Billionaire Population Hits 1,453

[Matt1970]

What regulations do you propose?

A "maximum income"? Limiting the size of corporations? This will not stop people from becoming billionaires.

If someone invents or creates some sort of product that becomes popular, are they to be cut off at a certain point?

Who decides when they are cut off?

Please provide more detail with how you'd like to regulate. Are you regulating corporations or people? Or both?

What if someone doesn't run a corporation and simply invests in them?

So many variables.

You must not be too familier with mcowned. He wants equal income distribution on a global level which if you do the math (Global GDP divided by Global population) comes to $10,000 per person. All Corporations are Robber Barons in his mind so it is justified. You can't get rich without stealing it from the middle class. Remember a lot of people at the top need their money to make money. Once you take that they won't have the capital to make as much so the next round of confiscations will be less.

 

[Matt1970]

Who has actually suggested government should spread all income evenly? Have you ever met a person, seen a post on this forum, or heard a politician actually say this?

Did no one show you that the bogey man isn't actually under your bed?

There are plenty of them here. The OP is one of them. Or did you think there was some selective system as to who got what?

 

[JMapleton]

You must not be too familier with mcowned. He wants equal income distribution on a global level which if you do the math (Global GDP divided by Global population) comes to $10,000 per person. All Corporations are Robber Barons in his mind so it is justified. You can't get rich without stealing it from the middle class. Remember a lot of people at the top need their money to make money. Once you take that they won't have the capital to make as much so the next round of confiscations will be less.

So he wants a one world government to enforce a global wealth redistribution scheme? Something like that couldn't be done regionally.

Also, you'd have to throw out democracy and use military force to enforce it because the majority of the world's population would not support that and the vast majority of the most capable and influential citizens would not.

Impossible and stupid idea.

 

[AreaCode707]

That can't be right. There are 323,405 AT members and at least a third of them must be in that income bracket.

 

[Matt1970]

So he wants a one world government to enforce a global wealth redistribution scheme? Something like that couldn't be done regionally.

Also, you'd have to throw out democracy and use military force to enforce it because the majority of the world's population would not support that and the vast majority of the most capable and influential citizens would not.

Impossible and stupid idea.

You must consider the source. The whole site doesn't make fun of him for nothing.

 

[dmcowen674]

You must consider the source. The whole site doesn't make fun of him for nothing.

323,405 AT members hate me.

That's awesome, that means I am doing as great of a job as Obama.

Awesome compliment, thanks :thumbsup:

 

[TallBill]

323,405 AT members hate me.

That's awesome, that means I am doing as great of a job as Obama.

Awesome compliment, thanks :thumbsup:

I can't speak for everyone else, but I personally find it difficult to hate someone who is crazy. From pm's we've had in the past I think that you're a nice guy but your ideas are straight up deranged.

 

[soulcougher73]

What regulations do you propose?

A "maximum income"? Limiting the size of corporations? This will not stop people from becoming billionaires.

If someone invents or creates some sort of product that becomes popular, are they to be cut off at a certain point?

Who decides when they are cut off?

Please provide more detail with how you'd like to regulate. Are you regulating corporations or people? Or both?

What if someone doesn't run a corporation and simply invests in them?

So many variables.

Of course i dont have all the answers, but i have ideas. Instead of making 250m/day maybe try paying your employees more money?

I think CEOs making something like 280x more than the average worker is rediculous. Spread the wealth to the ones making you the money.

I just dont understand greed. I dont have that desire like apparently many do. To me, there IS a point where you have enough money and taking more doesnt change anything other than your bank account. Basically if you can live your lifestyle as you see fit with no exceptions on say 5m/year. Why do you need 250m/day?

Again im not a greedy bastard so the idea of making this kind of money were talking about makes no sense to me.

 

[dmcowen674]

Of course i dont have all the answers, but i have ideas. Instead of making 250m/day maybe try paying your employees more money?

I think CEOs making something like 280x more than the average worker is rediculous. Spread the wealth to the ones making you the money.

I just dont understand greed. I dont have that desire like apparently many do. To me, there IS a point where you have enough money and taking more doesnt change anything other than your bank account. Basically if you can live your lifestyle as you see fit with no exceptions on say 5m/year. Why do you need 250m/day?

Again im not a greedy bastard so the idea of making this kind of money were talking about makes no sense to me.

Thing is these people claim they "trickle down".

Obviously amassing $250 million a day they aren't trickling anything down other than shit.

 

[Matt1970]

 

[Exterous]

I read that some make double digit returns. I want to know what to invest in.

Almost anything in the last year? VTSMX was up 16% in 2012

a group of ~1,400 people making $250mil a day while 40% of Americans and rising require government assistance for necessities.

I see you fail at reading comprehension - as do a lot of people in this thread. This is not about 1400 people making $250mill a day this is about the TOP 10 making $250M/day. Not to mention that more than half of those 1400, including the #1, are not Americans which means our tax structure/assistance needs have little to do with them.

A lot of them also lost millions a day during the recession. Ingvar Kamprad lost ~$9m a day for 3 straight years or $10BN between 2007 and 2010.

Edit: I think the % change is far more telling than raw dollar amount

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Almost all of those billionaires' fortunes will eventually be given to charity. Large dynastic fortunes are rare these days. Gates, Buffett will both be giving theirs to charity.

I would bet the Waltons, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, and numerous other billionaire super fortunes will all be given to charity within 20-30 years.

What's the problem?

Yes charities whose boards and committees are headed partially by their own kin. Of which said "donated" fortunes are in the form of investments options such as stocks which yield dividends that as a result of being sheltered in a charity generate tax free wealth. Than again its interesting how some of the people you've mention also are consequently advocates of taxing every other wealthy persons below themselves at higher rates. So on the one hand they understand and know not to trust government with their own money but they advocate that others below them get heavily taxed by government which they again understand would just squander their fortunes if they did not take measures to shelter their vast riches in these charities.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Thing is these people claim they "trickle down".

Obviously amassing $250 million a day they aren't trickling anything down other than shit.

Wealth itself isn't finite anymore so than it is infinite.

There is no "piece of a pie" here.

If you really wanted to, if you had the intelligence, motivation, and ambition to do so you could go out and make a fortune on your own.

Would it take hard work? Yes.

Would risk taking and a bit of luck be involved. Most certainly.

However wealth is not something that can be quantified as being static and finite anymore so than it can be considered infinite and unending. Especially when you are making bad decisions in life.

You're fallacy and that of most people like yourself is that you guys view wealth as a static and finite concept when you are not the beneficiary of said wealth and infinite or unending when you feel entitled to take from others or vice versus when creating arguments based on "fairness".

 

[JMapleton]

Of course i dont have all the answers, but i have ideas. Instead of making 250m/day maybe try paying your employees more money?

I think CEOs making something like 280x more than the average worker is rediculous. Spread the wealth to the ones making you the money.

I just dont understand greed. I dont have that desire like apparently many do. To me, there IS a point where you have enough money and taking more doesnt change anything other than your bank account. Basically if you can live your lifestyle as you see fit with no exceptions on say 5m/year. Why do you need 250m/day?

Again im not a greedy bastard so the idea of making this kind of money were talking about makes no sense to me.

Thank you for responding. I understand entirely what you're saying.

One note though, no one is making $250m per day. Do the math, that's $91 Billion per year. No one on Earth is worth that much total, not even Bill Gates or Carlos Slim. But there are a lot of people making $250m per year or more.

Here is the problem however.

Where do you draw the line?

To make $250m a year is a lot of money. Should they only make....say $100m per year? Wait, that's still a lot. How about $50m....that's still more than most could ever spend.

Where do you stop? Who decides where to stop? And if there is a limit, once people hit that limit, they are going to stop working. Why would someone work just to be taxed at 75% or more of their income? Please don't bring up Europe, no one pays those high tax amounts, there are numerous loopholes and tax havens, just as there was in the United States 50 years ago when our tax rate was super high. No one, ever paid those high rates, ever.

So you implement all these laws taxing and redistributing and all of the sudden you realize, the same people complaining about the guy making $250m will still be complaining about the guy making $25m and the guy making $2.5m..and yes, also complaining about the guy making $250k saying he should "pay his fair share."

The average citizen has a very low standard of what is considered "wealthy." The average proletariat minded voter basically wants to soak everyone who makes over $100k because they're "rich."

There is no clear line and the people who would draw such a line cannot be trusted because they soak the multi-billionaires, they going to get bored and soak the billionaires. Then the centi-millionaires, then the deci-millionaires, then the millionaires, and then me and you simply because we have any wealth at all.

Second and most important problem:

When you start to take from others, whether it be money through taxation or freedom through regulation, you set a precedent and one day, I assure you, that precedent is going to reach back to you and someone is going to want something YOU have and try to take it from you.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine

 

[JMapleton]

Wealth itself isn't finite anymore so than it is infinite.

There is no "piece of a pie" here.

If you really wanted to, if you had the intelligence, motivation, and ambition to do so you could go out and make a fortune on your own.

Would it take hard work? Yes.

Would risk taking and a bit of luck be involved. Most certainly.

However wealth is not something that can be quantified as being static and finite anymore so than it can be considered infinite and unending. Especially when you are making bad decisions in life.

You're fallacy and that of most people like yourself is that you guys view wealth as a static and finite concept when you are not the beneficiary of said wealthy and infinite or unending when you feel entitled to take from others or vice versus when creating arguments based on "fairness".

I actually disagree with that. Although capital markets create and dissipate wealth with ease. "True" wealth, which is ownership of vital human and natural resources is finite.

Otherwise in theory, everyone in the world could be millionaires and live in mansions. On paper it works but in theory it doesn't. It's hard to truly explain. Paper wealth is infinite but true wealth is not. Not all wealth is equal.

Someone has to be poor, someone has to be rich. Just like someone has to fail the test at school and someone has to pass it. Everyone can't pass, otherwise the test is too easy and they're not learning or challenging themselves.

 

[JMapleton]

Yes charities whose boards and committees are headed partially by their own kin. Of which said "donated" fortunes are in the form of investments options such as stocks which yield dividends that as a result of being sheltered in a charity generate tax free wealth. Than again its interesting how some of the people you've mention also are consequently advocates of taxing every other wealthy person below themselves at higher rates. So on the one hand they understand and know not to trust government with their own money but they advocate that others below them get heavily taxed by government which they again understand would just squander their fortunes if they did not take measures to shelter their vast riches in these charities.

I've never seen a large example of anyone using a charitable trust to gain tax free capital gains just for the purpose of redistributing it back to themselves for consumption.

Billionaires do not use charitable trusts for their own benefit, it's for the benefit of their charity, which eventually gets into the hands of usually the world's poor.

 

[JMapleton]

323,405 AT members hate me.

That's awesome, that means I am doing as great of a job as Obama.

Awesome compliment, thanks :thumbsup:

No one here hates you, at least I do not.

But many people are annoyed by someone who voices radical claims and ideals but doesn't not provide any detail or logic into them.

If anything, you seem to have a lot of anger towards the rich. I think you should understand their true motivations first before hurling the word "greed" around, which is really an ambiguous word that can mean different things to different people.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I've never seen a large example of anyone using a charitable trust to gain tax free capital gains just for the purpose of redistributing it back to themselves for consumption.

It's not that they worried about themselves so much as they are about their entire wealth and their legacy for their future children, grandchildren, etc. These guys are well beyond the level of only thinking in personal terms within their lifetimes as they reach age milestones of their own lifespans.

Billionaires do not use charitable trusts for their own benefit, it's for the benefit of their charity, which eventually gets into the hands of usually the world's poor.

A fraction of the wealth being sheltered via these charities goes to the world's poor however considering the vastness of their wealth a fraction of it which is a hugely significant amount.

 

[dmcowen674]

Someone has to be poor, someone has to be rich. Just like someone has to fail the test at school and someone has to pass it. Everyone can't pass, otherwise the test is too easy and they're not learning or challenging themselves.

That right there defines you and the rich.

Wow is that the true definition of greed spelled out for all to see.

You forgot one thing.

The "someone" you define as has to be poor puts on his or her pants and shits exactly the same as you do.

There is absolutely no reason that can ever be justified why that "someone" has to be poor.

Disgusting

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I actually disagree with that. Although capital markets create and dissipate wealth with ease. "True" wealth, which is ownership of vital human and natural resources is finite.

It is only finite in a physical sense however the ability to generate wealth on your own by tapping into the limited nature of these resources is not finite but also not infinite, i.e. if you are not able to or willing to tap into the limitless opportunities to do so as a individual.

Otherwise in theory, everyone in the world could be millionaires and live in mansions. On paper it works but in theory it doesn't. It's hard to truly explain. Paper wealth is infinite but true wealth is not. Not all wealth is equal.

Everyone is not a millionaire because the capacity for personal drive, self-motivation, opportunistic decision making, intelligence, appropriate decision making in regards to risk taking, etc is not and shall never be "equally" distributed within the human population as whole.

As for paper wealth it is not infinite or finite. Paper wealth can and does very greatly among even the richest individuals in the world based on the decisions they have made (e.g. 2009 economic crash which took some by surprise or caught others making bad bets at the wrong moment even though they may have recognized the bubble but acted to slow, etc) and are going to make throughout their careers.

Unless of course you are talking about government's ability to print money day and night but even that action creates the unintended side effect of devaluing a currency so that more and more money is required to reach the same level of success and wealth as government increases the money supply which puts individuals on a never ending treadmill attempting to play catch up with inflation. Which I might add also causes them to take larger and larger risks to be able to gain more and more of that ever increasing supply of paper money being printed out by government itself.

Someone has to be poor, someone has to be rich. Just like someone has to fail the test at school and someone has to pass it. Everyone can't pass, otherwise the test is too easy and they're not learning or challenging themselves.

You're right but who is poor and who is rich is in many ways often determined by the decisions or lack thereof made by individuals and how they use and gain access to those scarce resources you mentioned above. Some of which are physical and tangible and others are concepts, e.g. opportunity costs.

In the end who ends up being poor and who ends up being rich isn't itself set in stone or a predetermined and unchanging list of people. Wealth fluxuates constantly throughout a person's life based on their decisions and reactions to their ever changing environment.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by JMapleton
Someone has to be poor, someone has to be rich. Just like someone has to fail the test at school and someone has to pass it. Everyone can't pass, otherwise the test is too easy and they're not learning or challenging themselves.


No one here hates you, at least I do not.

But many people are annoyed by someone who voices radical claims and ideals but doesn't not provide any detail or logic into them.

If anything, you seem to have a lot of anger towards the rich. I think you should understand their true motivations first before hurling the word "greed" around, which is really an ambiguous word that can mean different things to different people.

Yes you do hate me.

I am that "someone" you say has to be poor.

I have no "radical claims and ideals".

I shit the same as you do but I am poor and that in your eyes makes me "radical" to you.

Your motivation is clear, to keep and increase the divide between me the poor and you the rich.

History will repeat itself and rise up against your ilk.

Only then will you realize, oh shit, he was right, he shits the same as I do but then it will be too late.

 

[Matt1970]

Your motivation is clear, to keep and increase the divide between me the poor and you the rich.

History will repeat itself and rise up against your ilk.

Oh ya, I keep forgetting, how is your revolution going? Sorry the occupy movement wasn't what you hoped it would be. Maybe you can regroup and try again.

 

[JMapleton]

Yes you do hate me.

I am that "someone" you say has to be poor.

I have no "radical claims and ideals".

I shit the same as you do but I am poor and that in your eyes makes me "radical" to you.

You only have to be poor because of the decisions you make. I am not rich. But I am trying.

You can be rich if you so desire, but it's your choice.

I disagree that anyone is going to rise up. Even the average Joe on the street knows that if they try, they can be rich as well. They do not want to "rise up" against the rich, they want to "rise up" and be rich.

We're lucky, most Americans, even poor ones, do not agree with you. Most have not want to resorted to theft to gain resources as some on the left want to, they still want to earn it.

 

[JMapleton]

Oh ya, I keep forgetting, how is your revolution going? Sorry the occupy movement wasn't what you hoped it would be. Maybe you can regroup and try again.

Funny thing is, even most of the people in the Occupy Movement aren't advocating such extreme measures as dwcowen. The ones who do are a small minority of angry 20 somethings. A very small group.

Most in the Occupy Movement just were angry about corporate welfare during the bailout. But hey, that's socialism for you.

 

[Sheep221]

Of course i dont have all the answers, but i have ideas. Instead of making 250m/day maybe try paying your employees more money?

I think CEOs making something like 280x more than the average worker is rediculous. Spread the wealth to the ones making you the money.

I just dont understand greed. I dont have that desire like apparently many do. To me, there IS a point where you have enough money and taking more doesnt change anything other than your bank account. Basically if you can live your lifestyle as you see fit with no exceptions on say 5m/year. Why do you need 250m/day?

Again im not a greedy bastard so the idea of making this kind of money were talking about makes no sense to me.

Agree with everything here
In fact this is the only real reason economic crisis exists and no jobs.

Example of corporate greed destroying our economy is:
The american company manufactures computers, the total make cost per one is $100 and it is sold for $600. They go to china and start buying them from chinese manufacturers for $40, but are still selling them for $600 in america. Result: less jobs in america, more work abuse in china.
Corporate executives in alot of companies(not all), mainly america, europe and china are so greedy that it once may turn to system breakdown.
The #1 greed company is Apple, I honestly think they are worst tyrany for either own employees and either contract manufacturers.