Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
45. Actually the argument is quite valid
Wed Jun 24, 2015, 06:43 PM
Jun 2015

Because everybody who posts one of these "nobody should have over X amount of money" posts always picks a number greater than they have. Yeah very few people will ever have 1 billion in net worth. But to the average person living in sub-Sahara Africa, somebody with a net worth of $500,000 is beyond their capacity. But that for most people isn't seen as enough for retirement in the U.S. To a homeless person, or even somebody making minimum wage in the U.S. $500,000 is beyond them.

To state that amount X is too great for any one person is largely a matter or perspective. What is too great for you is perhaps not for another and what is too great for another is perhaps not enough for you.

Couldn't agree more. Coventina Jun 2015 #1
Do you realize those of means donate to different causes, a few which comes to mind is Warren Buffet Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #2
the one thing about foundations is that Angry Dragon Jun 2015 #13
And what would be wrong with them controlling the foundation? Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #39
I am unfamiliar with conrillong Angry Dragon Jun 2015 #42
Oh, those magnanimous rich folks. Always looking out for the little guy. I can almost feel the Ed Suspicious Jun 2015 #23
which one of those rich folks can I count on to help me when I lose my job because it's been sent antigop Jun 2015 #29
It's a fair question. I hope one of those rich folks or rich folks supporters can clue us in. Ed Suspicious Jun 2015 #30
Perhaps the foundations should be notified their money is not appreciated. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #40
Yeah, like the Walton family. progressoid Jun 2015 #57
Competition is a fundamental human compulsion... TreasonousBastard Jun 2015 #3
And tax the living bejesus out of it above certain levels. hifiguy Jun 2015 #8
I go along with raising estate taxes... TreasonousBastard Jun 2015 #36
There is a difference between wealth avebury Jun 2015 #12
I agree-- the way things are now, concentration of wealth is the real problem. TreasonousBastard Jun 2015 #37
If and only if access to the basics of life are not distributed equitably. LanternWaste Jun 2015 #19
Wouldn't focus on directly regulating top-end individual net worth BeyondGeography Jun 2015 #4
I totally agree. What isn't well understood is how excess money corrupts. NRaleighLiberal Jun 2015 #5
Everyone should have a net worth of a billion dollars. Everyone. jtuck004 Jun 2015 #6
"Please deposit $100,000 for the next three minutes of your local call" DFW Jun 2015 #15
That's kinda what I was thinkin' n/t jtuck004 Jun 2015 #34
It should be the '50's tax rate: 93% top marginal. salib Jun 2015 #7
Yep, but close the loopholes. hifiguy Jun 2015 #10
One thing in particular about reichwingers puzzles and bemuses me. hifiguy Jun 2015 #9
you mean I have to give some back?? Angry Dragon Jun 2015 #11
It has been suggested that once one reaches a billion, that they pay 100% in taxes over that Cleita Jun 2015 #14
UNREC brooklynite Jun 2015 #16
-1 PETRUS Jun 2015 #43
Actually the argument is quite valid mythology Jun 2015 #45
No. PETRUS Jun 2015 #46
What if one person had *all* the money? Fumesucker Jun 2015 #49
We may find out. lonestarnot Jun 2015 #59
Well, it is written in stone... kentuck Jun 2015 #17
If you don't want them to have the money don't purchase their goods and services. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2015 #60
The triumph of theory over practice DFW Jun 2015 #18
However, we had very had tax rates (redistribution) in the 1950's... kentuck Jun 2015 #21
yes the top marginal tax rate in the 1950's was melm00se Jun 2015 #26
There was no redistribution in the 50s. former9thward Jun 2015 #28
We have narcissists, sociopaths, and other greedheads that are determined that there will never be.. AZ Progressive Jun 2015 #20
Pitcairn actually does a pretty good job of income equality. KamaAina Jun 2015 #22
That "freedom" shit is so overarated. BKH70041 Jun 2015 #24
In a perfect world.... En Garde Jun 2015 #25
A big advantage of having a very high top marginal tax rate is investment in business. napi21 Jun 2015 #27
JFK significantly lowered the rate. former9thward Jun 2015 #31
Yes he did. BUT he also eliminated a number of loop holes to offset the reduction. napi21 Jun 2015 #47
Precisely. High taxes encourage investment and philanthropy. Clearly we need to strike a balance, Ed Suspicious Jun 2015 #32
how to become a billionaire: KT2000 Jun 2015 #33
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2015 #35
I say it often: The uberwealthy ought to be taxed out of existence. hunter Jun 2015 #38
I got an idea, we will make one new billionaire each year and tha person would be taxed at Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #41
That doesn't make sense. What would you do with Bill Gates? LittleBlue Jun 2015 #44
We should tax and tax and tax them until they're only fabulously wealthy. Scuba Jun 2015 #48
True. PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #50
Cap inheritance. moondust Jun 2015 #51
High top marginal rates and a high inheritance tax Kennah Jun 2015 #52
Don't disagree. Though, I bet you would be surprised how little it is divided among 7 Billion peopl Hoyt Jun 2015 #53
I've posted this before. Half-Century Man Jun 2015 #54
This is your second OP with highly inflammatory language. (The other was locked.) X_Digger Jun 2015 #55
No one seems to have picked up that the wealth tax I proposed pogglethrope Jun 2015 #56
Ok, then give a person a billiondollars a year and tax them at 100%, now that is a good deal. Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #58
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No one in the world shoul...»Reply #45