Slashdot Mirror
Tech Rich Get Richer
theodp writes "The economy is improving, at least for the super rich. After two years of declines, the aggregate net worth of the U.S.'s wealthiest 400 citizens leapt 10% in the past year to $995 billion, according to Forbes' annual ranking. The gains are part of a continuing shift in wealth from the East coast to the tech-centric West. Bill Gates capped off a decade in the top spot after his fortune increased by $3B to $46B. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen held onto 3rd place, his net worth rising $1B to $22B. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, who saw his fortune expand by more than $3B to $5.1B, was the top gainer on the list. And with a measly $1.4B, Jerry Yang of Yahoo! found himself in a 16-way tie for 162nd place."
The best thing we can do for the economy is cut taxes for the rich while raising taxes for the poor, dont you see? Dont you get it? The best solution for all economic problems is to allow the rich to keep more of their own money. In fact the poor should pay 100% of all taxes since they happen to use all the resources taxes produce anyway, the rich can put their kids in private school and rely on private resources so why should they pay taxes so you can put your kid in school? Why should Bill Gates pay taxes so you can get your medication and go to the hospital?
Taxes == Communism and only the poor are Communists.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Its not about how much labor you do, you dont get paid based on merit, you get paid based on who you know, luck, your last name, what you look like, what gender you are, etc etc.
IF you want a million dollars, have a last name with the name Bush or Kennedy, be a white male, and wait a while. Thats all it really takes.
You dont need intelligence, you'll get accepted into Harvard on name alone, you dont need to be talented, you'll get hired because everyone knows your parents, you might need to work hard but thats it.
For the rest of us, working hard wont get us anywhere but into an early grave, and we dont have any advantages, of course if you are a minority then you might have affirmative action to allow you to compete with the Kennedies and Bush's of the world, for the generic poor white male, you are at the bottom of the barrel, everyone else gets advantages and entitlements but you, everyone else gets a free ride, but you get to work hard and have no advantage.
This is considered fair capitalism.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
All we have to do is wait ! Then, we will all get rich because of trickle down effect. I'm sure I'll be rich by the time I'm confined to the wheel chair.
Go Bush. Go Halliburton. (well, whats the difference?)
karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
And if pursuing your own life means that you happen to get rich in the process, what gives us the right to take it away?
Why are the most ostentatiously rich people in this country rich? Because they took a risk and it paid off. They are rich, not because they get some egregiously large paycheck, but because, over time, the companies that they founded and of which they own a significant portion have done well and appreciated in value.
The post to which you are responding pointed out people like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Sam Walton. These are guys who took a fairly small amount of money and turned it into something huge. In some cases, it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time. In others, it's a matter of perserverence and work.
Bear in mind that the billions of dollars of wealth that these people control is not just money sitting around in a big pile. It's money that ends up being invested in other companies, money that pays other people's wages and salaries, money that is paid to the government in taxes, money that is donated to charities. But it is not money that is locked away, unavailable to anyone but some greedy, cold hearted bastard.
You propose an interesting idea that has been tried many times over the past century. Why not limit how much a person can make? Say that there is a cap on salaries for the super-rich. Say, you can't make more than a million bucks a year. But why stop there? Why not put a cap on assets? Say, you can't have more than five million bucks in assets. Or make the number arbitrarily lower. Why not just pay everybody the same? Whether you're a doctor, lawyer, bricklayer, software tycoon or computer programmer, you make the same amount. And you might as well let the government run the whole show, so that we we'll know that the people are being served and nobody is stealing from them. It sounds like a grand idea.
I'm sure that it's probably redundant to point out that there wouldn't be much impetus to pursue a career that required such a huge investment of time and effort (doctor, lawyer, heck, even software programmer) over being, say, a cashier in the government-owned store.
Now, I'm nowhere close to being super rich. Heck, I'm not even micro rich. But I'm also not agitated over the fact that these people are out there because I recognize that in a system such as ours, there will be pockets of concentrated wealth. But, compared nationwide, the wealth of these few ultra-billionaires is a drop in the bucket. Wealth is much less concentrated today than it was, say, 100 years ago, or maybe even 50 years ago. There are a few remarkably rich people in this country, but because of the size of our economy and the success of most Americans, you'll find that there is plenty to go around.
My advice? Quit grousing about the success of others. If money is your goal, pursue it. If you have some other measure of happiness, pursue it with as much gusto as you can muster. But don't use the canard of "the rich man's got me down" to rationalize your inability to achieve your goals. It simply won't wash.
-h-
QUOTE: There's a few odd things those "rich" folks do with money that "poor" folks generally don't. Those silly rich tend to invest in a variety of things. They'll start new businesses, or help fund others. Quite often this invested capital actually creates JOBS.
Oh yes, yes Jobs are being created all over India, please move there, theres sooo many jobs there!
The clever bit here, which is a little known fact around socialist knitting clubs, is that "poor" people don't invest! Been around this here planet all my life, and I have yet to get hired for employment by a poor person. It really is the oddest thing. Seems that someone who isn't capable of making a payroll doesn't hire people. Obviously this must be a civil rights issue.
You have never heard of mutual funds? I guess that shot down your "The poor dont invest" idea. Oh and like I said before, if you dont have a job you arent caring about investments, please move to india and get a job.
Taking your sarcasm into account, let's just go and raise them taxes on all those evil "rich" folks and hand it out to who all them really smart politicians feel are more worthy to have that cash. Business and corporations are evil anyway, so if you close down a few or just bring them to their knees all the better.
Someone has to pay the taxes, why shouldnt the people with most of the money pay most of the taxes?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
If that 1% has 23% of the money why shouldnt that 1% pay 23% of all the taxes?
If they had 99% of all the money the people with 1% of the money should pay 99% of all the taxes? Would this make you happy?
I'll respond for you because I can predict your response.
- by b-baggins (610215) on Friday September 19, @11:52AM (#7003584)
Yes that would make me very happy! I'd keep more of my own money!
Yeah that is what I figured. I'll pay 99% of all the taxes, me and the others who make about 1% of the money, and you'll pay 1% of the taxes and make 99% of the money, this is fair.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Somewhat related is how amusing it is to hear people talking about "tax cuts for the (rich | poor | etc)," when they're actually talking about "tax cuts for the (high income | low income | etc),"
And consider this: almost without exception the people making these laws and proposing to "make the rich pay thier fair share" are in fact, rich. Hillary Clinton is rich. Ted Kennedy is rich. etc. etc. So, why would rich people support legislation they claim will harm people like them?
There are two reasons I can think of:
1. As you mention, it's really a lie. They aren't really taxing the rich they are taxing high earners. The result of this is that they make it harder to become rich. So, in effect they are protecting their elite little club of rich people, and making common people like them at the same time.
2. What's the only thing better than money (at least to these people)? The answer is power. By using rhetoric like "making the rich pay" they seduce the people to give them power.
So in the end, they have both wealth and power. It's a pretty good scam isn't it.
The government hires employees at a faster rate than the corporate world, and the government hires Americans at a higher rate than big corporations.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac