Should it be illegal to own a billion dollars?

I doubt many people will read this with an open mind, but I think everyone should. So many of our problems are caused by people who aren't affected by our problems and don't give a shit about us.

Some ideas about how to make the world better require careful, nuanced thinking about how best to balance competing interests. Others don’t: Billionaires are bad. We should presumptively get rid of billionaires. All of them.

Does this sound like an incitement to the most dreaded kind of revolution, when people are struck down by the mob simply on the basis of some crude simple standard? It is not. The people who have a billion dollars are fine; they may go on living. It is just that, for the sake of everyone else (and, honestly, for their own sake) they must not be allowed to possess a billion dollars.

No one needs a billion dollars. No one deserves a billion dollars. There is a widespread moral and conceptual error, in a society saturated in the ideology of competition and monetary success, that the property a person has gotten does not simply belong to that person but is, somehow, itself an embodiment of their personhood—that to separate a person from property is to attack their human existence.

This is true to an extent—to the extent that property secures a person food, and shelter, and physical security, and health and futurity. Even, despite the inequities and injustices that have emerged by this level, a person’s opportunities to have leisure, to make art, etc.

None of this comes anywhere near adding up to a billion dollars.

Another error is the belief that billionaires have made their money by adding value to society, of which they take a minor share. One pictures some great industrialist inventing and manufacturing a useful item, which makes every single person’s life better, and in return receiving a small share of the price of the item.

A kindergarten teacher, teaching 25 new people a year not to bite each other and to work in occasional harmony with strangers, produces far more social good in a lifetime than an industrialist does. Even to picture the billionaire as a productive industrialist is too optimistic—read up and down the Forbes list, larded with monopolists, retailers, retail monopolists, the heirs of retail monopolies, real estate magnates, Mark Zuckerberg.

What do they do with all their extra money? They buy atrocious houses. They shut down publications. They buy politicians, over and under the table. Now a whole batch of them have moved directly into government—and we have the most corrupt and incompetent executive branch in memory to show for it.

https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/16/no-billionaires/

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I doubt many people will read this with an open mind, but I think everyone should. So many of our problems are caused by people who aren't affected by our problems and don't give a shit about us.

Some ideas about how to make the world better require careful, nuanced thinking about how best to balance competing interests. Others don’t: Billionaires are bad. We should presumptively get rid of billionaires. All of them.

Does this sound like an incitement to the most dreaded kind of revolution, when people are struck down by the mob simply on the basis of some crude simple standard? It is not. The people who have a billion dollars are fine; they may go on living. It is just that, for the sake of everyone else (and, honestly, for their own sake) they must not be allowed to possess a billion dollars.

No one needs a billion dollars. No one deserves a billion dollars. There is a widespread moral and conceptual error, in a society saturated in the ideology of competition and monetary success, that the property a person has gotten does not simply belong to that person but is, somehow, itself an embodiment of their personhood—that to separate a person from property is to attack their human existence.

This is true to an extent—to the extent that property secures a person food, and shelter, and physical security, and health and futurity. Even, despite the inequities and injustices that have emerged by this level, a person’s opportunities to have leisure, to make art, etc.

None of this comes anywhere near adding up to a billion dollars.

Another error is the belief that billionaires have made their money by adding value to society, of which they take a minor share. One pictures some great industrialist inventing and manufacturing a useful item, which makes every single person’s life better, and in return receiving a small share of the price of the item.

A kindergarten teacher, teaching 25 new people a year not to bite each other and to work in occasional harmony with strangers, produces far more social good in a lifetime than an industrialist does. Even to picture the billionaire as a productive industrialist is too optimistic—read up and down the Forbes list, larded with monopolists, retailers, retail monopolists, the heirs of retail monopolies, real estate magnates, Mark Zuckerberg.

What do they do with all their extra money? They buy atrocious houses. They shut down publications. They buy politicians, over and under the table. Now a whole batch of them have moved directly into government—and we have the most corrupt and incompetent executive branch in memory to show for it.

https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/16/no-billionaires/

OK, firstly the answer to the thread title. Obviously not. But then the OP isn't really saying as much. And imo, of course people should be allowed to own a billion dollars if they earned it.

If you built a company and that company makes billions and the company pays a fair wage to its employees, then yes, why shouldn't the founder be a billionaire?

Not all billionaires are bad, look at the philanthropy of the likes of Bill Gates to see that. Not that all billionaires are like Gates, but still.

And comparing to teachers (or any other job which is physically and mentally draining while earning barely a fraction of a billionaire), to billionaires is unfair. A teacher (or nurse, policeman etc.) is paid by the state in many cases, or paid from a very limited pool in any case. They simply CANNOT be paid ridiculous sums without either a) increasing taxes or b) increasing costs of a vital public service. Those jobs in any case are done by people who generally love and see value in doing what they're doing in itself.

The point is, just because they are paid subjectively less than their value is actually worth to society, does not mean we should cap the income of the megarich, who did nothing wrong (in earning money in itself) but be successful.

At the same time, IF a billionaire is ACTIVELY harming society in pursuit of financial gain - hit them hard.

And I am ABSOLUTELY in favour of huge inheritance taxes on millionaires and billionaires, since their offspring did nothing to deserve the massive inheritance and that money COULD be used for the good of society.

Going back to Gates, he obviously understands this and has already pledged his entire fortune to good causes. Sadly, not all billionaires are so generous...

As to the money in politics - this is a major issue, but you don't need to be a billionaire to have influence there. Those relatively poor 'millionaires' have enough sway too, should we consider limiting everyone's income over $1,000,000?

Just because no one 'needs' a billion dollars, doesn't mean people shouldn't be 'allowed' to have a billion dollars. Many a super rich person will have changed lives with their charitable donations. We shouldn't kill the motivation to do that by making 'rich' a dirty word.

Of course no one needs a billion dollars, no one needs two cars or 50 pairs of shoes either, but I dont think it's up to outsiders to judge what anyone else has as long as they have not broken the law to accumulate what they have.

and given that the politics of envy is alive and strong in certain mainstream political ideologies, of course the question will be mutated eventually to "should it be illegal to own 10 bucks/quid"

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I doubt many people will read this with an open mind, but I think everyone should. So many of our problems are caused by people who aren't affected by our problems and don't give a shit about us.

Some ideas about how to make the world better require careful, nuanced thinking about how best to balance competing interests. Others don’t: Billionaires are bad. We should presumptively get rid of billionaires. All of them.

Does this sound like an incitement to the most dreaded kind of revolution, when people are struck down by the mob simply on the basis of some crude simple standard? It is not. The people who have a billion dollars are fine; they may go on living. It is just that, for the sake of everyone else (and, honestly, for their own sake) they must not be allowed to possess a billion dollars.

No one needs a billion dollars. No one deserves a billion dollars. There is a widespread moral and conceptual error, in a society saturated in the ideology of competition and monetary success, that the property a person has gotten does not simply belong to that person but is, somehow, itself an embodiment of their personhood—that to separate a person from property is to attack their human existence.

This is true to an extent—to the extent that property secures a person food, and shelter, and physical security, and health and futurity. Even, despite the inequities and injustices that have emerged by this level, a person’s opportunities to have leisure, to make art, etc.

None of this comes anywhere near adding up to a billion dollars.

Another error is the belief that billionaires have made their money by adding value to society, of which they take a minor share. One pictures some great industrialist inventing and manufacturing a useful item, which makes every single person’s life better, and in return receiving a small share of the price of the item.

A kindergarten teacher, teaching 25 new people a year not to bite each other and to work in occasional harmony with strangers, produces far more social good in a lifetime than an industrialist does. Even to picture the billionaire as a productive industrialist is too optimistic—read up and down the Forbes list, larded with monopolists, retailers, retail monopolists, the heirs of retail monopolies, real estate magnates, Mark Zuckerberg.

What do they do with all their extra money? They buy atrocious houses. They shut down publications. They buy politicians, over and under the table. Now a whole batch of them have moved directly into government—and we have the most corrupt and incompetent executive branch in memory to show for it.

https://hmmdaily.com/2018/10/16/no-billionaires/

How does the wealth of another man affect your life?

Lord Foul wrote:and given that the politics of envy is alive and strong in certain mainstream political ideologies, of course the question will be mutated eventually to "should it be illegal to own 10 bucks/quid"

Tens of millions have been killed based on the politics of envy.  It's a nasty thing when it takes over a society.

Eilzel wrote:[quote=">

And I am ABSOLUTELY in favour of huge inheritance taxes on millionaires and billionaires, since their offspring did nothing to deserve the massive inheritance and that money COULD be used for the good of society.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Lez, but definitely not that particular point.

Provided the money and/or assets have been acquired and accrued legally they will already have been taxed at at least 40, and most probably 45, percent income tax plus capital gains tax.

The Treasury will take another 45 per cent of everything in probate - money, property and possessions - over a modest £325,000, or the cost of the average house in many parts of the country.

What right has the State to lay claim to even heavier confiscatory taxes on the death of the subject?

And how do you know that the "offspring" have done nothing to deserve money and assets that belong (and have been paid for and taxed) to their parents? Many family members work bloody hard in building up, running and working for family enterprises, and a hell of a lot of them will have done the State's job for it in providing care and support in times of illness, age and infirmity.

have a

Lord Foul wrote:and given that the politics of envy is alive and strong in certain mainstream political ideologies, of course the question will be mutated eventually to "should it be illegal to own 10 bucks/quid"

+1

Envy of others because of money is a terrible thing. Those who indulge in it need to stop and concentrate on their own life.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Eilzel wrote:[quote=">

And I am ABSOLUTELY in favour of huge inheritance taxes on millionaires and billionaires, since their offspring did nothing to deserve the massive inheritance and that money COULD be used for the good of society.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Lez, but definitely not that particular point.

Provided the money and/or assets have been acquired and accrued legally they will already have been taxed at at least 40, and most probably 45, percent income tax plus capital gains tax.

The Treasury will take another 45 per cent of everything in probate - money, property and possessions - over a modest £325,000, or the cost of the average house in many parts of the country.

What right has the State to lay claim to even heavier confiscatory taxes on the death of the subject?

And how do you know that the "offspring" have done nothing to deserve money and assets that belong (and have been paid for and taxed) to their parents? Many family members work bloody hard in building up, running and working for family enterprises, and a hell of a lot of them will have done the State's job for it in providing care and support in times of illness, age and infirmity.

Presumably, if the children of billionaires have senior positions in their parent's billion dollar business, this means a) they may take over said billion dollar business and/or b) they are probably extreme rich themselves.

I wouldn't tax people out of aspiration as suggested in the OP, but taxing the megarich 50% on their death means millions or billions STILL pass to their (already super rich) offspring, but we'd also be able to use some of that money on projects to help those less fortunate.

It's not like I suggest taking everything. Half of 2 billion dollars is still a billion dollars, half of a billion is five hundred million - no one is 'suffering' here

And I absolutely do not advocate a massive (or any) inheritance tax on middle or low income earners.

Eilzel wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say, Lez, but definitely not that particular point.

Provided the money and/or assets have been acquired and accrued legally they will already have been taxed at at least 40, and most probably 45, percent income tax plus capital gains tax.

The Treasury will take another 45 per cent of everything in probate - money, property and possessions - over a modest £325,000, or the cost of the average house in many parts of the country.

What right has the State to lay claim to even heavier confiscatory taxes on the death of the subject?

And how do you know that the "offspring" have done nothing to deserve money and assets that belong (and have been paid for and taxed) to their parents? Many family members work bloody hard in building up, running and working for family enterprises, and a hell of a lot of them will have done the State's job for it in providing care and support in times of illness, age and infirmity.

Presumably, if the children of billionaires have senior positions in their parent's billion dollar business, this means a) they may take over said billion dollar business and/or b) they are probably extreme rich themselves.

I wouldn't tax people out of aspiration as suggested in the OP, but taxing the megarich 50% on their death means millions or billions STILL pass to their (already super rich) offspring, but we'd also be able to use some of that money on projects to help those less fortunate.

It's not like I suggest taking everything. Half of 2 billion dollars is still a billion dollars, half of a billion is five hundred million - no one is 'suffering' here

And I absolutely do not advocate a massive (or any) inheritance tax on middle or low income earners.

You should not on anyone, as its none of anybody else's business, what families decide to do with their money

What you are doing and the state is enforcing your beliefs onto someone and against their wishes also

Like as Fred said, this is simple greed by the state, when  that said person has already paid their taxes through life and now you want to gain more tax off this perosn in death. Which I find deplorable. As its nothing more than a stealth death tax

Allow people to decide for themselves if they want to be charitable

The moment you try to enfdorce your beliefs, you become no better thabn the radcially religious

Many are right when they say envy is at the core, of leftist thinking

Its why one of the oldest hates is envy that stems from the left

...and no reparations or fines against those billionaires for all of their environmental damages,  community upheavals, mass unemployment, destruction of small- and medium-sized businesses, either...

If big businesses and their billionaire oligarchs, heirs and dictators want to fuck over the world even more, we should be praising them to the high heavens, and rewarding them further with even lower taxes, more loopholes, and easier access to tax havens and bolt holes..

All of you ungrateful 'lefty', bludging or hard-working suckers should be more grateful for what your betters have done to this world --  forget that "global warming" scam,  leave the poor to look after themselves -- it's all their fault anway,   don't worry about education, healthcare, work opportunities, access to shelter --  if you can't afford it, you simply don't deserve it  !  

Just ask  LF, Thor and Maddog --  there's no such thing as a bad billionaire --  just all those 'envious' red flag-waving hordes waiting to drag them down..

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say, Lez, but definitely not that particular point.

Provided the money and/or assets have been acquired and accrued legally they will already have been taxed at at least 40, and most probably 45, percent income tax plus capital gains tax.

The Treasury will take another 45 per cent of everything in probate - money, property and possessions - over a modest £325,000, or the cost of the average house in many parts of the country.

What right has the State to lay claim to even heavier confiscatory taxes on the death of the subject?

And how do you know that the "offspring" have done nothing to deserve money and assets that belong (and have been paid for and taxed) to their parents? Many family members work bloody hard in building up, running and working for family enterprises, and a hell of a lot of them will have done the State's job for it in providing care and support in times of illness, age and infirmity.

Presumably, if the children of billionaires have senior positions in their parent's billion dollar business, this means a) they may take over said billion dollar business and/or b) they are probably extreme rich themselves.

I wouldn't tax people out of aspiration as suggested in the OP, but taxing the megarich 50% on their death means millions or billions STILL pass to their (already super rich) offspring, but we'd also be able to use some of that money on projects to help those less fortunate.

It's not like I suggest taking everything. Half of 2 billion dollars is still a billion dollars, half of a billion is five hundred million - no one is 'suffering' here

And I absolutely do not advocate a massive (or any) inheritance tax on middle or low income earners.

You should not on anyone, as its none of anybody else's business, what families decide to do with their money

What you are doing and the state is enforcing your beliefs onto someone and against their wishes also

Like as Fred said, this is simple greed by the state, when  that said person has already paid their taxes through life and now you want to gain more tax off this perosn in death. Which I find deplorable. As its nothing more than a stealth death tax

Allow people to decide for themselves if they want to be charitable

The moment you try to enfdorce your beliefs, you become no better thabn the radcially religious

Many are right when they say envy is at the core, of leftist thinking

Its why one of the oldest hates is envy that stems from the left

Envy? I don't work for the state, didge, so how am I being greedy? I don't benefit from inheritance taxes.

And my reasoning is clear - the billions in revenue can be used for various reason: to update hospital equipment, fund law enforcement, pay teachers a higher salary or whatever else. That is not 'envy'. The term 'politics of envy' is a nonsense term to try and discredit social thinking intended to help those less fortunate in life.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

...and no reparations or fines against those billionaires for all of their environmental damages,  community upheavals, mass unemployment, destruction of small- and medium-sized businesses, either...

If big businesses and their billionaire oligarchs, heirs and dictators want to fuck over the world even more, we should be praising them to the high heavens, and rewarding them further with even lower taxes, more loopholes, and easier access to tax havens and bolt holes..

All of you ungrateful 'lefty', bludging or hard-working suckers should be more grateful for what your betters have done to this world --  forget that "global warming" scam,  leave the poor to look after themselves -- it's all their fault anway,   don't worry about education, healthcare, work opportunities, access to shelter --  if you can't afford it, you simply don't deserve it  !  

Just ask  LF, Thor and Maddog --  there's no such thing as a bad billionaire --  just all those 'envious' red flag-waving hordes waiting to drag them down..

It's a good job I know you better than that

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

...and no reparations or fines against those billionaires for all of their environmental damages,  community upheavals, mass unemployment, destruction of small- and medium-sized businesses, either...

If big businesses and their billionaire oligarchs, heirs and dictators want to fuck over the world even more, we should be praising them to the high heavens, and rewarding them further with even lower taxes, more loopholes, and easier access to tax havens and bolt holes..

All of you ungrateful 'lefty', bludging or hard-working suckers should be more grateful for what your betters have done to this world --  forget that "global warming" scam,  leave the poor to look after themselves -- it's all their fault anway,   don't worry about education, healthcare, work opportunities, access to shelter --  if you can't afford it, you simply don't deserve it  !  

Just ask  LF, Thor and Maddog --  there's no such thing as a bad billionaire --  just all those 'envious' red flag-waving hordes waiting to drag them down..

A billionaire will pay more taxes in a week than you pay in a lifetime.  How much does one person owe society?

And why are you always so fucking angry?

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

...and no reparations or fines against those billionaires for all of their environmental damages,  community upheavals, mass unemployment, destruction of small- and medium-sized businesses, either...

If big businesses and their billionaire oligarchs, heirs and dictators want to fuck over the world even more, we should be praising them to the high heavens, and rewarding them further with even lower taxes, more loopholes, and easier access to tax havens and bolt holes..

All of you ungrateful 'lefty', bludging or hard-working suckers should be more grateful for what your betters have done to this world --  forget that "global warming" scam,  leave the poor to look after themselves -- it's all their fault anway,   don't worry about education, healthcare, work opportunities, access to shelter --  if you can't afford it, you simply don't deserve it  !  

Just ask  LF, Thor and Maddog --  there's no such thing as a bad billionaire --  just all those 'envious' red flag-waving hordes waiting to drag them down..

A billionaire will pay more taxes in a week than you pay in a lifetime.  How much does one person owe society?

And why are you always so fucking angry?

The injustices of the world in terms of environmental damage, exploitation and inequality of opportunities are plenty to be angry about

And just because a billionaire pays more in taxes in a life time does not mean they can't/shouldn't do more. Some people earn little yet contribute a lot (in terms of time, energy and knowledge). A billionaire might earn a lot while contributing comparatively little. It doesn't work on the lines of 'how much does someone owe' but 'how much can someone be expected to help'.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

...and no reparations or fines against those billionaires for all of their environmental damages,  community upheavals, mass unemployment, destruction of small- and medium-sized businesses, either...

If big businesses and their billionaire oligarchs, heirs and dictators want to fuck over the world even more, we should be praising them to the high heavens, and rewarding them further with even lower taxes, more loopholes, and easier access to tax havens and bolt holes..

All of you ungrateful 'lefty', bludging or hard-working suckers should be more grateful for what your betters have done to this world --  forget that "global warming" scam,  leave the poor to look after themselves -- it's all their fault anway,   don't worry about education, healthcare, work opportunities, access to shelter --  if you can't afford it, you simply don't deserve it  !  

Just ask  LF, Thor and Maddog --  there's no such thing as a bad billionaire --  just all those 'envious' red flag-waving hordes waiting to drag them down..

A billionaire will pay more taxes in a week than you pay in a lifetime.  How much does one person owe society?

And why are you always so fucking angry?

Your first sentence is over-generalised and unsubstantiated bullshit and bluster...

(Just one example --  Donald Trump has been avoiding paying his fair share of taxes for the past four years at least..).

Your overall claims on this thread, even more so..

Billionaires regularly sit at the top of big businesses continually fucking over our planet --  profiting from mining, oil and natural gas, widespread pollution, large scale deforrestation, market manipulation by big pharma and agribusinesses,  corporate raids/'asset stripping'/job shedding.

In mining and oil alone --  big businesses only contribute 50% of the cleanup/remediation costs, and only have a 50% success rate --  leaving the lions' share (some 75%) of repair costs to local communities and national governments (if it's ever done..).

The bigger question, Maddog, is why you are seen regularly defending big business and their billionaire owners against being held responsible for the messes they keep on making  ?

Eilzel wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say, Lez, but definitely not that particular point.

Provided the money and/or assets have been acquired and accrued legally they will already have been taxed at at least 40, and most probably 45, percent income tax plus capital gains tax.

The Treasury will take another 45 per cent of everything in probate - money, property and possessions - over a modest £325,000, or the cost of the average house in many parts of the country.

What right has the State to lay claim to even heavier confiscatory taxes on the death of the subject?

And how do you know that the "offspring" have done nothing to deserve money and assets that belong (and have been paid for and taxed) to their parents? Many family members work bloody hard in building up, running and working for family enterprises, and a hell of a lot of them will have done the State's job for it in providing care and support in times of illness, age and infirmity.

Presumably, if the children of billionaires have senior positions in their parent's billion dollar business, this means a) they may take over said billion dollar business and/or b) they are probably extreme rich themselves.

I wouldn't tax people out of aspiration as suggested in the OP, but taxing the megarich 50% on their death means millions or billions STILL pass to their (already super rich) offspring, but we'd also be able to use some of that money on projects to help those less fortunate.

It's not like I suggest taking everything. Half of 2 billion dollars is still a billion dollars, half of a billion is five hundred million - no one is 'suffering' here

And I absolutely do not advocate a massive (or any) inheritance tax on middle or low income earners.

Well, the legal estate of anyone who dies is already subject to 45 percent IHT if it exceeds £325,00 in total (and not bequeathed to a spouse), and because of the value of even modest houses in many parts of the country, mine included, middle or even low income earners face this sort of tax burden now.

And, HMRC will not wait until houses and other assets are disposed of before demanding full payment - only six months after the granting of probate, I believe - and that is why the executors of a will are forced in many cases to borrow money at high interest rates in order to avoid prosecution.

Do you honestly think that if the government went along with your line of thinking they would limit the increase to a paltry 5 per cent above what already has to be paid? More likely to be an additional 20 per cent at least.

This, of course, is what happened in the past when even the top rate of income tax reached a confiscatory 98 per cent. Many, if not most, of your so-called megarich families will probably be asset rich but cash poor (relatively speaking, of course) and will be forced to realise assets in order to pay up in cash.

Previous wealthy generations were forced to sell some of this country's most beautiful and historic houses or sell off and break up estates that had been lovingly cared for by generations, and while I would expect little sympathy for their plight from many quarters it is only because of organisations such as English Heritage and the National Trust that those have not been demolished, concreted over or turned into expensive hotels or posh wedding venues.

My final point is that few of the "megarich" will ever pay all these lovely fat taxes to meet the insatiable demands of government. They can well afford tax lawyers and accountants who are far, far more professionally capable and inventive than are Treasury Solicitors and civil servants, and given the advanced state of modern technology vast sums of cash can be transferred around the world to one or more tax havens by a single keystroke or new Trust arrangements or Deeds of Amendment devised that will make estate plundering far more difficult, if not impossible.

All that will happen is that estate duty rates will be ratcheted up and entry levels ratcheted down, and the hard-working aspirational, entrepreneurial and wealth and job creating middle class will be punished all the more.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
A billionaire will pay more taxes in a week than you pay in a lifetime.  How much does one person owe society?

And why are you always so fucking angry?

Your first sentence is over-generalised and unsubstantiated bullshit and bluster...

(Just one example --  Donald Trump has been avoiding paying his fair share of taxes for the past four years at least..).

Your overall claims on this thread, even more so..

Billionaires regularly sit at the top of big businesses continually fucking over our planet --  profiting from mining, oil and natural gas, widespread pollution, large scale deforrestation, market manipulation by big pharma and agribusinesses,  corporate raids/'asset stripping'/job shedding.

In mining and oil alone --  big businesses only contribute 50% of the cleanup/remediation costs, and only have a 50% success rate --  leaving the lions' share (some 75%) of repair costs to local communities and national governments (if it's ever done..).

The bigger question, Maddog, is why you are seen regularly defending big business and their billionaire owners against being held responsible for the messes they keep on making  ?

The answer is simple. I dont do envy and have no use for those that do.  In the event someone is using the rules to avoid taxes, blame the fools making the rules.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

...and no reparations or fines against those billionaires for all of their environmental damages,  community upheavals, mass unemployment, destruction of small- and medium-sized businesses, either...

If big businesses and their billionaire oligarchs, heirs and dictators want to fuck over the world even more, we should be praising them to the high heavens, and rewarding them further with even lower taxes, more loopholes, and easier access to tax havens and bolt holes..

All of you ungrateful 'lefty', bludging or hard-working suckers should be more grateful for what your betters have done to this world --  forget that "global warming" scam,  leave the poor to look after themselves -- it's all their fault anway,   don't worry about education, healthcare, work opportunities, access to shelter --  if you can't afford it, you simply don't deserve it  !  

Just ask  LF, Thor and Maddog --  there's no such thing as a bad billionaire --  just all those 'envious' red flag-waving hordes waiting to drag them down..

Of course, some of that inheritance tax could be used to educate the fractally stupid (that is so stupid they dont know they are stupid) like wolfie.

IF these big companies do damage, environmental etc, then of course the business should pay. BUT then whatever you buy will be dearer....and the owners of these businesses and "the business" are generally two separate and distinct legal entities  THAT is the true meaning of "Ltd" or "PTY" of "GMBH" etc.

the problem of company responsibility and costs if far more complicated than wolfies singular brain cell can cope with. Lets face it the blugers want everything for nothing wolfie want fuel for his vehicle ...but wouldnt pay the true cost of production in an eco friendly manner and forgets that the state in most countries at least doubles the cost with taxes... wolfie wouldnt pay the "real" cost of his cell phone......

and all those "poor", with top of the range cell phones, 50 inch TV's etc would starve if they paid the "real" cost. and the ownership of these things is usually WHY they are poor....they would sooner spend on such unnecessary "latest and best" luxury goods than buy food and clothing for their kids.

In 10 years I have had 2 "smart phones" the latest I have is now 2 years old.....every computer I have had except the first has been second hand and or/ rebuilt (by myself....but perfectly adequate refurbed machines are available for little money even high speed "gaming machines") and the machine that runs my CNC mill, router and laser cost me 30 quid at a boot sale

Almost every company has to play a game of profit v's costs and to stay alive has ALSO got to play a dangerous game of ever increasing profit as demanded by greedy share dealers, a company the merely "stands still" even when inflation is included, will find its shares falling through the floor very quickly......and if that company's funding via shares dissapears then so does the company, and THEN so does the employment it produces, then there are no jobs, then the state has to pay ...but the state then lacks income, and stealing income via death taxes only works for so long and is a limited source....
so then wolfie has to pay MORE via income tax (if he is working) purchase tax (VAT) energy taxes etc.......then poor wolfie will start crying.....

part of the answer of course is to enforce existing tax law properly, and to close up "avoidance" loop holes where possible. Stealing a mans life works and the profits thereof from his children is NOT a way to go.....

This isn't about envy or the politics of envy; it's a logical, cold-blooded analysis of whether billionaires are a net help or hindrance to society.

To think the majority of them earned that money, and that any of them deserve it all or need it, is naive at best and servile at worst.

Doesn’t it all depend upon what you do with the money and how you obtained it?

Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:This isn't about envy or the politics of envy; it's a logical, cold-blooded analysis of whether billionaires are a net help or hindrance to society.

To think the majority of them earned that money, and that any of them deserve it all or need it, is naive at best and servile at worst.

They are already a net help to people and even outside taxes

Why do they have to also have to shoulden the burden for everyone else based on your perceived view, they should?

I mean what sacrificed are you going to give for people in need?

Its why most people espcially middle class champagne socialists, are utter hy[pocrites.

They have an expectation on those better off, never once questioning their wealth themselves

Its like when you get the arse off the wall

You have a boundary, as many people do with your home

How is it you do not extend that philosophy, but expect others to, based on monetary value?

What really fucks me off is that actually the rich fork out loads

You think they should pay more, because the system is so corrupt, so to counter this, you think to punish people on  their wealth

This has always been the failing of socialism and it rarely comes from the poor working class, but the leftist middle class. They are basically like a religion. Wanting to enforce their views onto people. When in reality, the most charitable people are the rich. This is what your problem is. You think the rich can solve all problems. 

No they cannot

Its the mentality of society that needs to change. The moment you cast a view onto a rich as blame here. You fall down a poor path of hate

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

The question is whether they should be able to hoard money while billions struggle. Do you think that's moral?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

The question is whether they should be able to hoard money while billions struggle. Do you think that's moral?

It's the way things are. I do think it's obscene that our female royals spend tons of money on frocks, for example, and then claim they help others by supporting some charity or other, and I'm not sure where they get the money from anyway. However, generally speaking, I think people with loads of money can hoard it if they want to.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

The question is whether they should be able to hoard money while billions struggle. Do you think that's moral?

What?

Thise people you claim and chose to cast as basic pirates create jobs and wealth for people

Their taxes is why people have access to health

What do you think would happen to our health service if the rich left the country

Its nearly 30%, the 1% pay 30% of our taxes

How is that immoral to you?

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

It would create less wealth because there would be no incentive for anyone to build up a large business and employ loads of people. If one person has less money, that doesn't mean that another one will have more.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

If it was capped, where is the incentive to then even earn more and excel with a company. That then instead of employing 10 people now employs 1000 people?

You see why socialism is a failure?

Why would anyone ever bother to to learn anymore in society, when it expects society to look after them?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

It would create less wealth because there would be no incentive for anyone to build up a large business and employ loads of people. If one person has less money, that doesn't mean that another one will have more.

No. It's not a fixed pie. You can take wealth from billionaires and it just disappears.

What you are claiming is what economists call the fixed pie fallacy.

I don’t know. I just put an idea out there that could help create less poor people.
I’m not really totally clear on what I tbink tbh.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

The question is whether they should be able to hoard money while billions struggle. Do you think that's moral?

Are you saying their money isn't in banks or in investments?

eddie wrote:I don’t know. I just put an idea out there that could help create less poor people.
I’m not really totally clear on what I tbink tbh.

Poor people would have nothing if not for the fact the rich do actually care Eddie

That is what Ben fails to grasp

He wants to place all burdens on the rich

Thor wrote:

eddie wrote:I don’t know. I just put an idea out there that could help create less poor people.
I’m not really totally clear on what I tbink tbh.

Poor people would have nothing if not for the fact the rich do actually care Eddie

That is what Ben fails to grasp

He wants to place all burdens on the rich

I’m not saying I agree with him. It’s a new question for me that I need to think about a bit more before I know how I think.

eddie wrote:

Thor wrote:


Poor people would have nothing if not for the fact the rich do actually care Eddie

That is what Ben fails to grasp

He wants to place all burdens on the rich

I’m not saying I agree with him. It’s a new question for me that I need to think about a bit more before I know how I think.

Ben has some great ideas 

On this its based to me on a false reality

Society has to come together to help people and in reality the rich do this more than most

Middle class socialists do not and in  the main do fuck all for others

They demand others do and actually care little for the poor. They simple use them as political pawns

Ben does not, but many do

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It would create less wealth because there would be no incentive for anyone to build up a large business and employ loads of people. If one person has less money, that doesn't mean that another one will have more.

No. It's not a fixed pie. You can take wealth from billionaires and it just disappears.

What you are claiming is what economists call the fixed pie fallacy.  

Eh? Did you mean to reply to me?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

Ideally yes. But that will never happen. Have you ever read Animal Farm?

Yes I have. Like I said, it’s a new idea for me to think about. I’m willing to read all comments. I’m pretty undecided on this topic.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No. It's not a fixed pie. You can take wealth from billionaires and it just disappears.

What you are claiming is what economists call the fixed pie fallacy.  

Eh? Did you mean to reply to me?

Ooops.

It was for Eddie.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

Mao had ideas.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

In the UK they more or less tried that in the 70s when top tax rates were around 90%. The result was rich people left in droves.

Everyone here would probably say I'm pretty LW (yes I know you don't like the labels, but high taxes on wealth + distributing wealth to the needy IS the definition of LW economics). Yet, despite my leftist leanings, even I see the disaster that is a cap on earnings.

A few have already mentioned this, but if I build a company and make £1 million personal income a year, I'm doing pretty well. Maybe I even employ a hundred people. But I'm ambitious, I want to earn tens of millions a year and make my first billion.

With no cap on earnings, I do just that. Now I employ a thousand people. Soon I'll reach my billion pound goal. I can afford to give my employees pay rises and even provide a pension package. Plus, I can expand to various cities around the UK too, not just my own city.

WITH a cap on earnings, (whatever it is) I realise that due to high taxes I'm never going to be able to personally earn hundreds of millions a year. A few million is the limit. So I stop taking risks. My medium sized company is doing well, but expansion will only mean higher taxes for me personally. So I maintain my small workforce and just the one site. At least I'M doing all right.

The consequences of the cap - fewer jobs created, less well paid jobs with fewer benefits, less in taxes paid = less wealth distribution and less help for the poor.

A benefit cap helps no one. There's nothing inherently wrong with people getting 'filthy rich'. In fact it can and should be good for society (but to greed, this currently isn't always the case).

Now of course I am a leftist, and support regulation to maintain ethical and environmental standards, and somewhat high taxes to support govt projects, but never over half one's income and certainly no caps.

lol mate, you claim your views have nothing to do with envy but you sure know how you want to spend someone else's money which is not yours.

You still do not grasp the fact that champagne socialists are actually full of envy on what others earn and how religiously, they think they should pay for society

A true equality society would have people pay equally into the system

You think this is based on money owned or earned, but that is not equality

Its the one area that the left argue to back inequality, based on class envy.

Now if you can argue otherwise on equality here, then I am all ears

That's a response to Ben not me right?

Eilzel wrote:That's a response to Ben not me right?

No you mate

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

Mao had ideas.

What were they? Nutshell please, I don’t do long boring articles and lectures.

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:That's a response to Ben not me right?

No you mate

How does that respond to my post?

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Mao had ideas.

What were they? Nutshell please, I don’t do long boring articles and lectures.

Mao Zedong, Chinese Communist Party Chairman, introduced drastic changes in farming policy which prohibited farm ownership. Failure to abide by the policies led to punishment. The social pressure imposed on the citizens in terms of farming and business, which the government controlled, led to state instability. Owing to the laws passed during the period and Great Leap Forward during 1958–1962, according to an analysis by journalist Yang Jisheng, about 36 million people died of starvation in this period.

That is a low estimate on the number of people that dies Eddie

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:


No you mate

How does that respond to my post?

Copout

No problem if you do not want to tackle

So lets ask again

How is it equality to ask people to pay more than others?