Current Events > Gates, Buffet and Bezos have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined

(+) Yeah! (+)

in the United States.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/10/pers-n10.html

The three richest people have more than 160 million poorest people combined.
---

They've also produced more than those people combined.

Edit: Not saying grotesque examples of wealth inequality are good/bad. Just pointing out a relevant piece of information.

imagine the percentage combined for India or China. <_<
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They've also produced more than those people combined.

sure, but they had a lot of help from a lot of people to accomplish that. by no means am i downplaying their accomplishments, as they've contributed significantly to our society. but to think they did it "on their own" is shortsighted, imo.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They've also produced more than those people combined.

sure, but they had a lot of help from a lot of people to accomplish that. by no means am i downplaying their accomplishments, as they've contributed significantly to our society. but to think they did it "on their own" is shortsighted, imo.

who said they did it on their own, though? they didn't. they paid people who worked, obviously. but they did do a lot of the heavy lifting and decision making that grew their respective niches into something huge.

They have enough money to give every US citizen 675$, or the poorest 160 million US citizens 1680$ and still have a billion dollars to their name. Insane.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They've also produced more than those people combined.

sure, but they had a lot of help from a lot of people to accomplish that. by no means am i downplaying their accomplishments, as they've contributed significantly to our society. but to think they did it "on their own" is shortsighted, imo.

who said they did it on their own, though? they didn't. they paid people who worked, obviously. but they did do a lot of the heavy lifting and decision making that grew their respective niches into something huge.

fair points.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They've also produced more than those people combined.

sure, but they had a lot of help from a lot of people to accomplish that. by no means am i downplaying their accomplishments, as they've contributed significantly to our society. but to think they did it "on their own" is shortsighted, imo.

Do you have any proof that those 160 million people affect society in any way at all?
---

literal_garbage posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They've also produced more than those people combined.

sure, but they had a lot of help from a lot of people to accomplish that. by no means am i downplaying their accomplishments, as they've contributed significantly to our society. but to think they did it "on their own" is shortsighted, imo.

Do you have any proof that those 160 million people affect society in any way at all?

you affect society by simply being a part of it. im not sure what your question is.
---

ITT: People are bad for being rewarded for the tremendous amount of work they do.
---

FrankIin posted...

ITT: People are bad for being rewarded for the tremendous amount of work they do.

where was any sort of judgement cast? I simply stated a fact. either you prematurely reacted or your reading comprehension is poor. which is it?
---

Yeah it's better for a smaller portion of the population to have more wealth than the average folks. Them having more power will overall speed up the human advancement. The faster we get to the world of Star Trek the better
---

I do think that we should institute some kind of limit on this, though. I'm a staunch capitalist, but one person should not have that much wealth.

New wealth can be created and all, but let's imagine for a second that along comes someone who is so brilliant and exceptional and lucky...that they absorb 99% of all the wealth. That is not good for either capitalists or everyone else.

So to address the undertone of the OP, I think we should expect individuals to start contributing 100% of their wealth to charity/their workers after they get to a certain point. Maybe once someone has amassed 20 billion or something, unless they're actively reinvesting money like how Elon Musk reinvested tens of millions into his various companies that employ thousands.

That only matters if they use the money effectively. If they just hoard it and play tiddlywinks all day, it is entirely counter-productive.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I do think that we should institute some kind of limit on this, though. I'm a staunch capitalist, but one person should not have that much wealth.

New wealth can be created and all, but let's imagine for a second that along comes someone who is so brilliant and exceptional and lucky...that they absorb 99% of all the wealth. That is not good for either capitalists or everyone else.

So to address the undertone of the OP, I think we should expect individuals to start contributing 100% of their wealth to charity/their workers after they get to a certain point. Maybe once someone has amassed 20 billion or something, unless they're actively reinvesting money like how Elon Musk reinvested tens of millions into his various companies that employ thousands.

i like the idea of having tiered capital gains taxes, just like we do with income taxes. it's nonsense that someone who generates 99% of their income through investments only pays 15% tax on it, especially when that person is (most likely) already terribly wealthy.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

literal_garbage posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They've also produced more than those people combined.

sure, but they had a lot of help from a lot of people to accomplish that. by no means am i downplaying their accomplishments, as they've contributed significantly to our society. but to think they did it "on their own" is shortsighted, imo.

Do you have any proof that those 160 million people affect society in any way at all?

you affect society by simply being a part of it. im not sure what your question is.

but are they really a part of society
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FrankIin posted...

ITT: People are bad for being rewarded for the tremendous amount of work they do.

where was any sort of judgement cast? I simply stated a fact. either you prematurely reacted or your reading comprehension is poor. which is it?

"Judgement" is spelled correctly as judgment.
---

Deflection is the best tactic when you have zero rebuttal. Trump supporter tactics 101

also http://www.dictionary.com/e/judgement-vs-judgment/
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I do think that we should institute some kind of limit on this, though. I'm a staunch capitalist, but one person should not have that much wealth.

New wealth can be created and all, but let's imagine for a second that along comes someone who is so brilliant and exceptional and lucky...that they absorb 99% of all the wealth. That is not good for either capitalists or everyone else.

So to address the undertone of the OP, I think we should expect individuals to start contributing 100% of their wealth to charity/their workers after they get to a certain point. Maybe once someone has amassed 20 billion or something, unless they're actively reinvesting money like how Elon Musk reinvested tens of millions into his various companies that employ thousands.

i like the idea of having tiered capital gains taxes, just like we do with income taxes. it's nonsense that someone who generates 99% of their income through investments only pays 15% tax on it, especially when that person is (most likely) already terribly wealthy.

idk about that. capital gains of 15% means you left your post-tax money invested for a year (two if it's stock options) and it means you risked it in the global economy. i think that rate is already high enough.

These articles always miss the obvious:

Wealth does not mean money. It's the value of everything you own including property, investments, even intangible things like trademarks or brand names or goodwill.

So as unfair as anyone might think it is, it begs the question: how do you redistribute it? You can't wave a wand and convert it to cash that didn't exist before (well a government could, but inflation would skyrocket). Do we start doling out 1/200000th ownership in a villa overseas or the microsoft brand name (might increase a person's wealth, but they can't buy groceries with it)? Do we re-write capital gains laws so high taxes are paid any time property (including stocks) appreciates in value instead of when they sell it (even if they don't have cash to pay that bill)?

I mean, I'm open to suggestions grounded in reality and that don't assume these guys have Scrooge McDuck's money bin of liquid assets.
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

These articles always miss the obvious:

Wealth does not mean money. It's the value of everything you own including property, investments, even intangible things like trademarks or brand names or goodwill.

So as unfair as anyone might think it is, it begs the question: how do you redistribute it? You can't wave a wand and convert it to cash that didn't exist before (well a government could, but inflation would skyrocket). Do we start doling out 1/200000th ownership in a villa overseas or the microsoft brand name (might increase a person's wealth, but they can't buy groceries with it)? Do we re-write capital gains laws so high taxes are paid any time property (including stocks) appreciates in value instead of when they sell it (even if they don't have cash to pay that bill)?

I mean, I'm open to suggestions grounded in reality and that don't assume these guys have Scrooge McDuck's money bin of liquid assets.

it's also important to recognize that for at least Gates and Bezos, the vast majority of their "wealth" is in the form of stocks. if they suddenly liquidated all of their stock, it would destroy the value of said stock. so even though Bezo's is worth "$65 billion", it's not like he could go out and buy $65 billion worth of stuff.

so you're absolutely right -- it's tricky.
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

These articles always miss the obvious:

Wealth does not mean money. It's the value of everything you own including property, investments, even intangible things like trademarks or brand names or goodwill.

So as unfair as anyone might think it is, it begs the question: how do you redistribute it? You can't wave a wand and convert it to cash that didn't exist before (well a government could, but inflation would skyrocket). Do we start doling out 1/200000th ownership in a villa overseas or the microsoft brand name (might increase a person's wealth, but they can't buy groceries with it)? Do we re-write capital gains laws so high taxes are paid any time property (including stocks) appreciates in value instead of when they sell it (even if they don't have cash to pay that bill)?

I mean, I'm open to suggestions grounded in reality and that don't assume these guys have Scrooge McDuck's money bin of liquid assets.

Schooled him.
---

FrankIin posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

These articles always miss the obvious:

Wealth does not mean money. It's the value of everything you own including property, investments, even intangible things like trademarks or brand names or goodwill.

So as unfair as anyone might think it is, it begs the question: how do you redistribute it? You can't wave a wand and convert it to cash that didn't exist before (well a government could, but inflation would skyrocket). Do we start doling out 1/200000th ownership in a villa overseas or the microsoft brand name (might increase a person's wealth, but they can't buy groceries with it)? Do we re-write capital gains laws so high taxes are paid any time property (including stocks) appreciates in value instead of when they sell it (even if they don't have cash to pay that bill)?

I mean, I'm open to suggestions grounded in reality and that don't assume these guys have Scrooge McDuck's money bin of liquid assets.

Schooled him.

who did he school? you can't be talking about me because i agreed with that post you just quoted.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

it's also important to recognize that for at least Gates and Bezos, the vast majority of their "wealth" is in the form of stocks. if they suddenly liquidated all of their stock, it would destroy the value of said stock.

That's a "not really" concept. The value of assets that appreciate in value are seen as better than cash as it normally loses value over time due to inflation. That's why normally a big selloff of stocks makes a lot of people think the stock doesn't have as much value anymore because you're trading it for the inferior product and the price drops.

Conceptually this would be a forced transfer so the perception that the stock doesn't have value anymore may not take effect.

That's the punchline, so much "wealth" is tied to our perceptions. These guys are mega rich and get richer because they own things that only have a high and increasing value because we collectively say things they own have high and increasing value. Meanwhile we buy things that lose it quickly because we act like 6 month old tech is worthless.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FrankIin posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

These articles always miss the obvious:

Wealth does not mean money. It's the value of everything you own including property, investments, even intangible things like trademarks or brand names or goodwill.

So as unfair as anyone might think it is, it begs the question: how do you redistribute it? You can't wave a wand and convert it to cash that didn't exist before (well a government could, but inflation would skyrocket). Do we start doling out 1/200000th ownership in a villa overseas or the microsoft brand name (might increase a person's wealth, but they can't buy groceries with it)? Do we re-write capital gains laws so high taxes are paid any time property (including stocks) appreciates in value instead of when they sell it (even if they don't have cash to pay that bill)?

I mean, I'm open to suggestions grounded in reality and that don't assume these guys have Scrooge McDuck's money bin of liquid assets.

Schooled him.

who did he school? you can't be talking about me because i agreed with that post you just quoted. but, hey, thanks for bumping a topic where you make yourself look like a fool.

Coming from the guy who posted another "I hate rich people" topic and is getting educated by people who actually understand how wealth works.
---

FrankIin posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FrankIin posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

These articles always miss the obvious:

Wealth does not mean money. It's the value of everything you own including property, investments, even intangible things like trademarks or brand names or goodwill.

So as unfair as anyone might think it is, it begs the question: how do you redistribute it? You can't wave a wand and convert it to cash that didn't exist before (well a government could, but inflation would skyrocket). Do we start doling out 1/200000th ownership in a villa overseas or the microsoft brand name (might increase a person's wealth, but they can't buy groceries with it)? Do we re-write capital gains laws so high taxes are paid any time property (including stocks) appreciates in value instead of when they sell it (even if they don't have cash to pay that bill)?

I mean, I'm open to suggestions grounded in reality and that don't assume these guys have Scrooge McDuck's money bin of liquid assets.

Schooled him.

who did he school? you can't be talking about me because i agreed with that post you just quoted. but, hey, thanks for bumping a topic where you make yourself look like a fool.

Coming from the guy who posted another "I hate rich people" topic and is getting educated by people who actually understand how wealth works.

again, I passed no judgements in this topic. i presented facts. please point out where i indicated that i hate rich people ITT. i do admit that i did learn something in lightwarrior's most recent post about transfer of ownership vs liquidation, however.

please keep posting though because it really tickles me when you make yourself look foolish.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

please keep posting though.

lol'd

So if those people all suddenly died, would that make it even?
---

tremain07 posted...

So if those people all suddenly died, would that make it even?

do you think it would?

they shall be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes
---

averagejoel posted...

they shall be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes

lol

Noticed how I come ITT and G_A goes on some tirade. Probably because I'm rich, given his penchant for hating people that are rich.
---

FrankIin posted...

Noticed how I come ITT and G_A goes on some tirade.

simple responses to your incorrect allegations constitutes a "tirade"? interesting.

keep posting.
---

FrankIin posted...

Noticed how I come ITT and G_A goes on some tirade. Probably because I'm rich, given his penchant for hating people that are rich.

what is your net worth? just wanna know if youre at risk of being against the wall during averagejoel's glorious revolution
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

tremain07 posted...

So if those people all suddenly died, would that make it even?

do you think it would?

Well kinda, because then more money wouldn't be wasted keeping them alive,right?
---

tremain07 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

tremain07 posted...

So if those people all suddenly died, would that make it even?

do you think it would?

Well kinda, because then more money wouldn't be wasted keeping them alive,right?

.....what?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

they shall be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes - averagejoel

Not going to post my net worth here because people stalk me 24/7, but I'll just say it's rather nice.
---