• 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!

Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

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

  • Yes (if it means serving the greater good)

    Votes: 10 34.5%

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

    Votes: 19 65.5%
  • Total voters
    29
M

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should a multi-billionaire be forced to settle for 7 homes instead of 10, 2 private jets instead of 3 etc.?

Hypothetical situation:

Meet: Billionaire Bush

He is a billionaire

Has 20 homes, 3 private jets, sends his 10 children to the very best private and or ivy league schools, has several concubines, runs several companies whose bottom level employees (the vast majority of his employees) make little above minimum wage, lets larges amounts of money sit in his bank account, many of his companies are hurtful to the earth, many of his companies are diversions and failures meant to avoid paying income tax and so on
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Should a multi-billionaire be forced to settle for 7 homes instead of 10, 2 private jets instead of 3 etc.?

Hypothetical situation:

Meet: Billionaire Bush

He is a billionaire

Has 20 homes, 3 private jets, sends his 10 children to the very best private and or ivy league schools, has several concubines, runs several companies whose bottom level employees (the vast majority of his employees) make little above minimum wage, lets larges amounts of money sit in his bank account, many of his companies are hurtful to the earth, many of his companies are diversions and failures meant to avoid paying income tax and so on
Click to expand...

Wow, I was the first to vote and I voted that no one has a right to decide how much is too much. I have told my wife and family that there are many things in this life that I never want and two of them are to be famous and to be super-wealthy. Life should be about the journey and not the fame or wealth. Being self-sufficient should be the goal. Can you imagine what it is really like to be a famous celebrity with paparazzi and reporters bugging you endlessly? No thanks. As for wealth, I like to wake up everyday and ask myself, "How can I improve my lot?" I really think I would not like to say "Wow! I am rich. I can now do whatever I want. Where is the challenge in that?

Now, while I do not want to be super-wealthy, I neither envy them nor do I covet their wealth. Apparently, many people do. A rich person has never detracted from anything that I have ever wanted to do and they have never held me down. I have done alright and I have lived the American Dream. Again, no rich person impacted that in the least. Maybe people would be better off attempting to improve themselves and their own financial situation and not be so concerned about something that really has no impact on them. It might cure those pains in the heart.
 
Last edited:
The idea here is based on principle, not necessarily reality. In this situation, lets say that the rich could purchase whatever they wanted without paying taxes on them (which may happen in reality through tax right offs). Should income tax increase to the point that the multi-billionaire is forced to sell a few homes, private jets etc. for the greater good of the community?
 
LesGovt said:
I have told my wife and family that there are many things in this life that I never want and two of them are to be famous and to be super-wealthy. Life should be about the journey and not the fame or wealth. Being self-sufficient should be the goal. Can you imagine what it is really like to be a famous celebrity with paparazzi and reporters bugging you endlessly? No thanks. As for wealth, I like to wake up everyday and ask myself, "How can I improve my lot?" I really think I would not like to say "Wow! I am rich. I can now do whatever I want. Where is the challenge in that?
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more :)

LesGovt said:
Now, while I do not want to be super-wealthy, I neither envy them nor do I covet their wealth. Apparently, many people do.
Click to expand...

It is a shame if they do envy or covet their wealth. However, if hoarding wealth hurts others, then there is a problem.

LesGovt said:
A rich person has never detracted from anything that I have ever wanted to do and they have never held me down. I have done alright and I have lived the American Dream. Again, no rich person impacted that in the least.
Click to expand...

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

LesGovt said:
Maybe people would be better off attempting to improve themselves and their own financial situation and not be so concerned about something that really has no impact on them. It might cure those pains in the heart.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
MusicAdventurer said:
The idea here is based on principle, not necessarily reality. In this situation, lets say that the rich could purchase whatever they wanted without paying taxes on them (which may happen in reality through tax right offs). Should income tax increase to the point that the multi-billionaire is forced to sell a few homes, private jets etc. for the greater good of the community?
Click to expand...

I would say no. I think multi-billionaires should pay income taxes at a fair rate and no more. I would be fine if they paid the same rate that someone making $50k pays. I'm not greedy.
 
jamesrage said:
You should be able to spend your money on what ever you want regardless if you are poor, middle class, rich or super-rich. It is not right to try to get the government to steal someone else's money just because you are green with envy.
Click to expand...

It is a shame if they do envy or covet their wealth. However, if hoarding wealth hurts others, then there is a problem.

Additionally, 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?
 
LesGovt said:
I would say no. I think multi-billionaires should pay income taxes at a fair rate and no more. I would be fine if they paid the same rate that someone making $50k pays. I'm not greedy.
Click to expand...

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?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It is a shame if they do envy or covet their wealth. However, if hoarding wealth hurts others, then there is a problem.
Click to expand...

They earned their wealth.Other than envious retards who gives a **** what some rich guys spends his money on?


Additionally, for some bettering themselves to get out of poverty, is simply not attainable. I imagine those people have some hatred toward the extremely wealthy.
Click to expand...
The only reason anyone would have an extreme hatred for the wealthy is because they are extremely jealous and want something they did not earn.


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 ...
Click to expand...

Why would they love show eternal gratitude? Seeing how the rich pay most of the taxes and provide jobs they should already be showing some love and gratitude.

I dunno, what do you think?
Click to expand...
I think if the rich did more then the class envious people would still be asking for the rich to do more just like they do now and they would still acting like five year olds jealous because they neighbor's kid got a new toy and they didn't.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
jamesrage said:
They earned their wealth.Other than envious retards who gives a **** what some rich guys spends his money on?

The only reason anyone would have an extreme hatred for the wealthy is because they are extremely jealous and want something they did not earn.

Why would they love show eternal gratitude? Seeing how the rich pay most of the taxes and provide jobs they should already be showing some love and gratitude.

I think if the rich did more then the class envious people would still be asking for the rich to do more just like they do now and they would still acting like five year olds jealous because they neighbor's kid got a new toy and they didn't.
Click to expand...

Setting aside all that envy/jealousy gobbledygook ... do you understand how hoarding resources affects others that need those resources?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oh, please forgive me everyone. This is going to stray far afield. :naughty

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.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
LesGovt said:
Oh, please forgive me everyone. This is going to stray far afield. :naughty

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
atrasicarius said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand all of what you said, but what do you mean by "as long as everyone has enough?"
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Setting aside all that envy/jealousy gobbledygook ... do you understand how hoarding resources affects others that need those resources?
Click to expand...

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.
 
atrasicarius said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
LesGovt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

LesGovt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

LesGovt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more

LesGovt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, I couldn't agree more

LesGovt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

LesGovt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, I couldn't agree more ... surprise! :)
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Setting aside all that envy/jealousy gobbledygook ... do you understand how hoarding resources affects others that need those resources?
Click to expand...

Are you saying this is a zero-sum game?
 
LesGovt said:
I'm not sure I understand all of what you said, but what do you mean by "as long as everyone has enough?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
LesGovt said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
MusicAdventurer said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

MusicAdventurer said:
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
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I would like the liberals to stay out of my pockets. They have such sticky fingers. :caution: 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.

MusicAdventurer said:
Again, I couldn't agree more (however as you pointed out, there are circumstances where reaching certain levels is not possible)
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the mentally or physically handicapped, then fine. If other, let me know.

MusicAdventurer said:
.. 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
Click to expand...

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. :shock: Nite.
 
LesGovt said:
Are you saying this is a zero-sum game?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
LesGovt said:
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
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever mentioned the wealthy not paying their fair share :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom