided to become extremely fit who have made it where others who were originally born with the better body did not.

    Life is not a lottery. Yes, some can be born with physical and mental defects that prevent them from succeeding. Maybe an example of that could be Helen Keller. Okay, maybe not. The vast majority of people are born within the realm of norm. From there, it is what they do and how they do it that really matters. It is not luck.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    01-14-18 @ 01:44 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,665

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

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    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.
    If a person doesn't have money, a job, and has to be given a make-work job by the government to make it on his own, he is not self-sufficient. When he get's back to work for a company and earns his own way and can support himself and his family, he is then self-sufficient.

    I agree that government does a few things better than the free market. The military would be one. Intelligence would be another. I'll bet these were not the areas you were thinking of and I further bet that you would be correct that we might disagree. For example, I would like to privatize Social Security. I'd bet you are against that. I am for the Federal Government staying 100% out of education. I'd bet you are against that. And that is probably the tip of the iceberg. Am I correct?

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •