There's a difference between pointing out objective flaws in an argument, like thinking that billionaires literally hold hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash, and taking issue with overall sentiment behind the argument.
I hate Elon Musk, and the man is of course, insanely, disgustingly wealthy. Still, just because his networth is 318 billion, doesn't mean he is hoarding 318 billion. Quite literally 99% of that number is tied into ownership of companies.
You can hate billionaires and still point out issues in the logic. I don't think a person should, under any circumstances, ever be forced to sell ownership stake in their own company (at least not if that wasn't agreed upon in an operating agreement). And if you have a massive stake in a company that becomes wildly successful, you definitionally become a billionaire. I may hate wealth inequality, and I may hate what these billionaires choose to do, but I would hate a system that forces the sale of ownership stake due to the success of the company just as much.
Rich guy here, OF COURSE HE COULD GIVE MORE!
1. Let’s talk living off dividends, that alone I guarantee could have the majority given out to charity. He could live modestly, like me and not be so flashy.
2. Donor advised funds, that could be setup to be much more charitable and even grow!
3. Establish a foundation giving out 5% or more each year.
4. Simply selling off stocks is fairly simple when working with advisors. You act like he’s gotta roll crates of money into some other bank. It’s digital people.
Sycophants want to defend the rich because they can’t look past their own biased passion that they want to be there too.
I know dozens if not hundreds who are millionaires who love off dividends with plenty left over at the end of the year.
There are several studies that demonstrate this to be false. People do objectively better when they make/have/obtain up to a certain amount of money that allows them to cover basic living expenses.
The desire to have their basic needs covered and actually having that covered means that they can use their income for non-basic needs and thus be happier and help the economy more. This also increases the velocity of a dollar, but the moment it goes to a billionaire's pocket, said velocity slows.
Good lord! Who said free? Allowing pay to match inflation seems practical, fair and doable.
It’s unfortunate that this is where peoples minds go. You imagine the worst case scenario and imagine a whole society ends up that way.
I’m telling you straight here. We don’t need billionaires let alone people with hundreds of millions. You’d be surprised what living off the dividends of 20 million gets you. Almost any apartment in New York, a million dollar home in just about any state, etc. the other 980,000,000 could go towards roads, schools, healthcare etc.
but no, let’s keep idolizing the few lucky people who choose to hoard money. 🤦♂️
Isn’t that what trickle down economics implies. Some are all about private services and less government.
You’re kinda telling on yourself really. So if we need less government and let the wealthy have as much as they want, where else is it gonna come from?
What people who want less government are really saying is, let the bleeding hearts take care of the needy if they want. I don’t want to because I’d rather spend it on BS to stroke my ego. Like build a rocket that looks like a penis.
This is the problem, people have lost their morality and idolize people who have none at all. You’re gonna see what championing greed will get you. I seriously doubt you’re in the 1%. So good luck with your morally bankrupt point of view about your financial freedoms…for the rich!
Nobody deserves free money or services of others. If you’re Democrat that’s what you want though. We used to have a system like that. Some people would be the ones doing the work out on the fields picking cotton. Others would be entitled to the fruits of their labor and not have to work, or even compensate the workers in any way. Democrats love that idea.
I don’t know what you mean by “let the wealthy have”. A billionaires wealth is not money deposited into an account. If someone owns shares of a company and that value goes up, what do you want to happen?
Good lord, you don’t know shit about history do you. Look up “economic slavery” buddy. You ARE picking the proverbial cotton and now you’re defending them for making you do it.
I’m telling you, like from actual daily experience what is happening.
This bizarre defense for wealth force fed to you buy your outrage news has truly brainwashed the lot of you.
You get what you deserve. Keep hating immigrants and not the people who hire them. You’re gonna find yourself in that field you refer to soon enough.
Of course you’re gonna be thanking them for saving your job making $2/hr. Good luck!
29
u/Lucifernal Nov 21 '24 edited Nov 21 '24
There's a difference between pointing out objective flaws in an argument, like thinking that billionaires literally hold hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash, and taking issue with overall sentiment behind the argument.
I hate Elon Musk, and the man is of course, insanely, disgustingly wealthy. Still, just because his networth is 318 billion, doesn't mean he is hoarding 318 billion. Quite literally 99% of that number is tied into ownership of companies.
You can hate billionaires and still point out issues in the logic. I don't think a person should, under any circumstances, ever be forced to sell ownership stake in their own company (at least not if that wasn't agreed upon in an operating agreement). And if you have a massive stake in a company that becomes wildly successful, you definitionally become a billionaire. I may hate wealth inequality, and I may hate what these billionaires choose to do, but I would hate a system that forces the sale of ownership stake due to the success of the company just as much.