Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
I'd say that's pretty well all wrong and the opposite is more likely true. Greed is most often what causes people to lose money not make money. Risk is most often what generates wealth. And smarter people tend to take better risk and get more reward. Fluke and luck are both possibilities but like poker, the best and brightest tend to be the luckiest and most successful.
|
There's success and there's unreasonable success. I think proposing a tax on amounts above $250 million is hardly unreasonable. In the same way we buoy people up on the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale because we think it would be unfair to let people have nothing whatsoever, it's a good idea to look at people on the other end of the extreme and even things out a little on that end as well.
The best and brightest equating to having the most money is probably the most ######ed thing I've ever read on this board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
So the billions that he and his company have put into the economy through corporate taxes, personal taxes, creating thousands of jobs and various philanthropy isn't enough and because he still has “too much”, it needs to be redistributed to other people because they don't have the same amount.
People need to get over their jealousy. Redistribution won't create a society of haves, it will create a society of have nots. Despite what many people think, they don't have a right to what other people have.
|
What does it have to do with jealousy? "Fair" is a basic principle we all share. I don't know of a single parent that isn't proud of their kid when they share with others. My son had a bunch of Easter chocolate yesterday and he shared it with his cousin who didn't have as much. That's the right thing to do. What changes when it comes to grown-ups with far more money than they could ever spend in multiple lifetimes where it becomes more acceptable to hoard it than disperse it to areas where it could do more good? And don't forget, I'm talking about taxing on amounts beyond obscene wealth after the guy who "earned it" dies.
Taxing amounts over $250 million after death will hardly create a society of have nots. That's preposterous.