Why do we allow so few to hoard to much wealth?

[Apple Of Sodom]

Like I said there are too many religious based charities, who are nothing but front end for spreading their propaganda. Take the catholic church, look at all of their propaganda charities. Same with other Christian, and even Muslim and Jewish charities.

Please cite sources.

If you are correct, we need charity reform.

 

[QuantumPion]

An interesting stat from Walter Williams: you could tax everyone's income above $250,000 100%, tax corporate profits 100%, and confiscate 100% of the assets, wealth, and holdings of America's 400 billionaires, and STILL not have enough revenue to pay for 3/4 of a single year of the government's spending.

 

[werepossum]

you have a computer. kids in somalia don't have those. you should be donating that, along with everything else that a common person wouldn't have in a 3rd world country.

if you're not doing that, you're a hypocrite.

No no no. You're missing the point that HE decides what is appropriate to own and to donate, for himself and for every other person. A progressive atheist is literally the center of his own universe, the highest form of intelligence he can imagine, so this is entirely appropriate. He's here to make the decisions, other people are only here to do the heavy lifting arranging the world to suit his whims.

the poorest man is the homeless guy on the streets with probably no more than the clothes on his back and the $20 he got from begging that day.

by your logic, the richest man in the world should have $200 and a nicer change of clothes.

LOL +1

You officially and consistently rule this thread.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

An interesting stat from Walter Williams: you could tax everyone's income above $250,000 100%, tax corporate profits 100%, and confiscate 100% of the assets, wealth, and holdings of America's 400 billionaires, and STILL not have enough revenue to pay for 3/4 of a single year of the government's spending.

Hey! Hey! When did we have to start muddying the waters with "statistics" and "facts"? You better remove your sources and throw in some hyperbole and other nonsense if you want to bang with the likes of DCal430!

 

[DCal430]

Please cite sources.

If you are correct, we need charity reform.

What I said is obvious and known to most, sources are not needed.

 

[BoberFett]

What I said is obvious and known to most, sources are not needed.

What is obvious and known to all is that you are a quantifiably one of the worst trolls we've seen in this forum in a long time.

 

[JimW1949]

If you think otherwise, please explain to me how donating ANY money at all is beneficial to me.

I do not think otherwise. I firmly believe having a deduction for charitable contributions is a very good idea. But the concensus of what I was reading in the preceding posts said otherwise.

As far as Microsoft and/or Bill Gates making donations, yes he does, but it isn't quite as charitable as it seems to be on the surface. I recall that Microsoft and/or Bill Gates gave a whole bunch of computers to some schools. I do not recall the precise number of computers donated, but I think it was in the thousands. Sounds like a really good thing right? Yes, it is a good thing, but don't forget two things. One, there was a large tax deduction and two, all those kids using computers with a Windows operating system and using Microsoft software such as Microsoft Word, etc, when these kids grow up and buy a computer what do you think they are going to be using for an operating system and software? They will use what they have grown accustomed to using, which of course will be Windows and Microsoft software. Suppose the schools had gone out and purchased computers with Linux operating systems. Things might be completely different when these kids grow up. So, by insuring the schools got computers with Windows operating systems and Microsoft software, the odds are greatly increased these students will grow up and purchase Microsoft products.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying what Microsoft and/or Bill Gates did in donating all those computers was a bad thing, of course not, it was very good thing and it saved the school systems a lot of money, which is also a very good thing. But you have to keep in mind that what Microsoft and/or Bill Gates did in connection with donating computers, is they were promoting future sales. There is nothing really wrong with that, but just keep in mind that Bill Gates is first and foremost a very shrewd business man and when he does something he has a very good reason for doing it. Sometimes the reasons are not entirely charitable.

Now the Gates Foundation is a good thing and I don't want to start a big debate about this. I just wanted to say that although Bill Gates gives a lot to charities, sometimes he does it for more reasons than just being charitable. While it isn't necessarily wrong to do that, it is just something that we should all keep in mind.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

No no no. You're missing the point that HE decides what is appropriate to own and to donate, for himself and for every other person. A progressive atheist is literally the center of his own universe, the highest form of intelligence he can imagine, so this is entirely appropriate. He's here to make the decisions, other people are only here to do the heavy lifting arranging the world to suit his whims.


LOL +1

You officially and consistently rule this thread.

i rather like boomerang's ownage post from above.

srsly, i don't know who this kid's been brainswashed by or where he comes up with his ideals.
from his POV, it sure is easy to redistribute the wealth of others.

even the hardcore liberals in P&N are having a tough time defending him.

 

[Steeplerot]

If that's leftist economics, well, hell, I don't need to go any further.

It's not, anyone who knows a bit about the Russian revolution also knows Lenin and friends were the hard right of politics back then and totally out of line with mainstream socialists. (mensheviks)

Even Karl Marx himself warned of fundamentalists using the term "dictatorship of the proletarian" to twist into a literal dictatorship party.

The fall of the USSR was a triumph for Socialism regardless of the bitter taste it was medicine greatly needed since 1917 for the left.

The fact is righties here in the USA loved to call USSR Socialism to discredit Socialism as it was a crap dictatorship over there, and of course the Bolsheviks wanted to call it Socialism as it has a positive image to the working classes to hold power.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the right wing generalizations about Leftist history are just that, stupid generalizations that sound good for the uneducated on a rather obscure subject in the USA for power.

The real world is a lot more complicated the Russian revolution doubly so.

How can you categorize "Leftist economics" back then when the Bolsheviks came to power they were challenged by a huge number of parties from the left.


A
Alash (party)
Armenian Revolutionary Federation
B
Belorussian Communist Organisation
Bolshevik
Borotbists
C
Communist Bund (Russia)
Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Lithuania and Belorussia
Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine
Constitutional Democratic Party
E
Erk (party)
F
Folkspartei
G
General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania, Poland and Russia
L
Latvian Farmers' Union
Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party
Left Socialist-Revolutionaries
M
Menshevik
Mezhraiontsy
Musavat
P
Party of Revolutionary Communism
Poale Zion
Progressist Party
R
Revolutionary Ukrainian Party
S
Social Democratic Labour Party of Georgia
Socialist-Revolutionary Party
T
Trudoviks
U
Ukrainian Communist Party
Ukrainian Democratic Party (1904)
Ukrainian Social Democratic Labour Party
Ukrainian Socialist-Revolutionary Party
Union of Toiling Peasants
Y
Yedinstvo


The Bolshevik right wing hardliners did NOT represent the mainstream Left. All these folks in the parties listed above got put in gulags. You know, the actual lefties, the libertarian lefties being some of the first. Same shit as Hitler was doing to his actual lefties.

V Lenin wrote like 2 good books when he did a 180 and tried to be libertarian left to garner support for the Bolsheviks around WW1 time. When he gained power in the "coup" the mask came off and he went right back to right wing BS lefties hated him for turning the peoples revolution into a giant slave camp. -Once again reinforcing what old Comrade Karl (and Marx's rival Bakunin) were worried about in the 1860s.

When you associate lefties with Bolshevism it makes you look really dumb. We have far more reason to despise the traitors of the revolution then righties do. There are endless books going back to the 1800s warning people not to interpret Marxism as undemocratic as it defeats the very purpose of Socialism being based on social equality and personal liberty. (you know, actual liberal stuff) plenty of governments made it through the USSR bs and developed into benign mixed market economies that have even higher standards of living then the mixed market USA. Take the Bolsheviks fail of Russia (which Marx said would happen if Russia became the "leader") out of the picture and Socialism is fine and well across the world and actually settled into a mutual coexistence with capitalism without the violence that the Bolsheviks swore was necessary quite well.

But Socialism is really a scientific theory not a static economic system (google Dialectical Materialism) and is always evolving with the species and our ever changing history for good and bad.

Socialism can be seen to rest on the following principles:

1. The basis of human society is how humans work on nature to produce the means of subsistence.
2. There is a division of labour into social classes (relations of production) based on property ownership where some people live from the labour of others.
3. The system of class division is dependent on the mode of production.
4. The mode of production is based on the level of the productive forces.
5. Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a new emerging class, by overthrowing the "political shell" that enforces the old relations of production no longer corresponding to the new productive forces. This takes place in the superstructure of society, the political arena in the form of revolution, whereby the underclass "liberates" the productive forces with new relations of production, and social relations, corresponding to it.

So there it is, if righties got through that post you should know your "enemy" better instead of listening to your own sides biased view that goes back 100+ years of silly accusations from the ruling classes and their media. Knowledge is power.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

What I said is obvious and known to most, sources are not needed.

Sorry, that is not how debating works. Either give some fucking solid facts or get the fuck outta here. People like you - uninformed, lazy and unwilling to actually provide facts - are the worst people to argue with. It is like arguing economics with my 4 year old.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I do not think otherwise. I firmly believe having a deduction for charitable contributions is a very good idea. But the concensus of what I was reading in the preceding posts said otherwise.

As far as Microsoft and/or Bill Gates making donations, yes he does, but it isn't quite as charitable as it seems to be on the surface. I recall that Microsoft and/or Bill Gates gave a whole bunch of computers to some schools. I do not recall the precise number of computers donated, but I think it was in the thousands. Sounds like a really good thing right? Yes, it is a good thing, but don't forget two things. One, there was a large tax deduction and two, all those kids using computers with a Windows operating system and using Microsoft software such as Microsoft Word, etc, when these kids grow up and buy a computer what do you think they are going to be using for an operating system and software? They will use what they have grown accustomed to using, which of course will be Windows and Microsoft software. Suppose the schools had gone out and purchased computers with Linux operating systems. Things might be completely different when these kids grow up. So, by insuring the schools got computers with Windows operating systems and Microsoft software, the odds are greatly increased these students will grow up and purchase Microsoft products.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying what Microsoft and/or Bill Gates did in donating all those computers was a bad thing, of course not, it was very good thing and it saved the school systems a lot of money, which is also a very good thing. But you have to keep in mind that what Microsoft and/or Bill Gates did in connection with donating computers, is they were promoting future sales. There is nothing really wrong with that, but just keep in mind that Bill Gates is first and foremost a very shrewd business man and when he does something he has a very good reason for doing it. Sometimes the reasons are not entirely charitable.

Now the Gates Foundation is a good thing and I don't want to start a big debate about this. I just wanted to say that although Bill Gates gives a lot to charities, sometimes he does it for more reasons than just being charitable. While it isn't necessarily wrong to do that, it is just something that we should all keep in mind.

So anyone who donates their goods/services is doing it to build customers? Interesting. You want Gates to buy Apple products for all those kids? Only an idiot will sit back and say "There are ulterior motives." How DARE they give children computers?!?!? Do you bitch when food companies give away their products too?

Did it occur to you that, without building that base of customers, the Gates Foundation wouldn't even fucking exist?

Edit: and prove the odds are greatly increased they will grow up to buy an MS product. Show me some sort of study. Or is this "common sense" and "obvious" to "everyone"?

 

[DCal430]

No no no. You're missing the point that HE decides what is appropriate to own and to donate, for himself and for every other person. A progressive atheist is literally the center of his own universe, the highest form of intelligence he can imagine, so this is entirely appropriate. He's here to make the decisions, other people are only here to do the heavy lifting arranging the world to suit his whims.


LOL +1

You officially and consistently rule this thread.

The man with $20 will have more than $20 when you give him what is owed to him from the man with 20 billion dollars. If we redistribute the wealth fairly, the poorest man could have a room, a computer, internet, and maybe even a car.

 

[JS80]

The man with $20 will have more than $20 when you give him what is owed to him from the man with 20 billion dollars. If we redistribute the wealth fairly, the poorest man could have a room, a computer, internet, and maybe even a car.

If you redistribute it evenly poor man gets $2. Congrats. Unless your definition of "fair" is i get $1m first.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

The man with $20 will have more than $20 when you give him what is owed to him from the man with 20 billion dollars. If we redistribute the wealth fairly, the poorest man could have a room, a computer, internet, and maybe even a car.

GDP, World: ~ $58,141 Trillion
Population: ~ 6.8 Billion

GDP / Population = $8,550 for every man, woman and child on the planet.

Shit, with a minimum wage job I can do better than that. Tell me how, on $8,000, can every man woman and child have a room, computer, internet and a car?

Fuck, when we redistribute, who is going to build rooms, manufacturer computers, host websites and make cars anymore?

 

[wuliheron]

Fuck, when we redistribute, who is going to build rooms, manufacturer computers, host websites and make cars anymore?

Illegal immigrants of course!

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

The man with $20 will have more than $20 when you give him what is owed to him from the man with 20 billion dollars. If we redistribute the wealth fairly, the poorest man could have a room, a computer, internet, and maybe even a car.

orly?
why is anything "owed" to him? why is anything "owed" to anyone?

 

[Matt1970]

When someone spends over a million dollar to by some 10,000 square foot house they are hoarding wealth. When people are spending millions in pointless shiny gems they are hoarding wealth. When people die with billions in their names they are hoarding wealth.

No one needs to live in such excessively lavish grandeur while others in Sudan have to eat grass because they can't afford food.

Why do you not seeing anything wrong when a person who spends millions a year on them self, when children in Somalia can't even afford to go to school.

Oh I see now. A millionaire is supposed to give all his cash away and have no assets whatsoever. Any asset - hoarding. You really are the forum idiot.

 

[werepossum]

orly?
why is anything "owed" to him? why is anything "owed" to anyone?

This

and

Oh I see now. A millionaire is supposed to give all his cash away and have no assets whatsoever. Any asset - hoarding. You really are the forum idiot.

this. Nothing is owed to anyone unless they earn it. We are commanded by G-d to charity individually, through the family, and through the church, but this is a command on each of us, not an entitlement. We are not commanded to beggar ourselves, and we certainly are not commanded to hand over our possessions to government for redistribution.

 

[JimW1949]

So anyone who donates their goods/services is doing it to build customers? Interesting. You want Gates to buy Apple products for all those kids? Only an idiot will sit back and say "There are ulterior motives." How DARE they give children computers?!?!? Do you bitch when food companies give away their products too?

Did it occur to you that, without building that base of customers, the Gates Foundation wouldn't even fucking exist?

Edit: and prove the odds are greatly increased they will grow up to buy an MS product. Show me some sort of study. Or is this "common sense" and "obvious" to "everyone"?

Did you actually read and understand what I wrote, or was it more than your limited intelligence could understand?

 

[werepossum]

i rather like boomerang's ownage post from above.

srsly, i don't know who this kid's been brainswashed by or where he comes up with his ideals.
from his POV, it sure is easy to redistribute the wealth of others.

even the hardcore liberals in P&N are having a tough time defending him.

That is true, Boomerang's post was epic. Perhaps you can rule together.

There's an amusing story that I've forgotten who first told, but it concerns a conservative with friends who have a young girl, ten or so. Having heard her parents' diatribes on conservatives, she one day tells the conservative that people need to feed the homeless. He agrees, and tells her "There's a homeless man who hangs out down by the library. Tell you what, I'll take you back to my house and you can cut the grass, rake the leaves, and weed the flower bed. I'll give you $20. Then I'll drive you down to the library and you can give it to him."

The little girl thinks for a moment, then says "Why doesn't he cut the grass, rake the leaves, and weed the flower bed. Then he'll get the $20."

The conservative tells her "Welcome to the Republican Party" and says her parents haven't talked to him since. Point is, these solutions are easy when it's someone else's money you're giving away. Some people grow up as liberals and directly try to fix these problems, some grow up as conservatives and give individually and through family and church, and some people just never grow past the stage of insisting that other people are there to do their bidding. We call those people progressives, and they're always willing to give you the shirt off someone else's back.

 

[Nebor]

And here is where the capitalists show their true colors, sorry guys we will win. All forms of slavery is destined to lose and Democracy will win in the end. Capitalists will hang themselves from the very ropes we make for them. It is in the very DNA of our species to have made it this far from millenia of endless serfdom in quite a few forms. Capitalism is next. :thumbsup:

How do you figure you'll win? You're ideologically opposed to violence and we're predisposed towards it. I'd sooner kill you that pay you NOT to work because you feel entitled to a certain standard of living. Srs.

 

[werepossum]

how do you figure you'll win? You're ideologically opposed to violence and we're predisposed towards it. I'd sooner kill you that pay you not to work because you feel entitled to a certain standard of living. Srs.

lol +1

 

[IndyColtsFan]

That is true, Boomerang's post was epic. Perhaps you can rule together.

There's an amusing story that I've forgotten who first told, but it concerns a conservative with friends who have a young girl, ten or so. Having heard her parents' diatribes on conservatives, she one day tells the conservative that people need to feed the homeless. He agrees, and tells her "There's a homeless man who hangs out down by the library. Tell you what, I'll take you back to my house and you can cut the grass, rake the leaves, and weed the flower bed. I'll give you $20. Then I'll drive you down to the library and you can give it to him."

The little girl thinks for a moment, then says "Why doesn't he cut the grass, rake the leaves, and weed the flower bed. Then he'll get the $20."

The conservative tells her "Welcome to the Republican Party" and says her parents haven't talked to him since. Point is, these solutions are easy when it's someone else's money you're giving away. Some people grow up as liberals and directly try to fix these problems, some grow up as conservatives and give individually and through family and church, and some people just never grow past the stage of insisting that other people are there to do their bidding. We call those people progressives, and they're always willing to give you the shirt off someone else's back.

I may need to change my signature and include the quote above.

 

[chin311]

Didn't read this whole thread, but it caught my eye. I watched that documentary yesterday on Netflix, http://www.theonepercentdocumentary.com/

pretty interesting stuff

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Did you actually read and understand what I wrote, or was it more than your limited intelligence could understand?

Well, I read it and understood it, and your point was ridiculous. Sure, you kept sprinkling in things like "Yeah, that's a good thing, BUT.." Where I'm from, that's called a backhanded compliment. As AoS said, you're basically saying that Gates had ulterior motives and frankly, that's a load of crap. So what if it did increase his sales down the line? Guess what? That means more donations from him!

Answer this question -- what would have been a "pure" donation from Bill? Would you have been happy if he went out and bought a bunch of Macs and handed them out? Oh, snap, Microsoft makes Office for Mac so I suppose THAT would've just been a sneaky move on Microsoft's part to sell more Office licenses.

Would you have been happier if he just wrote a check instead, or would you be in here hinting that he was really "financially pressuring them" to buy MS products?

No matter what anyone with money does, they can't win around here. It is either "That evil rich guy isn't donating enough and is hoarding the money!!!" or "The only reason he donated was to (choose one): increase his own sales and/or to get a tax deduction." It can never be the obvious reason: "The rich guy cares about the world and wants to kindly help others, so he used the most readily available resources to make a difference."