Owning a $40m home is disgusting...

....but it's the owner's choice.

I have a moral problem with someone spending this much on a house. Personally, if I were in their position I'd sell the home, live more modestly and give most the money to charity. This is different from liberals though. Liberals have both a moral problem with the $40 million dollar home, AND they seek to take or marginalize the value of that home. Through heavy taxation or some other indirect means (of course they can't do it directly that would be "theft")

Disclaimer: I'm ripping off Milton Friedman here

Freedom includes freedom to spend your money as you choose, it's the same as other fundamental rights related to freedom. In the words of the man himself it's a freedom of choice. When you restrict capitalism, namely the right of the market to decide how money is allocated, you are taking away that freedom of choice. For instance, if the government placed a sin tax on alcohol they would drive up the cost to the consumer. Thus the consumer's choice of allocating his income is restricted and so his freedom in choosing what to buy (and in what quantity) is restricted.

Similarly, when you place a higher tax on some individual, that individual's choices are restricted. They have a finite amount of money to spend and they must now choose either less or none of something to spend that income on.

It works the same way with abortions, gay marriage, and gun rights. In all these cases your freedoms are being restricted similarly. So the only argument you can take is that you want to restrict some freedoms, which makes sense. Freedom can't be 100% for everything (the freedom to kill people etc.). I'm not arguing that taxes shouldn't exist, but rather that you must acknowledge you are taking away someone's freedoms in doing so. So make sure you stand by restricting those freedoms before you impose higher taxation, regardless of whether that's okay or not. Personally I don't hold enmity towards others' wealth like liberals do, and think people should have a great deal of freedom in how they spend their money. Thus, lower taxation. But we all know that liberals are a jealous bunch and they favor restricting freedoms more in these aspects

So liberals, let's try to be objective about being subjective. How much freedom of choice should individuals in the higher tax brackets give up? Think top tax rates, real estate taxes on the $40m home, or maybe you just want the government to confiscate the home? It's unlikely you want them to do this directly but if you tax their income enough, that's the equivalent of taxing them the value of that home.

For instance, if someone makes $40 million dollars this year and is taxed at 25% in four years the value of their home is lost. It's an indirect way of taking away wealth equivalent to the value of that home from the individual but it's the same result

 

When a rich man builds himself a big home, all that wealth is transferred to contractors, architects, engineers, and working men.

Only an idiot complains when a rich man spends his money.

 

Not entirely true. A lot of the cost of the home goes to the companies (in many cases contractors yes) who build the home, and then go through that as dividends or some other transfer to the owners of that company. The investors in the company are typically already wealthy. And wealthy people tend to put more of their wealth towards financial assets than actually spend the money on the economy.

So people complaining about a rich man spending their money aren't necessarily idiots, as long as they understand this cycle (most liberals don't they just whine for the sake of whining, see my other thread on this).

The real question is whether you think that transfer of the money from the wealthy man to the company, and then in turn mostly to other wealthy men who own that company, is fair. Again, since the wealthy put a higher % of their money in financial assets this cycle just continues over and over again. Are financial assets productive enough to society to justify this?

Nah it's easier to just simplify it and call people who disagree with you idiots.

 

No, you're an idiot. If someone built a house worth $40 million, that would mean jobs for over 100 people. And people would get rich in the process. Why are you opposed to that? Are you a Communist?

 

you definitely dont understand home ownership and the construction industry

 

It's all a matter of perspective. For instance, the Koch brothers are worth about 38 billion and George Soros is worth about 20 billion. For those guys, 40 mil is 'chump change'. Soros' Westchester Retreat is worth about 20 million alone. Guys like that dump millions into charities as well for various reasons.

If I am reading your post correctly it seems that although you may not personally approve of a 40 million dollar house, the rich guy has every right to have it....I would agree. The bigger problem is forced altruism to the point where government becomes the taker and distributor of a significant portion of the private wealth of its citizens.

 

Owning a $40 million house is admirable. Living in a carboard box? Now that's disgusting.

 

When a rich man builds himself a big home, all that wealth is transferred to:

1. contracting companies
2. architect companies
3. engineering companies
4. and eventually after shareholders have been satisfied, CEO's have bonuses etc... etc... working men get their near minimum wage.

- - - Updated - - -

Companies and their CEO's get rich, the labourers and workers get near minimum wage.

 

You don't know what you're talking about. Construction work pays about $18-$25/hr. depending on the job. Skilled trades like carpenters, electricians, pipe fitters, will easily double that. Of course, if it is Texas, Arizona, or California where those jobs are performed by illegals, cut all those figures in half.

 

That 40$MILLION, is not going to trickle down far at 17& an hour...

You missed the point, congrats!

 

No YOU missed the point: $18/hr. is far better than $0/hr. Uhhh, congratulations to YOU.

 

So what you're saying is they should be grateful for the scraps thrown their way...

Still missing the point I see...

 

No, I'm saying that the politics of envy is a ridiculous philosophy and that if a guy spends $40 million on a house, there are a whole lot of people who will benefit from it... and that they would benefit to a far-lesser degree if he only spent $20 million on it because you made him feel guilty for building a $40 million house.

 

Oh please don't tke the easy way out and accuse me of envy - you have no idea of my circumstances. That is a pathetic cop out.

Trickle down does not work, it's been proven so over and over. Fools and wannabes buy into it as they can hope one day that they might possibly be one of these super rich, when statistically, they never will.

The USA has the worst social mobility in the tern world - if you are born into poverty, you will more than likely die there. Land of opportunity no more; the treasured American Dream is no more.

 

This is called a distinction without a difference.

 

You're just pissed off because the cops took away your shopping cart.

 

So I offer you opinion and fact and you offer me this; a submission and acceptance of your failure.

 

We don't have a problem with wealth. We have a problem with people that exploit their laborers and others(manufacturers/suppliers) to make their wealth. And then those wealthy influence politicians to get legislation done in their favor.

If YOU or I got to call the shots in Washington, you think we wouldn't be concerned about our own interests first? If you own an oil company are you going to enact legislation that hurts oil production/manufacturing/sales? If you own a restaurant are you going to enact legislation that hurts your business or helps your business? Which would be the best business decision to make? One that hurts or one that helps?

If you owned an oil company(which must continue to make money to stay afloat) then when it comes to drilling for oil, its most reasonable to assume that if you got to call the shots in washington.............that every inch of USA land/property would become fair game for YOU to drill from. No one else, but YOU! Why would you let your competitor drill for the oil you need to sale to make money? Why would you restrict the amount of land that can be drilled, no matter if it disrupts land owners around you. YOU HAVE TO MAKE MONEY! Screw them and most would do so because the ability to make money(which is good for business) is a much higher priority than being concerned with your neighbors(who are just trying to keep you from making money and that's bad for business).

That's capitalism at its finest and why it cannot run unrestricted!

 

"...if you are born into poverty, you will more than likely die there."

Taxcutter says:
Ask Oprah Winfrey.

 

No wonder you are a conservative, you understand nothing of wealth or the economy.

 

Do you understand the highlighted words?

 

The difference here between liberals and conservatives, is that not only do liberals believe that a home of this magnitude is immoral, but they would seek laws to prevent such a home being built.
In fact if left to liberals, no one person would be allowed to have the wealth to build such a home in the first place.

 

What an asinine statement.

 

What is the moral issue? It's there money, if they can afford 40 million dollar house and want a 40 million dollar house they can have one. Last I checked this is a free country....for now anyway.

"At some point you have made enough money" President Obama uttered these words once but I highly doubt upon leaving the White House....he will ever think, with speaking engagements, book deals, consulting etc. etc. etc. etc. that he has "made enough money".

 

Three guesses as to who lives here: