patrick.net

Sniper says

Bobby boy says

You mean like trump and the Koch bros? Did they all start out poor? You said many, how many? Run and hide.

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.

Hey Bobby, want to try again?

Try again at what? The question still stands. How many of the rich started out poor. The question will probably stand forever.

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates

Are you implying that Bill Gates was born poor? The Bill Gates who went to a private Preparatory School?


Sniper says

Steve Jobs

And Steve Jobs? He grew up in Mountain View and Los Altos, CA. Not exactly poor...

anon_8f378 says

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates

Are you implying that Bill Gates was born poor? The Bill Gates who went to a private Preparatory School?

Bill Gates with the big time corporate lawyer father, banker mother, and grandfather? He had to walk all the way to the car to go to prep school. That Bill Gates who worked his way up from poverty?

No one would have ever heard of Bill Gates if Gary Kildell had not been at a customer site when IBM came around without even calling first then left because Gary's secretary wouldn't sign a non disclosure. Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.

bob2356 says

Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.

But he spent his nights coding DOS...
Wait, errr.... he bought a piece of software called QDOS for "Quick and Dirty OS" for 50K from a bum and somehow IBM bought that to run its personal computers, and through an incredible act of corporate charity, let Microsoft sell it too.

bob2356 says

Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.

Being a fuckweasel always helps a lot too.

Heraclitusstudent says

bob2356 says

Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.

But he spent his nights coding DOS...
Wait, errr.... he bought a piece of software called QDOS for "Quick and Dirty OS" for 50K from a bum and somehow IBM bought that to run its personal computers, and through an incredible act of corporate charity, let Microsoft sell it too.

The only software gates wrote was a horribly buggy basic interpreter for the Altair and he scammed Ed Roberts at MITS claiming he had a working basic then after he got an appointment he scrambled to cobble something together in time to demo it. Gates ethics didn't improve with time.

Sniper says

So what's YOUR solution?

Solutions are easy:
For example: don't trade as much and don't import as much cheap labor, thereby increasing the share of labor.
AND/OR - tax the rich more, invest in the future of the nation, i.e. things like infrastructures, education and the like, which have a return over time. Or reduce the deficit.

Sniper says

That's easy to do. End EBT cards, Section 8, WIC, Unemployment, Obamacare subsidies, TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, SSI, Solar Credits, Electric vehicle credits, etc., etc., etc. This would go a long way in reducing the deficit. You OK with discontinuing those programs?

No mention of the 2 biggest welfare programs of all, dept of agriculture and dept of defense You are truly the perfect trumpbot.

Sniper says

who do you think is backstopping all the current college loans? The tax payers!

No, the student. If I recall correctly, student loans cannot even be dumped in bankruptcy. So what is the tax payer on the hook for if it has to be paid back no matter what and can't be discharged?

bob2356 says

dept of agriculture

Jesus Christ I want to give you a medal. I'm in the Midwest and more rural. The amount of farmers and their wives I see driving $60k plus cars is ridiculous. They're smaller in numbers and have little interaction with the general public, but farmers are some of the largest welfare queens in the country. And I get it, if you don't have some backstop to agriculture it could go to shit quickly, but the current state of affairs is disgusting.

anon_277ad says

Strategist says

Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

That's right, concentration of wealth at the top is yugly devastating for the economy.

That's why the rich should be taxed heavily. Giving them tax breaks and hoping they do the right thing hasn't worked in the past

If you don't agree then tell us how do we keep from concentrating the wealth at the top?

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

Thank you.
That's why inequalities are bad.
This is why no one should be ok with the rich owning more and more.

Lets say Bill Gates has $100 million, and Charlie Jones the janitor has $10,000 in savings. If Bill sees his shares rocket to $500 million, how does that hurt Charlie the Janitor? He still has $10,000. Lets say you guys are so upset at the disparity in wealth, you drag Bill to the guillotine and take off his head. How does that benefit Charlie, when he still has $10,000?
The disparity in wealth does not hurt the poor, just as wealth equality does not benefit the poor. Everyone being equally dirt poor does not benefit anyone, like in Venezuela.

bob2356 says

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

Now you are really grasping for straws. Forbes exists to be the mouthpiece of the ultra rich libertarian set.

Why don't you provide something showing the long term effect capital gains has on investment. Back to it's true because I say it's true. But that's all you post anyway.

You want too much evidence for little things that no one will bother reading. What's the point?

Strategist says

The disparity in wealth does not hurt the poor, just as wealth equality does not benefit the poor. Everyone being equally dirt poor does not benefit anyone, like in Venezuela.

Actually, disparity in wealth does cause the poor to suffer more since they cannot compete as much for certain things, like land or college tuition. The golf course gets built close to downtown for the rich, and the housing for the workers is pushed further out, for example.

Consider that the guy with $10,000 is in fact objectively poorer if everyone else on earth except him gets, say, $1 million. Prices will rise, and he will be fucked.

Or think of it this way: the economy is entirely about control over labor. There is a fixed amount of labor available in the short term. That means that the total amount of money is really just a representation of that labor. If you create money and give it to the very rich, they get a larger share of that labor to work for themselves and not for anyone else.

In the long term, there are population changes and technology changes, but still, basically, money is just about making you do things for other people.

Sniper says

Heraclitusstudent says

Ah you guys are gonna argue that the rich worked so much more than the rest that they actually deserve to own 50% of the world.
It would be unfair if they owned only 35%, right?

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.

Big Difference. You should take that hint and change your ways.

I’d ask you to prove this, but you cannot, so I won’t

Strategist says

Patrick says

What no one ever points out is that both the richest and the poorest generally live off of the labor of others.

The very rich do it by economic rent extraction, enforced at gunpoint. The very poor do it by social programs, also enforced at gunpoint.

The solution is to stop taxing labor completely and get serious about taxing land and capital gains instead.

Then everyone will have an incentive to work.

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

In real or nominal terms?

Why do you think this would happen?

I agree with Strategist: Any inheritance above $5 millions should be taxed 95%.
Dead people don't need incentives. And we don't need young brats with no incentives at all.

Heraclitusstudent says

Any inheritance above $5 millions should be taxed 95%.

How many people in the country will that affect?

How is it any different today than in 2009 when we were bailing the 1%ers out fawning over Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, and Mike Bloomberg, because they said the 1% own 50% of the wealth back then. Everyone that voted for Obama maintained that Obama avoided a depression for Obama's first disastrous term.

Sniper says

Heraclitusstudent says

Any inheritance above $5 millions should be taxed 95%.

How many people in the country will that affect?

Why does it matter how many? It will affect all.

Robots could displace 375 million workers by 2030: McKinsey
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robots-could-displace-375-million-184000826.html
Work hard. Very hard. And very smart. And for pennies.
Otherwise you're obsolete.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

Now you are really grasping for straws. Forbes exists to be the mouthpiece of the ultra rich libertarian set.

Why don't you provide something showing the long term effect capital gains has on investment. Back to it's true because I say it's true. But that's all you post anyway.

You want too much evidence for little things that no one will bother reading. What's the point?

If it's a little thing that no one will bother reading then why is it such a big part of your argument? You can't have it both ways. Too much evidence? You have provided zero evidence. But you always provide zero evidence. Only it's true because I say it's true.

anon_8f378 says

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates

Are you implying that Bill Gates was born poor? The Bill Gates who went to a private Preparatory School?


Sniper says

Steve Jobs

And Steve Jobs? He grew up in Mountain View and Los Altos, CA. Not exactly poor...

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were self made billionaires. If they were born in Venezuela, they would both be looking for food in dumpsters.

Patrick says

Consider that the guy with $10,000 is in fact objectively poorer if everyone else on earth except him gets, say, $1 million. Prices will rise, and he will be fucked.

Yes, he would be fucked. The rich who have lots of money would get fucked too. Hyper inflation fucks all.

Patrick says

Or think of it this way: the economy is entirely about control over labor. There is a fixed amount of labor available in the short term. That means that the total amount of money is really just a representation of that labor. If you create money and give it to the very rich, they get a larger share of that labor to work for themselves and not for anyone else.

I presume you mean they would get a larger share of the labor to work in the businesses the rich own. That is not a bad thing. We want more jobs.

errc says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.

Big Difference. You should take that hint and change your ways.

I’d ask you to prove this, but you cannot, so I won’t

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

errc says

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

In real or nominal terms?

Why do you think this would happen?

Both in real and nominal terms.
"Capital moves to the highest rates of return" If the returns on capital are cut, it goes where the grass is greener. (adjusting for risk)
eg. If Bank of America cuts it's CD rates from 2% to 1%, but Wells Fargo cuts it from 2% to 1.5%, where would you advise granny to put her money, if she was not interested in any other investment?

Heraclitusstudent says

I agree with Strategist: Any inheritance above $5 millions should be taxed 95%.

Sniper says

How many people in the country will that affect?

Too many would be needlessly affected. $5 million is not a fortune like it used to be.
I would go with 20% for those with $50 million, all the way to 70% for those with $1 billion or more.
The dead don't need incentives, and their spoilt rotten brats don't need the 3rd Lamborghini.

bob2356 says

You want too much evidence for little things that no one will bother reading. What's the point?

If it's a little thing that no one will bother reading then why is it such a big part of your argument? You can't have it both ways. Too much evidence? You have provided zero evidence. But you always provide zero evidence. Only it's true because I say it's true.

I provide lots of evidence, but it just isn't practical to dig through mountains of data for each and every opinion I have.
I never lie. My opinions are based on facts I have read and come come across over time, and therefore have no need to even lie. Sure, I can be wrong at times because I am not perfect. Just ask my wife of 30 years, and she'll tell you how perfect my driving is. I think my driving is perfect.

Strategist says

Too many would be needlessly affected. $5 million is not a fortune like it used to be.

$5 million might not be a fortune, but when almost 70% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, and the average retiree is entering retirement with $120K saved up for retirement, there really won't be that many in that +$5 million category.

Strategist says

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

Strategist says

I provide lots of evidence,

Where? You evidence seems to be like bigfoot, no one ever actually sees it. Show a posting you made on this entire thread showing "evidence" that anything in your list has any credence. Other than it's true because I say it's true.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

Strategist says

I provide lots of evidence,

Where? You evidence seems to be like bigfoot, no one ever actually sees it. Show a posting you made on this entire thread showing "evidence" that anything in your list has any credence. Other than it's true because I say it's true.

My dear friend Bob,
Showing only part of statements is very deceptive.
Thanks
Strategist

Strategist says

errc says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.

Big Difference. You should take that hint and change your ways.

I’d ask you to prove this, but you cannot, so I won’t

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

A whole 15 people represents many of the rich? Seriously? What exactly is your definition of the word prove or for that matter how do you define many? Only 30% of the rich ( or at least the forbes 400 richest) start at less than upper class or wealthy.

Sniper says

Strategist says

Too many would be needlessly affected. $5 million is not a fortune like it used to be.

$5 million might not be a fortune, but when almost 70% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, and the average retiree is entering retirement with $120K saved up for retirement, there really won't be that many in that +$5 million category.

Yes, I agree there won't be many. You still have to draw the line somewhere, so why draw the line that would affect lots of small businesses and their employees? We want to encourage small businesses to get successful, big, and hire lots of people. Almost all big corporations started off small, many in the garage.

bob2356 says

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

A whole 15 people represents many of the rich? Seriously? What exactly is your definition of the word prove or for that matter how do you define many? Only 30% of the rich ( or at least the forbes 400 richest) start at less than upper class or wealthy.

These are just some of the well known ones. Very successful people are a minority to begin with.
Most people consider being rich as having a net worth of $5 million. Some think it's $10 million.
http://www.newsweek.com/millionaires-us-wealth-charles-schwab-rich-poor-627893
WHO IS RICH IN AMERICA? WEALTH NOW STARTS AT $2.4 MILLION
BY TOM PORTER ON 6/21/17 AT 12:03 PM
Mercedes Benz polo challenge
People enjoy an afternoon at the Mercedes-Benz Polo Challenge July 21, 2001 in Bridgehampton, New York. Americans now put a cash value of $2.4 million on what they consider "wealthy."
SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES
SHARE
U.S.
It was once the case that with $1 million in the bank, you’d be considered wealthy by most. But no longer.

According to research by American bank Charles Schwab, that benchmark has risen, and you now need at least $2.4 million to be considered wealthy.

In its survey of Americans aged 21 to 75 the bank asked how much people felt you needed to be considered "wealthy," and found that people believed that having $1 million only makes a person "financially comfortable" rather than well-off.

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

Though there are now a record number of millionaires in the U.S., according to the Spectrum Group’s 2017 Market Insight report, they still only make up around 10 percent of the country's population.

The $2.4 million required to be considered wealthy is 30 times the $80,000 net worth of the average American household, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Though the number of American millionaires is growing, the number of Americans in the middle is shrinking—suggesting the split between rich and poor is growing. According to a 2016 study by Pew Research Center, the number of Americans considered to be in the middle income bracket in 2000 stood at 55 percent, but by 2014 this number had shrunk to 55 percent.

However, the Schwab survey also found that Americans view other aspects of life as making a person wealthy. While 27 percent defined wealth in cash terms, 24 percent defined it as gained through experiences, and 19 percent as "peace of mind." When asked about their priorities, most said they would rather have good health and gratitude than a lot of cash.

“Wealth is often thought of as a lofty, unattainable number that doesn’t apply to most of us, but that’s an old-fashioned notion that needs to be retired,” Terri Kallsen, head of Schwab Investor Services, said in a statement released with the findings.

Strategist says

Sniper says

Strategist says

Too many would be needlessly affected. $5 million is not a fortune like it used to be.

$5 million might not be a fortune, but when almost 70% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, and the average retiree is entering retirement with $120K saved up for retirement, there really won't be that many in that +$5 million category.

Yes, I agree there won't be many.

That's my point:

In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

So, everyone is getting their panties in a bundle about the inheritance tax threshold of $5 million? We're going to worry about 0.3% of the population and say the new tax bill should tax the "rich" more? How much more can be extracted from this 0.3% to make a difference in total taxes?

"Needles" versus "Haystacks" again.

Sniper says

Yes, I agree there won't be many.

That's my point:

In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

These are individuals, not households. Nevertheless, I would divide the numbers by 2.25 or whatever the average household is.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

A whole 15 people represents many of the rich? Seriously? What exactly is your definition of the word prove or for that matter how do you define many? Only 30% of the rich ( or at least the forbes 400 richest) start at less than upper class or wealthy.

These are just some of the well known ones. Very successful people are a minority to begin with.
Most people consider being rich as having a net worth of $5 million. Some think it's $10 million.
http://www.newsweek.com/millionai...

This has what relevance of any kind to your contention that many of the rich started poor?

bob2356 says

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

A whole 15 people represents many of the rich? Seriously? What exactly is your definition of the word prove or for that matter how do you define many? Only 30% of the rich ( or at least the forbes 400 richest) start at less than upper class or wealthy.

These are just some of the well known ones. Very successful people are a minority to begin with.
Most people consider being rich as having a net worth of $5 million. Some think it's $10 million.

Strategist says

In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

These are individuals, not households. Nevertheless, I would divide the numbers by 2.25 or whatever the average household is.

Huh?? It didn't say households?

The article said "individuals" and there are approx. 320 million "individuals" in the country. So, if 1.3 million are in the $5m to $25m bracket, isn't that 0.3% of the population?

Sniper says

Strategist says

In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html

These are individuals, not households. Nevertheless, I would divide the numbers by 2.25 or whatever the average household is.

Huh?? It didn't say households?

The article said "individuals" and there are approx. 320 million "individuals" in the country. So, if 1.3 million are in the $5m to $25m bracket, isn't that 0.3% of the population?

Yes, that is 0.3% of the population. However, household wealth could be a more accurate indicator. When Bill Gates had his first child, it would be the poorest child on the planet, born to the richest man on the child. The poor kid just has a used diaper to it's name. Something does not make sense there.

Strategist says

However, household wealth could be a more accurate indicator. When Bill Gates had his first child, it would be the poorest child on the planet, born to the richest man on the child. The poor kid just has a used diaper to it's name. Something does not make sense there.

Why use a household indicator, it's usually the individual that's produced the wealth. In the case of Bill Gates, even at 5 years old, the kid will still be dirt poor. He won't gain wealth until Gates takes a dirt nap and he inherits his share (assuming Gates gives it to him in his will).