A millionaire is inordinately successful and a billionaire has a hundred times the wealth of a millionaire.
I think what we’re trying to do is find a number which means “so much money you couldn’t spend it all if you wanted to” as opposed to somebody who is simply successful or wealthy. That number is probably $100M or os.
I’ve heard quite a few people say that a billionaire has earned their money. While I do believe they have created a business or enterprise that was wildly successful, to earn a billion dollars is only on the backs of the less wealthy.
Hmmmmm. Not sure I agree, or maybe I just disagree with your negative semantics, which conjure up images of Jewish slaves being whipped while building pyramids.
Obviously, you only get to “fabulously wealthy” by taking a cut of the productivity of your employees. But such people (Gates, Bezos, Walton) also innovated in a process which had the effect of funneling existing cash flows into their own pockets. Wal Mart’s success is based on moving the flow of money away from Sears, Montgomery Ward, and K Mart into WalMart; Bezos has basically done the same.
So, I do think it is correct to say that they “earned” their money, because it was they that had the innovative idea necessary to move those cash flows into their own accounts. I’d agree that their “earning” is subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns (if Bezos quit showing up today, the machine he’s created would continue making him richer, for example) but they still earn it.
Or has it been stacked more towards the top? Judging by his billions…I’d say more toward the top.
People are paid according to their contribution to the business. There’s an entirely different supply and demand equation that governs wage.
If you want to believe that a billionaire, who has shown he is willing to spare no expense to buy his way into the election, would be willing to make decisions that adversely affect his wealth in favor of the lower class — by all means believe that.
I don’t need to believe that, because there’s an assumption you’re making that I disagree with — — that economic decisions that benefit the rich somehow disadvantage those who are not rich. That’s simply not true.
The rich and the not-rich are not fighting over a finite pile of money, after all. In a growth economy, capital formation is occurring, and therefore BOTH the rich and the non-rich can have increasing assets at the same time. It’s not “us vs them.”
In terms of the tax loopholes, I unfortunately am not familiar with those specific changes but, it seems like you argue against yourself in saying that Trump countered those changes by reducing the tax rate of the rich.
Look up “SALT Deduction” and “Mortgage Interest Deduction”. What Trump did was remove those deductions, almost exclusively qualified for by the top 20% of wage earners, and then “gave it back” by lowering rates.
On paper, that makes no difference; but these deductions have been causing negative effects for the overall economy for a long time. The events of 2008, for example, would have been much less painful if the mortgage interest deduction never existed.
“So who will miss the SALT deduction the most? According to a 2016 report from the Tax Policy Center, “Taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 would have the largest tax increases both in dollars and as a percentage of income.” Eliminating the deduction entirely would raise taxes for about a quarter of taxpayers and reducing the deduction (as Congress is planning to do) would affect about half as of people.”
Still, Trump did then make changes that directly benefited himself and his rich donors — which he bragged about.
Sure. But who cares, really? The rich getting richer does not affect anyone but them. Doesn’t affect you or I.
Finally, you eliminate Sanders from the competition without question.
Sure. Because the DNC will put a cement overshoes on him before they’ll give him the nomination. Has nothing to do with policy.
Again, thanks for your input and I appreciate your respectful argument.
Same here.
