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

You are right; we are not equal. Some are more intelligent, some are stronger, and some are wealthier.

But in society, that does not grant ANYONE an entitlement to exploit those with lesser advantages.

If you have a Great Dane and a Chihuahua, do you feed them together and let them fight over the food?

Government's job is to give EVERYONE a fighting chance; we should not discourage the successes of the ambitious, but we MUST prevent them from jeopardizing the survival of those with lesser abilities through unfair competition.

 

Who is being exploited?

We don't fight over food like dogs. We work for what we want. Just because boss hawg makes way more than poor bob doesn't mean poor bob is being exploited. It just means he'll have to make do with more beans and less steak than boss hawg is used to.

 

Scams are obviously ILLEGAL exploitation; if you dispute that many things the law allows could be considered exploitation, then you are undeniably ethically challenged.

 

What scams are you referring to?

 

Our economy would be far better if we had better distribution of wealth.With wealth concentrated in just a few hands expenditures decline,spread the wealth expand the economy.

 

So get them poor ass people working harder. Stop worrying about rich people and what they have. If you want more wealth distribution, get those welfare queens out into the workforce.

 

I take cash, cashiers checks, and electronic transfers. What say you send me $1000. Shortly you will come in to more money as a result of the expanding economy and you can send $2000 next month.

 

Yes and they are mainly democrat. Because democrats want their money and give them what they want.

 

I have my own business and I pay my workers well. I do not have access to tax havens - nor do I engage in price fixing or anti competitive practices so - can't really say I am guilty of what I would consider nefarious practices.

Prior to going into business for myself I work for some of the largest of publicly traded corporations who did engage in the above. I worked for years in sales in the chemical sector. In the sector in which I worked there used to be 10 or more companies who would compete for the attention of good sales people. When you got a new account or increased sales you got paid well. Now there is two companies in that sectors - large bohemoths and they screw every penny out of the salesperson. If you like it - too bad - you only have one other company to go to and it is exactly the same - and at the end of the day both are essentially owned by the same Oligopolies. The finance dept actually takes courses in how to screw the salespeople - (not kidding).

So where does that money that I should have been paid go ? If I would have gotten that money it gets immediately spent in the local economy - instead it goes to some nameless faceless shareholder who may not even live in the country - never mind spend in the local economy. In this way some of the cream is skimmed off the top of the milk - multiply by a thousand and you are left with skim milk.

Allowing all these mergers decreases wage competition. The Dow- Dupont merger never should have been allowed. There are laws on the books that are supposed to stop this kind of anti competitive behavior but - they are not enforced.

This is just one small example - I can go on for pages.

It is better to manufacture outside the US than in the US. If you make a shoe in the US - say cost of manufacture is $20, cost of sales is $20 and you sell that shoe for $100 - you will pay tax on $60. If you make the shoe in some slave labor nation - use NIKE as an example - Say cost of manufacture is $10 and the same cost of sales $20 - you do not pay tax on $100.

What you do is sell that shoe to your numbered company in Cayman. That company then sells the shoe to NIKE - US for $60 - cost of sales is the same 20 and you pay tax on $20. All perfectly legal. In this way profits earned in the US are siphoned out of the country. That's how GE made 17 Billion in profit (think it was 2013) and did not pay a cent in taxes.

NIKE/GE - uses roads, infrastructure - benefits from police and military. The worker also benefits from these things. Back in the 50'/60's the worker/Corp tax split was roughly 50/50. Now it is less than 80/20.

Not sure about you but I am not real excited about paying McDonald's share of the tax bill. "Oh Oh" but McDonalds creates all those wonderful jobs. Well - no - they actually don't. If McD was not there - some local operator could sell burgers. The difference being that that local operator would spend the profits in the local economy. Instead ? - nameless faceless shareholder who may not even live in the country - never mind spend in the local economy. That local operator would also purchase locally - McDonalds ? Not so much.

You go the Exxon - the guy selling the gas does not get on nickle from the gas sales - Happu gets the chips and the gum .. would he get some of those profits = spend in the local economy.

At the end of the day - Standard Oil still exists. Exxon, Chevron/Texaco, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP - are owned by the same club. The same banking cartel also owns or controls virtually all of the Fortune 500.

 

Are you suggesting the CEO hasn't earned his pay? What evidence do you have of this?

 

I thought once you told me your business was dependent on the oil or gas energy sector hence my comment on indirect dependence on subsidized business. My apologies if I remembered incorrectly.

I’m offered subsidies but most are easily avoided by just not signing up for them. A couple I’ve not yet figured out how to lawfully avoid within the framework of the USDA and banking industry.

This puts me at quite a disadvantage to my competition who take all they can get.

On the other hand I’ve known some very wealthy people who have only benefited from public goods in creation of their wealth. That’s why I’m skittish of condemning anyone successful without knowing how they became successful.

I’m also not sure what percentage of blame to assign to a business that takes advantage of legal tax breaks as opposed to the government actors. We don’t demonize individuals/families who claim dependents to avoid tax for example. As you brought out and I experience it is hard to complete without participating in the same schemes as everyone else. For that reason, outside of lobbying anyway, I blame government. Bring in lobbying and we’ve got another whole can of worms...

Anyway, yes we have a problem and it probably isn’t going away. I don’t see a clear path to change without instigating government that would devolve into something worse.

When our founders set things up for a virtuous society they knew it couldn’t survive if the virtues went by the wayside. It seems their fears were well founded. Yet I shudder at the thought of the current prevailing offered solutions. They truly are predicated on envy and animosity towards everyone successful regardless of their innocence or guilt.

 

Seems to me that a good salesman can sell any product or service. If the same widgets are only sold by two manufacturers, they almost don't need sales people because the competition is either one or the other. That's why you didn't get paid as much.

That money goes to shareholders who know that the less competition, the better. Yes, many of the shareholders probably don't even live in the country. Whether we like it, or not, it's a global economy. What can be done about it? Just close the borders and only allow American companies to compete with other American companies? Sorry, can't do that.

It's not just shoes, but most manufacturing. What do you want us to do? You'll just have to compete with the rest of the world, like most everybody else. Build a better widget and you can compete with anybody. Don't and you won't.

It's legal because there's not much we can do about it. I can tell you're not a big fan of tax shelters, but it is what it is. It's like Trump's wall. I wish we could just put a nice healthy surcharge on every remission to Mexico to pay for the wall, but then people would simply send it to some other country, which would then forward it to Mexico.

We can't tax or legislate our way out of tax shelters or monopolies. All we can do is do a better job than the other guy.

 

They didn't do that they offered you stuff that you put in your house ad you bought it. Buyers remorse is not a good way to lead your life.

 

Lobbying is a government required activity if you don't want the fruits of your labor winding up in some one else's pocket, Ask WAMU.

 

the sad thing is, many of the 1% would like to see the working class even poorer and themselves even richer

 

Jealous much?

 

For some reason, many think the solution to inequality is to forcibly take property from the wealthy and redistribute it to people who did not earn it.

 

No. The government's job us to protect your rights, including the right to property.
You have the right to pursue happiness; you are in no way entitled to catch it.

 

Why do you think you are entitled to the property of others?

 

Like the Kennedys? Or maybe they marry wealth like John Kerry. What a hypocrite you are, not to mention bitter and envious under achiever.

 

You are correct - most of my business is dependent on oil and gas. Not sure how subsidies to my clients equate to me receiving some kind of tax benefit though. Subsidy or no subsidy - the consumption of oil and gas will remain the same. If a subsidy is available to you - "take it".

The system is what the system is - just because one disagree's with subsidies does not mean that one should not take advantage of them if available. Same with Buffet - I do not blame buffet for using the available tax laws - that's his Job - just as it is the job of the CFO of any publicly traded company to screw the sales people over and minimize wages to maximize profit for shareholders.

It is the nature of the beast that we have created and human nature. It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed.

I do not condemn or blame people or corporations for taking advantage of what is available with respect to tax law.
I condemn the Gov't.

1) allowing (and in fact creating) an unfair playing field - especially with respect to tax law.
2) allowing excess influence in Gov't from the Oligopolies - which skews the rules of the game towards the Oligopolies.
3) not enforcing anti competition legislation and going after companies that engage in various nefarious activities described above.

Like I said - the Dow/Dupont merger should never have been allowed. I do not blame Dow and Dupont for wanting to decrease wage competition and increase their competitive advantage by removing a competitor from the playing field - I blame the Gov't for allowing this to happen.

We often say there is too much Gov't - and I agree with this. This however is an example of the Gov't not doing what it is supposed to do = ensure a fair playing field.

The idea that there should be no Gov't is absurd - Gov't is a necessary evil. Who thinks roads should not exist. The problem is that the Gov't is making one group pay the lions share (the worker) - while Corporations are paying only a small amount.

In some cases the beast is very insidious - it is very hard to predict what happens in complex systems. When however, you see that "something is wrong" - that massive inequality exists and this inequality is a function of unfair practices, regulation and Law - it is the job of the Gov't to fix it.

That is one of the main functions of Gov't - ensure a fair playing field - the Gov't is not doing its job.

 

If a company does not need sales-people - they do not hire them. The term widget was generic - there are differences between the products I sold and it was a highly technical sale.

You do not seem to understand the concept of decreasing wage competition via oligopolism and monopolism.

.

We can do something about it - ensure a level playing field - and stop allowing these corps to use tax havens. "It is what it is" because Gov't allows (and in fact created) this situation.

It is not about competition with the world nor is it about building a better widget. It is about one company having an unfair over another with respect to taxation = one company being taxed on profits at a higher rate than another.

Of course we can legislate our way our of tax shelters and monopolies and it has nothing to do with doing a better job than the other guy.

There is already anti competition and anti monopoly law on the books - it is just not enforced.

 

No clue what you are talking about.

 

The big question is: What can you do with 100+ billions that you just couldn't do with 50?
How many schools, hospitals, affordable housing and jobs could have been created with the money sleeping in an off-shore account?

 

You ask as if it your place to do so.
No one needs to justify what they have to anyone else.