Thrash wealth obsessed scumbags are among 8 people who own half of the total net worth of our planet's 7.5 billion inhabitants. I have zero respect for them.
Charles, I realize it's all just one sprawling megalopolis to you, but Medina, where both Bezos & Gates' residences are located, is not in fact "our city"
#1 They are also the biggest donors to non-profits, health related issues, why can't you respect them for their generosity? They made their money legally.
Charles, I realize it's all just one sprawling megalopolis to you, but Medina, where both Bezos & Gates' residences are located, is not in fact "our city"
@6 Gates donates to charity; we haven't heard much about Bezos, do educate us, pls.
Unless you include as charities and non profits, the politicians - who pass laws to take money and services from the poor and middle class, so they can make sure the biggest corporations, and the top 1-percenters, pay lower tax rates than people who make minimum wage - and the PACs who got them elected, and keep them in office?
I'd say that we should tax these hyper-rich motherfuckers in order to pay for things that the common people need, but these days it would just be used to buy more weapons for our socialistically-supported military.
Hey, here's an idea:
When we form our new nation-state, how about we have a tax system that is both largely flat-rate (like 20% or something), and includes a tick-list of options you want your taxes to go towards? Once a year you select the various agencies & services to fund with *your* taxes, and our benevolent government honors our requests and funds those things to the degree that they were selected by us, the people. Free-market style!
Crazy, I know, but in this bizarro age we might as well put everything on the table.
The wealthy should be subject to not only an excessively high "death" tax, but also a formidable "birth" tax and an onerous "life" tax. Let them have their baubles and bangles within reason, but don't let it get out of hand - and it's currently out of hand.
It's for their own good. History shows us time and again that unchecked wealth eventually leads to the recipients facing the firing squad, guillotine, or angry mob. In the meantime, their children - the Ivanka's, Tiffany's, Baron's, Donald Jr's and not Donald Jr's, as well as the Paris' and the Nikki's - contribute nothing to society. They are the true welfare class.
Your post is about net assets. Your claim to be "one of the richest persons on planet capitalism" is supported by a link to data about annual income. That is, of course, a misleading nonsequitor, parallel to trying to argue your way out of a speeding ticket by talking about your car's acceleration rate rather than top speed. A person can have high income and low net worth, such as my friend who spent a decade becoming a doctor and will spend the next decade digging himself out of the debt he incurred paying for all that education and training. A person can also have high net worth and low income, which captures those I would call trust fund kids.
You, like many Americans, are indeed one of the richest persons on the planet--and indeed rich beyond the imaginings of most humans who ever lived. But financial literacy in this country is bad enough without you blurring the lines between income and assets, Charles.
Here's some actual data to back up your claim. It's even interesting to boot: 91.6% of adult humans have a net worth of less than $100,000 USD, per the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2013. (Wikipedia's page on distribution of wealth borrows Credit Suisse's very helpful pyramid graphic.) 36.2% of American adults fall in that range per Credit Suisse; that is consistent with the Fed's Consumer Financial Survey data showing that almost half of American households (which often have multiple adults) have net wealth of more than $100,000.
That's okay; your stuff is worth reading twice.
Thank you!
So few "slogistes" actually read what's in front of them.
Unless you include as charities and non profits, the politicians - who pass laws to take money and services from the poor and middle class, so they can make sure the biggest corporations, and the top 1-percenters, pay lower tax rates than people who make minimum wage - and the PACs who got them elected, and keep them in office?
Hey, here's an idea:
When we form our new nation-state, how about we have a tax system that is both largely flat-rate (like 20% or something), and includes a tick-list of options you want your taxes to go towards? Once a year you select the various agencies & services to fund with *your* taxes, and our benevolent government honors our requests and funds those things to the degree that they were selected by us, the people. Free-market style!
Crazy, I know, but in this bizarro age we might as well put everything on the table.
It's for their own good. History shows us time and again that unchecked wealth eventually leads to the recipients facing the firing squad, guillotine, or angry mob. In the meantime, their children - the Ivanka's, Tiffany's, Baron's, Donald Jr's and not Donald Jr's, as well as the Paris' and the Nikki's - contribute nothing to society. They are the true welfare class.
You, like many Americans, are indeed one of the richest persons on the planet--and indeed rich beyond the imaginings of most humans who ever lived. But financial literacy in this country is bad enough without you blurring the lines between income and assets, Charles.
Here's some actual data to back up your claim. It's even interesting to boot: 91.6% of adult humans have a net worth of less than $100,000 USD, per the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2013. (Wikipedia's page on distribution of wealth borrows Credit Suisse's very helpful pyramid graphic.) 36.2% of American adults fall in that range per Credit Suisse; that is consistent with the Fed's Consumer Financial Survey data showing that almost half of American households (which often have multiple adults) have net wealth of more than $100,000.