Billions are suffering so a few could live in luxury and exploit the People

@GutenMorgenWelt

I bet everybody in this thread belongs to the TOP-20%, TOP-10% or ever TOP-5% richest people of the Earth.

If a homeless person in a wealthy city has $100, it's nothing. But $100 in a rural village near a developing country could make a world of difference.

I understand that quality of living increases with cost of living but I don't think this is a very fair way to put it.

So if you want to dispossess the rich, think twice.

OP might be spouting conspiracy antisemitic crap but the basis of hating billionaires actually has little to do with them just being rich.

Many people in this world are millionaires. If a millionaire spends $1000 a day, they will be broke before three years are up. But a billionaire? They could last 2700 years doing the exact same thing.

To put that into context, if you saved $1000 every single day since the Great Pyramid of Giza was completed, you would have $1.56 billion now. Pretty neat, right? Yet, how much does the richest man in the world, Elon Musk have right now? 850 million. In other words, after more than 4500 years of saving we are still nowhere even close to his wealth.

I'm not saying billionaires don't earn a significant portion of their wealth; they do. But assuming that because someone wants to question how billionaires get so rich, they want to dispossess rich people (who can be millionaires who gained their career, as Noflaps pointed out before, through artistry or incredible discipline in their field of work such as athletics) is quite a slippery slope to go down.

It's amazing how many wish to tell me I'm naive.

Are they all grizzled old men or women of the world, who have stood in numerous boardrooms and acquired vast education and long years of highly varied experience?

I guess so.

But I have to wonder -- did they have the foresight to find and acquire a spaniel of perfection? If not, perhaps they should hesitate before deciding that flaplessness is equivalent to relative inexperience and cluelessness.

@Noflaps said ^

It's amazing how many wish to tell me I'm naive.

Are they all grizzled old men or women of the world, who have stood in scores of boardrooms and acquired vast education and long years of highly varied experience?

I guess so.

But I have to wonder -- did they have the foresight to find and acquire a spaniel of perfection? If not, perhaps they should hesitate before deciding that flaplessness is equivalent to relative inexperience and cluelessness.

Have you tried not cloaking your points in weird cutesy references to animals?

"Spaniel of perfection"

"Flaps" and "Flaplessness"

D'you fancy yourself some kind of George Orwell out here with allegories? Because if so you seem to have missed out on reading Animal Farm in aboooouuuuuttttt 9th grade. And it just makes your points look childish and, well, naive.

Ah, you got me, @Tomorrow_Never_Knows .

I'm hooked on cutesy animal references!

But I read Animal Farm well before 9th grade. Yet, let's be clear: I don't blame that for my animal references.

No, I blame that on a certain addictive cheerfulness. At some point, I became quite happy just to be alive! Indeed, it doesn't really take affluence to find things to really like.

For example, I've been savoring two different versions (both of which I acquired for relatively little at one point) of Zurich 1953 -- one written by Bronstein and another by Najdorf. I wish I had the versions written by others, too -- but one can't have everything.

And when I begin to tire of that, there's always piano music. Recently, some fine poster reminded me of a Greig concerto, and that reminder, and my subsequent exploration, do not require great wads of cash. Yet brought still more happiness!

I guess some find it sinful not to be carefully grim. But I find that difficult to be. I suppose that could be blamed on the example first set by the spaniel years ago. That spaniel is not often angry and upset!

It could also be blamed more plausibly, I guess, on the fine young people who raised me. They were hardly rolling in dough -- indeed, they started adulthood pretty danged poor. But they didn't go around looking for blame -- they just worked and stayed positive. They focused on what they could do -- not on what others could do.

@Noflaps

Why would we blame anybody for a reasonable existence that is more comfortable, even if not luxurious, than the existence of huge numbers of people elsewhere?

Nobody's blaming anybody here. We're simply pointing out something:

To put that into context, if you saved $1000 every single day since the Great Pyramid of Giza was completed, you would have $1.56 billion now. Pretty neat, right? Yet, how much does the richest man in the world, Elon Musk have right now? 850 million. In other words, after more than 4500 years of saving we are still nowhere even close to his wealth.

It's not about suggesting people don't earn their wealth. It's about the idea that not all of that wealth can be earned in the nicest ways.

If a city is too expensive, one can move in the United States.

I'm sorry; I'm not following -- are you suggesting that poor people should move to rural American villages instead where their dollar has more power? Genuine question.

But, over time, families can rise with discipline and effort

Once again, we are talking billionaires here, not millionaires.

No Soviet appartchik must first give permission.

When did "I don't think billionaires acquire all their wealth in the fairest manners, but also understand there is no easy solution" turn into "Let's make this whole country communist!"?

This is some McCarthy levels of slippery slope.

It's amazing how many wish to tell me I'm naive.

I didn't say you were naive. I said your stance on child labor was where you basically suggested that since it is not a thing in America, all American goods will not be produced by child labor, a statement which is indeed, naive, and naive is probably the most respectful way to put it.

Are they all grizzled old men or women of the world, who have stood in numerous boardrooms and acquired vast education and long years of highly varied experience?

Not sure why you feel the need to poke at my age here. Sure, with age comes wisdom. If someone was offerring me life lessons, I would always listen to the older person in the room.

...Understanding where common goods come from requires neither age nor wisdom and it is information that is also frequently taught in public schools, and I would be surprised if you didn't know before.

But they didn't go around looking for blame -- they just worked and stayed positive. They focused on what they could do -- not on what others could do.

Why would I be jealous of a billionaire with more money then they could ever spend in their lifetime? A billionaire who daily has to deal with political/social enemies and whose behavior is analyzed by everyone else to pick apart?

I didn't accuse you of jealousy. Indeed, I don't think I've said anything bad about you at all. If anything, I find you to be civil and intelligent. And you write quite well, which is a joy to witness.

And I am not "poking fun" at you. Indeed, I've said nothing uncomplimentary about you at all. To the contrary. I seem to recall that you reminded me of the Grieg concerto. And I've expressed appreciation to the fine poster who did that. Wasn't that you?

I am accused of taking a "naive" stance -- and if you wish to say that that doesn't make me, per se, "naive," well, thank you. I'm not sure that's a large distinction, but I'm always grateful for civility.

Some others have not always been as civil to me as you are!

But I fear that too many have been taught to resent "billionaires" -- or, if not, at least to view them as some cash cow that must be plucked or sheered (each can select his or her own metaphor) through the efforts of the selfless, noble politicians who present that as an important solution.

Wait. cows aren't plucked or sheered. I should have said "milked." See? Learning continues, if we keep trying!

Some of those politicians have never run a business and don't seem to have terribly pertinent prior experience, but I won't paint all of them with that same brush. Just some. And some of their loyal constituents don't seem to realize how much taxation already can be a surprisingly substantial burden, well before the taxpayer becomes even remotely "rich."

Indeed, I think some coming out of college and landing a decent "starting job" are often surprised by the extent to which substantial tax is ALREADY "a real thing."

The fact that such suggested "solutions" seem, inevitably, to be extended to many NON-billionaires, as well, sort of goes by under the radar. When was the last time an income tax increase ACTUALLY affected only "billionaires" ?

Unfortunately, there aren't all that many billionaires to sheer, I mean milk, in any event!

Unfortunately, some have even suggested "solutions" that would be applied to UNREALIZED, THEORETICAL gain -- which solutions I find (but apparently not as many who know little of accounting or economics find) to be ridiculous, dangerous, even metaphorically poisonous. What a mess.

Some (I'm not accusing anyone here in particular) are even happy to think "eat the rich" and dream of mass confiscation "fer the people." Perhaps they've studied the early Soviet Union, and think it would have turned out grandly, if only THEY had been in charge and been living in a nice dacha.

But such "solutions" involving ever-increasing taxation are easiest to sell, admittedly, if we just focus, over and over, on "billionaires" and tell ourselves that there are not already billions of dollars of waste or abuse in some governmental jurisdictions.

Sure, maybe its fake news. Are we sure? Or maybe some of us (again, I'm pointing to nobody in particular) have no idea that it's even a topical question.

I wonder -- do the states that tax the most NOW seem to be the most well run and problem free? That's worth reflecting upon, perhaps. But don't expect too many popular news sources to do much reflecting FOR us.

And given that voting patterns don't seem to change too quickly, I'm not sure too many are doing such reflection. Or have learned from their favorite sources that there's any need for such reflection.

But all talk of billionaires aside, what troubles me is the extent to which some in politics seem to worry much more about bringing in more and more new revenue, and about cultivating division, then about using existing (often vast) government revenues efficiently and wisely.

Indeed, some asserted attempts to cut waste and abuse seem to cause a lot of angry responses and sometimes a bit of angry denial or distraction. I tend to reflect when I notice that. But perhaps those less naive than I am know the pertinent facts, one way or another.

@greenteakitten said ^

Do a lot of people get rich from existing generational wealth, exploiting workers through conditions that basically equal modern-day slavery, and through loopholes in paying taxes (cough cough modern art)?

Absolutely.

Are most billionaires AHs? (I'm assuming that's what you meant and not millionaires, which is indeed a sum that someone could get through hard work.)

Sure.

BUT
At the end of the day, I have yet to see a single solution proposed to this that isn't hugely impractical/completely ignores the needs of the working class. People get uncomfortable when this is said but...a lot of social justice movements are pretty impossible to support when you're dirt poor already. In fact, a lot of progress made in the name of alleviating exploitation of the working class only lines the pockets of the upper class writing the laws...so...

You know, there was a "dog rancher" (for lack of a better word) I saw on TV who had been raising dogs to be slaughtered & eaten his whole life.

But, one day, his grandson brought his own dog to his home, and he saw his grandson's dog sniffing the other dogs and wanting to play with them, and how this idea that there was a distinction between pet dogs and "dogs for eating" was rubbish. The dogs are fundamentally the same, and he decided that very day he would never be involved in this practice again...

Point being... This is like slavery or the exploitation of workers.

Somebody eventually breaks the chain of suffering, and the governments job is to try to direct people toward this end and to try to make it so the chain is never re-forged.

People will always do bad things - our hope for the future is that we can prevent them from doing it a smuch as possible through a combination of education and nosey bureaucrats.

Again, this is why Humanities degrees are very important - yeah, I know, science & technology are so great...

But what society really needs is more Liberal Arts degrees becoming public servants in government offices actively regulating vice out of existence.

I know this is not popular in the USA right now where small government is King, but you know how it is...

Everyone hates bureaucrats, I know, but we actually saw the homeless population int he Seoul metro area go from 20,000 to less than 900 in the last 20 years because the budget became available and there is now an army of social workers directing how to spend it in the lives of those impacted, and I think that's wonderful.

Guys,we dont need any of these useless tecnology.Even the invention of car is ridicilouos.Its so easy to have an accident when you are driving.Manifacture and sell somehting this dangerous was ridicilous.We could all live in harmony with the nature peacefully.We made very lethal weapons,bombs,tanks.Endless wars.The invention of money and banks was the biggest scam.Money is nothing but a piece of paper.They tell us its worth alot.We all agree without even questioning.I understand the very rich want to keep their position as such superior.But at least dont create so much misery on others who might be actually smarter than you if they had the chances.You know well your superiority is an empty baloon.Stop wars,let everyone live a decent life.

@Noflaps

I didn't accuse you of jealousy. Indeed, I don't think I've said anything bad about you at all. If anything, I find you to be civil and intelligent.

Well thanks for the compliment!

I never said you outright said anything. But it's pretty heavily implied.

Here are a few:

The influence of peers, colleagues and media (social and national) is very hard to overcome.

^^above assumes that I am not conservative enough because of peers, and more subtly implies that I give in too easily to peer pressure instead of critical thinking. A simple scan through my friend group across the political spectrum would show how wrong that assumption is.

But it's important to consider where they're found.

^^ Here again, subtle implications that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Sure, I'm nowhere close to an expert. But I'd like to believe that I know a decent enough amount to also see how that statement isn't entirely factual: it doesn't matter where they're found.

No Soviet appartchik must first give permission.

^^ implies my views are communist and again suggests that I'm naive. Honestly this one is kind of funny as any Chinese American could tell you that their parents drilled it into them how terrible the Cultural Revolution was and to never repeat, or rhyme, history again.

But, over time, families can rise with discipline and effort.

^^Assumes that people who support regulations for billionaires are lazy...something that I can attest isn't true at all.

I didn't even have to form a cooperative to own that spaniel!

^^Assuming that I'm holding communist values for suggesting that maybe billionaires don't obtain their wealth in the prettiest ways is such a slippery slope tbh

And now for the two blatantly obvious ones:

Are they all grizzled old men or women of the world, who have stood in numerous boardrooms and acquired vast education and long years of highly varied experience?

^^openly mocking my age

and

...perhaps they should hesitate before deciding that flaplessness is equivalent to relative inexperience and cluelessness.

Strawmans what I said + more subtly suggests that I don't know as much as I think I know.

To the contrary. I seem to recall that you reminded me of the Grieg concerto. And I've expressed appreciation to the fine poster who did that. Wasn't that you?

I appreciate it but it doesn't undo the above.

I'm not sure that's a large distinction, but I'm always grateful for civility.

Not only is naive not an insult, it is literally the nicest word in my vocabulary for what you said.

I gave you examples of the horrific conditions of child labour, and without a single thought towards what those children go through, you immediately jumped to the conclusion that since it didn't happen in the US it didn't relate to any conversation about billionaires exploiting the masses.

What better word could I have used? Heartless? Cruel? Thoughtless? I do think "naive" was the best description. It's factual and it doesn't needlessly attack someone's character in the case that they genuinely had no idea about something (aka they were naive) which would honestly make sense since child labor hasn't really become a hot button topic until very recent years.

Besides, I mirror the tone of those who talk to me. ̄_(ツ)_/ ̄

And some of their loyal constituents don't seem to realize how much taxation already can be a surprisingly substantial burden, well before the taxpayer becomes even remotely "rich."

I agree that a lot of politicians don't have peoples' best interests at heart but I think it's also important to consider that the main issue is that it's impossible to tax a billionaire proportional to their wealth due to how much is in stocks and/or used in various tax loopholes.

When was the last time an income tax increase ACTUALLY affected only "billionaires"?

Exactly! That's what people mean when they say the tax loopholes need to be eliminated.

and about cultivating division, then about using existing (often vast) government revenues efficiently and wisely.

It's called living with a two-party system where one side must avoid agreeing with the other side at all costs...

Indeed, some asserted attempts to cut waste and abuse seem to cause a lot of angry responses and sometimes a bit of angry denial or distraction.

Is this a reference to DEI/university research funds cut?