26 Richest Billionaires own as much wealth as half the world population.

I know you don’t receive direct tax benefit, it’s indirect because the success of the subsidized business allows them to buy from your business. I had a buddy who did a lot of remodels on houses. One day he commented on how much work there was at that specific time. I told him he was being subsidized by the government. I had to explain to him he was indirectly benefiting from government money doled out to homeowners to increase energy efficiency of their homes.

Similarily, any subsidy I receive indirectly benefits everyone who eats. In theory anyway. The thing we are decrying exists everywhere and everyone is benefiting from it in some way. That’s why I don’t think it will ever change.

Sometimes it is frustrating to see some sectors receive so much. The flip side that keeps things in perspective for me is the fact inequality is nothing new throughout the history of man. What is new is the unprecedented wealth and quality of life of the so called poor in this country and the opportunity for most everyone to not be poor if they make good choices. This reality tempers my desire for massive change when the change most people want would be disastrous over time.

I would still prefer a flat tax with spending only on Constitutionally appropriate things. But like I said before, as a citizenry we aren’t virtuous enough for that to work.

As far as taking advantage of subsidies available that has been a struggle for me personally. While I agree with you in theory about taking what’s available I am compelled by my conscience to try and live my core beliefs of self reliance and independence from government as much as possible.

 

Since the average CEO is making vastly more money than any made 40 years ago, and their companies are not for the most part NOT VASTLY more profitable then yes they are overpaid, and it is at the expense of the rank and file employee and the disappearance of their pension plans.

 

What is nefarious to your mind, I think That is kind of a ambiguous, what is nefarious to some could be acceptable to others. Nefarious to me is morral corrupt. Now I happen to believe That Bezos is morally corrupt for making billions and only paying hard working people $10. an hour and having to be shamed into paying more. St Peter will have something to say i'm sure. He didn't do anything illegal, but to my mind it was nefarious.

 

here comes the right wing ideologues who say it is going to be ok for people to gather wealth by any means legal but but no ok to redistribute some of that gathered wealth legally, oh that is stealing.

 

You deliberately characterize the argument.
I have the right to earn and accumulate whatever wealth I can manage.
How is anyone else entitled to that wealth?

 

Why do you believe other people should be held to your version of morality?
Who are you to impose your version of morality on others?

 

Not necessarily disagreeing with you just throwing this out. If Bezos has billions and can pay $80 an hour to pack boxes and does so, driving up wages to the point other smaller businesses go bankrupt, is this not nefarious as well? The world isn’t rainbows and unicorns just because someone pays labor more. I’m for fair wages but they must be tied to the market or you get bad unintended consequences.

On a related note, does anyone know off hand if Bezos is generous with charity?

 

Did his employees making $10/hour do anything to EARN any more than that?

Just as Walmart gets criticized for being a multi billion dollar company but paying SOME employees rather poorly.

Personally I don't think the door greeter should be paid $40,000 a year.

 

I wonder what these Democrats pay hourly to their babysitter. The Babysitter is trusted with perhaps the most valuable in the parents home.

 

I guess if someone is wealthy and it is not me then I should be angry about that.....no wait, that is just envy.

 

Me neither, but I believe he should be able to afford food, a roof over his head, health care and education for himself and his family with it. Not every human being has the aptitude to excel. Some people are more adept at manual labor and other may have condition that limits them in what work they can do. Should they be condemned to a life of misery because some rich person decided he needed that extra billion he'll never spend?

 

How is he condemned and who did it? Hyperbole much? Condemned?
Did you ever play the queen in drama class?
Ever hear of Josh Blue? He has cerebral palsy. He figured it out and is worth over 1 million $.
Everybody has the same chance but the same out come depends on you. People dropping out of school and wondering why life is so unfair to them. Oh poor poor pitiful me.

 

Dollars are scarce. You seldom see a dollar blowing in the wind, somebody grabs it.

So worry about using those dollars you do have wisely -- because worrying about somebody else's dollars has zero effect other than wasting your own time -- which is even more scarce.

 

look at every income tax law this country has ever passed. Taxes based on the ability to pay are lawful. I as an individual are not entitled to one cent of your money. But the same society that has the rule saying that I can not take your money under penalty of imprisonment has a rule saying that the ones who benefit the most from this society can be taxed more than those who do not. Now if we get rid of laws that allow you to hold on to your money from thieves you can have a country that allows everyone to pay the same 35,000 per year in taxes. I didn't want to get drafted after high school either- too bad for me.

 

I don't, I live in a country of laws and I follow the law. It was not illegal for him to do so, he had every right to pay his employees just the minimum. I just consider it immoral to do so. And he recognized it also and significantly raised his employees wages. If no one called him out on it, he most likely would never have done so.

 

The highlighted sentence puts the whole problem into the proper perspective. . . . Without a patriotic revival of the American public, government is free to operate on its own authority, since a divided populace neuters the concept of democratic control. The commercial sector and workers and consumers ideally should exist in a symbiotic relationship, which is dependent on mutual respect and consideration.

If individuals in society cannot conform to ethical value standards, how can we expect more from government, which is meant to maintain the standards acceptable to that society???

I am not against success; what I am against is when building that success is achieved predicated upon ruinous or detrimental exploitation.

In essence, the survival of our country is totally dependent on whether citizens feel that patriotism is important enough to subjugate their own self interests and adopt a spirit of mutual cooperation.

 

and I don't either. But there is a Amazon warehouse close by in Fall River, those guys work there. they don't pack shelves or sweep floors, those robots move and you have to keep up. It is not an easy job by any means and the money that they got paid was not starvation, but a couple of dollars less an hour than average for this poor section of mass, (there turnover is almost 60%) but with an are of 2x the unemployment of the rest of mass they get a steady stream. Now Walmart has what 100 times more employees than Amazon and thier margins are much smaller being a brick and mortar store that pays local taxes.

 

Now here is the real question.

How many of them are funding the democrats?

 

That is a deflection based on unverified propaganda. . . .Another baseless postulate in hyperpartisan logic that actually makes NO sense at all.

 

The OXFAM report is taken directly from data created by Credit Suisse Bank which also showed that in 2018 the wealth of the worlds 2200 BILLIONAIRES rose a remarkable 12%, while the poorest half of the worlds population saw wealth decline by 11%.The rich are getting vastly richer while the poor get poorer.

 

To the ultra rich collusion with government is far, far more valuable than their tax dollars ever could be.

Consider the financial industry where near every dollar they make is in effect a subsidy.

 

You might not mind paying a 70% cut to government if 100% of your income is stolen via them anyway.

Fences don't mind receiving far under RRP for their stolen goods.

 

How do you figure?

 

Any stats on the form of government the poorest half are living under?

 

Umm... you can't stop allowing corporations to use tax havens. If you have some idea how, then I'd love to hear it.