The Ultra rich getting richer

[M.Dancer]

Hes a huge supporter of a large estate tax that will cycle wealth back into the pool so that others can compete for it, and he thinks its unhealthy for society to allow the extreme concentration of wealth (and therefore political power) into the hands of the few.

Great. I'm all for estate taxes starting at assets of a billion up...

[dre]

Great. I'm all for estate taxes starting at assets of a billion up...

I think 5-10 million would be about right.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think 5-10 million would be about right.

Sounds good to me.

[M.Dancer]

I think 5-10 million would be about right.

Nah..I might get lucky one day....50 -100 million...I won't get that lucky

[Pliny]

Every sector of society wants more, all the time.

If every sector of society tried to take it then they would be committing crimes of theft and extortion...and so government exists to make it legal.

[Pliny]

He also understands that he accumulated 1000 times as much wealth because of the kind of society he operates in, and because of the huge investment by the public in the technology and infrastructure and people that are part of his operation. Hes a huge supporter of a large estate tax that will cycle wealth back into the pool so that others can compete for it, and he thinks its unhealthy for society to allow the extreme concentration of wealth (and therefore political power) into the hands of the few.

Would you say he is a typical rich person? One that doesn't need taxing?

If all rich people were like Bill we wouldn't need any wealth redistribution, Right?

Bill Gates realizes that he couldn't possibly spend all the money he has on himself, as do most of the ultra-rich, the best thing to do would be to have government waste it away. Unfortunately, Bill thinks governments are doing good with all that taxing and spending.

George Soros thinks government should be able to engineer society and is investing heavily in buying the government he wants. In contrast, Bill Gates would rather just give it away naively thinking

it will benefit the lower class and won't go to waste or line some politician's pocket.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Pliny

[dre]

Would you say he is a typical rich person? One that doesn't need taxing?

If all rich people were like Bill we wouldn't need any wealth redistribution, Right?

Bill Gates realizes that he couldn't possibly spend all the money he has on himself, as do most of the ultra-rich, the best thing to do would be to have government waste it away. Unfortunately, Bill thinks governments are doing good with all that taxing and spending.

George Soros thinks government should be able to engineer society and is investing heavily in buying the government he wants. In contrast, Bill Gates would rather just give it away naively thinking

it will benefit the lower class and won't go to waste or line some politician's pocket.

If all rich people were like Bill we wouldn't need any wealth redistribution, Right?

Yes thats true. If all wealthy people gave up 1/2 of their estates voluntarily you wouldnt need an estate tax. In any case its NOT wealth redistribution. The VAST majority of what the US government does is protect private property rights and build infrastructure to encourage commerce and transactions. Hes paying the most because he used the system the most and benefits from it the most.

If the public didnt build that framework, then Mr Gates would be foraging around in the woods looking for roots and berries.

Bill Gates realizes that he couldn't possibly spend all the money he has on himself, as do most of the ultra-rich, the best thing to do would be to have government waste it away. Unfortunately, Bill thinks governments are doing good with all that taxing and spending.

If a wealthy person doesnt want the government to manage that portion of his estate, then he can give it away to tax deductible charities and they wont pay any estate tax to the government.

In contrast, Bill Gates would rather just give it away naively thinking

it will benefit the lower class and won't go to waste or line some politician's pocket.

Well alarm bells go off when I hear random forum dwellers suggest Mr Gates is naive in terms of what he wants to do with his money. But thats not the case anyhow. By the time he dies he will have given the money to charity and probably wont have a super large estate already. I think about 1/2 of his personal wealth is already gone.

[dre]

Nah..I might get lucky one day....50 -100 million...I won't get that lucky

Right... but it wont make any difference to you anyways. Cause... youll be dead. And if youre in the range where youre paying a large estate tax, then your surviving family members are still going to be sitting on a mint either way.

The way I see it, the very last check I ever write should BOUNCE

[Bonam]

The way I see it, the very last check I ever write should BOUNCE

I'd rather leave a safety margin, in case I live longer than expected. In fact, given that lifetimes are constantly getting longer and medical and life extension technology will only continue to progress more and more quickly, I'd probably plan for having enough money to draw upon in perpetuity.

[blueblood]

Yes thats true. If all wealthy people gave up 1/2 of their estates voluntarily you wouldnt need an estate tax. In any case its NOT wealth redistribution. The VAST majority of what the US government does is protect private property rights and build infrastructure to encourage commerce and transactions. Hes paying the most because he used the system the most and benefits from it the most.

That's ridiculous. That wealthy person provides jobs, pays huge taxes, and invests scores of money. Do you seriously think wealthy people bury their money in the ground? If anything the US government benefits the most from the wealthy person doing business. If the US wants to play that game, there are many other countries who would be more than happy to have that wealthy person do business/live there. This is why there needs to be mandatory business classes to graduate from high school.

If the public didnt build that framework, then Mr Gates would be foraging around in the woods looking for roots and berries.

And if Mr. Gates didn't invent windows et. al the US government would still be using typewriters.

If a wealthy person doesnt want the government to manage that portion of his estate, then he can give it away to tax deductible charities and they wont pay any estate tax to the government.

How about its my estate and I want my company to continue to prosper boosting the economy?

Well alarm bells go off when I hear random forum dwellers suggest Mr Gates is naive in terms of what he wants to do with his money. But thats not the case anyhow. By the time he dies he will have given the money to charity and probably wont have a super large estate already. I think about 1/2 of his personal wealth is already gone.

Mr. Gates is bored and is having a crisis of conscience. Unfortunately its a crying shame because history has showed us time and again the evils of giving free money to poor people. Mr. Gates would do the world a lot more better by starting an investment funds company and having it trade on the NYSE. By doling out money to Africans, he is lighting his money on fire.

As for the comment posted about how taxing the rich 90%, good luck trying that today. The real estate boom in Bermuda would be mind boggling.

[Bonam]

Mr. Gates is bored and is having a crisis of conscience. Unfortunately its a crying shame because history has showed us time and again the evils of giving free money to poor people. Mr. Gates would do the world a lot more better by starting an investment funds company and having it trade on the NYSE. By doling out money to Africans, he is lighting his money on fire.

If I had that kind of money what I'd do is start my own private space agency, I think. Now THAT would do the world some good, and be a hell of a lot of fun.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Mr. Gates is bored and is having a crisis of conscience. Unfortunately its a crying shame because history has showed us time and again the evils of giving free money to poor people. Mr. Gates would do the world a lot more better by starting an investment funds company and having it trade on the NYSE. By doling out money to Africans, he is lighting his money on fire.

*Checks wiki list of what the Bill and Melinda gates foundation has done

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

My link

[maple_leafs182]

How can you say such nonsense. Go back and look at the BBC video (based on a Swedish statistician) I posted above:

I would attribute our longer lifespan to advances in sciences and technologies.

Far worse occurred several thousands years ago.

I'm more worried about the present and future.

The American economy will collapse, they are printing money to pay for debt, that is a sign of a failed economic system. The U.S. dollar will collapse, America will slip into depression bringing down the world economy with it. Millions will lose there jobs and homes, food riots will break out, lots of people will die.

Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Gerald Celente, just try listening to what they are saying. These guys were warning us of the recession prior to the recession, all of them are calling for a collapse in the U.S. Dollar.

Ben Bernake prior to the recession

Peter Schiff prior to the recession

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

[blueblood]

*Checks wiki list of what the Bill and Melinda gates foundation has done

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

My link

Looks like a lot of donations and giving free money away. Thanks for proving my point.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Looks like a lot of donations and giving free money away. Thanks for proving my point.

To causes that are helping wipe out diseases. Or is wiping out polio the same thing to you as lighting money on fire?

[dre]

That's ridiculous. That wealthy person provides jobs, pays huge taxes, and invests scores of money. Do you seriously think wealthy people bury their money in the ground? If anything the US government benefits the most from the wealthy person doing business. If the US wants to play that game, there are many other countries who would be more than happy to have that wealthy person do business/live there. This is why there needs to be mandatory business classes to graduate from high school.

And if Mr. Gates didn't invent windows et. al the US government would still be using typewriters.

How about its my estate and I want my company to continue to prosper boosting the economy?

Mr. Gates is bored and is having a crisis of conscience. Unfortunately its a crying shame because history has showed us time and again the evils of giving free money to poor people. Mr. Gates would do the world a lot more better by starting an investment funds company and having it trade on the NYSE. By doling out money to Africans, he is lighting his money on fire.

As for the comment posted about how taxing the rich 90%, good luck trying that today. The real estate boom in Bermuda would be mind boggling.

Unfortunately its a crying shame because history has showed us time and again the evils of giving free money to poor people.

We arent talking about giving the money to poor people. We are talking about funding our own governments instead of dumping the cost on the rest of the world.

Your assertion is horseshit anyways. What history has shown is that virtually every successful modern industrialized nations has a social safety net. And for good reason... without a social safety net you can have private property rights (for long).

[bloodyminded]

Mr. Gates is bored and is having a crisis of conscience.

If more people would have crises of consciences, the world would demonstrably be a better place. Compassion is wisdom.

Unfortunately its a crying shame because history has showed us time and again the evils of giving free money to poor people.

This opinion is less about economics than political fanaticism.

Mr. Gates would do the world a lot more better by starting an investment funds company and having it trade on the NYSE. By doling out money to Africans, he is lighting his money on fire.

That's right. The lethal poverty in Africa is nature's way of culling the herd, so that the best and brightest will achieve better prominence.

Cream rises.

On the other hand, shit floats.

[bloodyminded]

*Checks wiki list of what the Bill and Melinda gates foundation has done

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

My link

He's speaking from the point of view of theory, which to the extremists will always trump reality.

[Pliny]

If I had that kind of money what I'd do is start my own private space agency, I think. Now THAT would do the world some good, and be a hell of a lot of fun.

And you would provide employment, and future probabilities for mankind, costing the taxpayer zip.

Do you think they would ask for you to then "give back to the community"?

There are many leftist phrases and slogans that irk me but this one ranks as one of the most needling.

What the heck is a community if it isn't individuals and businesses contributing to it's creation. It's all right if someone chooses to contribute some of his earned wealth to the community but to demand that they "give back to the community" is a thorough invalidation of their participation in creating the community in the first place. Besides, it is usually demanded by bullying tactics designed to instill feelings of guilt. When the community should be thanking them for their contribution they instead are demanding an even greater contribution. Is it any wonder outsourcing has come into vogue. No one appreciates them being there until they are gone and then they are vilified even further with lobbying to place even greater restrictions on them.

You know, a community that asks for a corporation or business to "give back to the community" is a dying one and it's members as a whole are not contributing to the community themselves and is a lesson in transferring responsibility to others to do so.

A history of Hersheyville, Pennsylvania comes to mind as to how people's non-contribution to the creation of the community leads them to be demanding, unappreciative and irresponsible.

There may be givers and takers in society it seems but if one wishes to feel a part of a community he has to put a little bit of himself into it and help to create it. If one lets social engineers create society that is an abrogation of one's responsibility and one then must live with the design of others and be helpless in the direction society will take. An irresponsible populace demanding others "give back to the community" can only lead to turmoil.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Your assertion is horseshit anyways. What history has shown is that virtually every successful modern industrialized nations has a social safety net. And for good reason... without a social safety net you can have private property rights (for long).

I have to take issue with your assertion. History has shown that when government takes over the role of charity it is a death knell for that country. It may be decades it may even be a generation or a century but it is the mark of decline.

Germany, under the Kaiser, was one of the first of the modern industrialized nations to have a social safety net. It was destroyed. It became a national socialist republic and was destroyed again. Only to be reconstructed as a democracy.

European nations today are rioting, France, Greece, Spain, Great Britain because the social safety net is threatened.

Most of the nations in Europe, aside from France, were Monarchies or constitutional monarchies before World War One, they existed as such for centuries, and social safety nets were only popularized in the twenties and thirties of the twentieth century with the rise in the popularity of socialism. The cracks in modern industrialized nations are already appearing in less than a century of existence. The universality in suffrage in social democracies has placed an economic strain on society it cannot bear.

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. - Cicero 55BC.

Have we learned anything since?

Of course, Julius Ceasar restored Rome to it's glory and it went on for several centuries until once again government established privilege for it's citizens. It was destroyed mostly by wage and price controls on grains. In order to keep the price of grain cheap it ordered it not be sold above a certain price. Of course, no one could afford to continually take losses growing grains and so food shortages developed. Not only were there people that could not afford food there was now very little food at all.

[Pliny]

Cream rises.

On the other hand, shit floats.

Unless you are a vegan.

[bloodyminded]

European nations today are rioting, France, Greece, Spain, Great Britain because the social safety net is threatened.

People are rioting in Haiti at this very moment...and losing a "social safety net" is certainly not their concern, since the powers that be (including our own, in its interference with democracy) have determined that their shouldn't be any.

And bloody revolutions have been fought against aristocracies...no so-called coddled populace worried about losing their social saftey net is at fault in those cases, either.

Edited December 9, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

I have to take issue with your assertion. History has shown that when government takes over the role of charity it is a death knell for that country. It may be decades it may even be a generation or a century but it is the mark of decline.

Sorry, history shows the exact opposite. EVERY SINGLE STABLE PROPEROUS NATION IN THE WORLD has limited socialism + social safety net. If they didnt they wouldnt last long, because if the underclass grows too large and too desperate/impoverished they become a powerfull political force, and vote in real socialists. Venezuela is a pretty good modern day example of that.

[dre]

And you would provide employment, and future probabilities for mankind, costing the taxpayer zip.

Do you think they would ask for you to then "give back to the community"?

There are many leftist phrases and slogans that irk me but this one ranks as one of the most needling.

What the heck is a community if it isn't individuals and businesses contributing to it's creation. It's all right if someone chooses to contribute some of his earned wealth to the community but to demand that they "give back to the community" is a thorough invalidation of their participation in creating the community in the first place. Besides, it is usually demanded by bullying tactics designed to instill feelings of guilt. When the community should be thanking them for their contribution they instead are demanding an even greater contribution. Is it any wonder outsourcing has come into vogue. No one appreciates them being there until they are gone and then they are vilified even further with lobbying to place even greater restrictions on them.

You know, a community that asks for a corporation or business to "give back to the community" is a dying one and it's members as a whole are not contributing to the community themselves and is a lesson in transferring responsibility to others to do so.

A history of Hersheyville, Pennsylvania comes to mind as to how people's non-contribution to the creation of the community leads them to be demanding, unappreciative and irresponsible.

There may be givers and takers in society it seems but if one wishes to feel a part of a community he has to put a little bit of himself into it and help to create it. If one lets social engineers create society that is an abrogation of one's responsibility and one then must live with the design of others and be helpless in the direction society will take. An irresponsible populace demanding others "give back to the community" can only lead to turmoil.

And you would provide employment, and future probabilities for mankind, costing the taxpayer zip.

Oh yeah? Zip? His business wouldnt hire workers that had recieved subsidized public education? It wouldnt use transportation and communications infrastructure? It wouldnt use aerospace technology rocket technology etc, which has been developed in large part by the public? It wouldnt use ports airports, etc? Wouldnt send stuff in the mail, or use the internet? What if someone threatens his property? criminals or a foreign government or terrorists? Wont he want the police and military to protect his property (enforce private property rights)?

An irresponsible populace demanding others "give back to the community" can only lead to turmoil.

If you want turmoil then bring down the social safety net, and see how long private property rights last. Things like the social safety net, and progressive taxation were NEVER altruistic attempts to help the poor. They were about strenthening the private property rights of the ownership class. They realized that in a democracy they were in danger of an impoverished mob voting away their property rights to one degree or another. It wasnt poor people that came up with these things, and it wasnt poor people that implemented them.

Edited December 9, 2010 by dre

[blueblood]

Sorry, history shows the exact opposite. EVERY SINGLE STABLE PROPEROUS NATION IN THE WORLD has limited socialism + social safety net. If they didnt they wouldnt last long, because if the underclass grows too large and too desperate/impoverished they become a powerfull political force, and vote in real socialists. Venezuela is a pretty good modern day example of that.

And where did that get Venezuela, the only South American country in recession, projected to be in long term recession, and having hyperinflation north of 20+%. Not only that, they're still poor.

Venezuela is an example of what happens when you target the wealthy of a country. They take their ball and leave, leaving the country far worse off and the people poorer than ever.

To suggest that wealthy people want an impoverished underclass is proposterous, the richer the citizens of a country are, the more likely they are to buy things. Unfortunately for you guys, the fastest and most effecient way to do that is for rich people to invest money through debt, equity, and sweat financing; which means that they demand a return on investment for their trouble.

History has shown us that a huge social safety net and socialism has led those countries to rapid failure, did the cold war not teach you anything?

The fact that Bill Gates and his foundation aren't getting a return on their investment shows that he is burning money, however if he wants to burn it then he can have at it. He'll have spend 35 billion dollars and had nothing to show for it, those people will still be poor and diseased. He would be far better to invest in companies operating in Africa which provide jobs and an income to Africans, at the same time collecting more money to invest in other endeavours in developing countries.

And bloody revolutions have been fought against aristocracies...no so-called coddled populace worried about losing their social saftey net is at fault in those cases, either.

And the American revolution was fought against over-taxation to fund the English social safety net. England was left poorer because of it.