So what is the aim of being billionaire?

[Phys988]

Billionaire !

I think that pleasure is the aim of life, and it is the basic motivation that produces societies, economies, humanities, technologies …

So what is the aim of being billionaire?

Since having a billion dollars, will give you a similar pleasure of having 20 million dollars. Having billions or hundreds of millions just prevent others from having pleasure. I think that communism is wrong, bust having no limits on ownership may be also wrong.

Why is it wrong (or not) to put a law that prevent people from owning (for example) more than 20 million dollars …..

 

[theCandyman]

Well, 20 million may not seem like a lot to others. Who can say how much money is enough to be happy?

 

[ShawnD]

You've missed the point entirely. People try to make lots of money because they enjoy making money.

That, and games like Warcraft would suck ass if we decided that it was ok to control only half of the world. Think about it.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Past a certain amount it becomes pointless. At that point you'd think they'd give some of it away and start all over again, if it was indeed really just about making money for the enjoyment of it, but sadly it's also about selfishness and greed with most people. People actually determine their self worth by how much money they have or by their assets as if they work in the same currency, their bank balance being a sort of score. I'm not against people making money, it's just what it turns some people into that bothers me. That said I don't think life is about pleasure, it's a big part but not everything.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Should we break the fingers of the really good piano players?

 

[Cyrus]

There is a guy at our airport who is a billionaire. He owns his own hangar. Inside resides these guys:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Dassault-Falcon-2000/1300325

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unti...7&photo_nr=17&prev_id=1286667&next_id=1281251

The helicopter has a gold plated interior. (These are the actual pictures of them).

 

[DaveC426913]

You're looking at the issue very simplistically.

Being a billionaire doesn't normally mean having a bank vault with stacks of money in it. If a billionaire did that he'd be bled dry from taxes. This is by design.

Being a billionaire usually means you're worth a billion dollars in assets. Almost all their money is sunk into investments. They get tax breaks for this. This too is by design.

In fact, one of the things that this tax and tax shelter system does is strongly encourage people to keep their money flowing through the economy.


People with lots of money create and support businesses, businesses that employ lots of people and promote a strong economy.

Rich people are desirable in a capitalistic society and are a sign of a healthy economy.


Capitalism has its flaws, but it's much better than many, many systems out there, not the least of which because it is closely tied to a democratic form of government.

Both regimes (capitalistic economy and democratic government) promote the ability of anyone - even the poorest member of society - an solid chance of climbimng to success through hard work. Many regimes simply do not allow people to climb above their station, no matter how hard they work.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm pretty much happy no matter how much money I have - so I don't needs millions or billions of $. If I had that kind of money, I'd give most of it away.

And a gold plated interior of any vehicle is just ridiculous and a waste of a limited resource.

Rich people are desirable in a capitalistic society and are a sign of a healthy economy.

Except when there is significant economic disparity, and some people don't have a home or enough food to eat as is the case in the US and other nations. Right near my office is a temporary shelter for homeless folks. It's always full.

http://www.hungerinamerica.org/key_findings/

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Depends how much money is in the hands of how few. It's possible to have a strong economy without having most of the money in the hands of an absolutely minuscule number of people. If you ask me all that wealth and business could be just as easily spread over a hundred people and do more good, than in the hands of one person. Capitalism is good only when it doesn't go too far, then it becomes good for too few people to be considered good any more. And of course, the disparity between haves and have nots is self sustaining, because people who have, tend to care less than people who don't. In fact the middle classes give less per person to charity in general than the lower classes.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm pretty much happy no matter how much money I have - so I don't needs millions or billions of $. If I had that kind of money, I'd give most of it away.

And a gold plated interior of any vehicle is just ridiculous and a waste of a limited resource.


Except when there is significant economic disparity, and some people don't have a home or enough food to eat as is the case in the US and other nations. Right near my office is a temporary shelter for homeless folks. It's always full.

I don't see that as being 100% true though. Were it not for the mega rich, many great things today would not be around thanks to their opulence. No great buildings with magnificent artwork, no howard huges spruce goose, etc. There will always be people in hard times. So although its a problem, it does not mean opulence is a bad thing.

You can kiss any good car maker goodbye. Cya ferrari, aston martin, porsche, mercedes. No more private jets, no nice architecture, no more expensive paintings, etc.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And a gold plated interior of any vehicle is just ridiculous and a waste of a limited resource.

While gold is a limited resource, it is not a useful one. Every year more and more is stockpiled as the mines produce more than anyone can find a use for. Imagine bars of aluminum kept under lock and key for 80 years and never even looked at. But that describes the gold in Fort Knox. OSHA should create a regulation that helicopters are not safe unless their interiors are plated with gold.

 

[turbo]

I'm with Astronuc on this one. When my wife and I moved in together, she was in debt to the landlady because the mill we worked at was shut down and she had not worked long enough to accumulate Unemployment Benefits. My benefits were not great, but we managed to get caught up with the landlady in a reasonable time, and still have simple nutritious meals, until Spring rolled around and I was able to get construction work on a year-round project. We were just as happy when we had nothing, and we are very happy today with a very modest house, a nice garden spot, and no debt. The notion that money makes one happy is foreign to me. The times when I had the most money coming in were when I was working the most demanding jobs, and giving up time with my wife to keep clients happy. That didn't make me happy.

 

[Cyrus]

Poor people have to work their way up like anyone else. The rich are not obligated to give away their money to the poor, and if I were a billionaire I would NOT give away my money to the poor. Not one cent.

I would make a fund for low interest loans. If they want a loan to dig themselves out of the hole, then they can. But they have to PAY it back. No hand outs for the poor, that's insulting to human dignity.


The only people I would give money to are those that can't help themselves. I.e the retarded, autism, etc.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Poor people have to work their way up like anyone else. The rich are not obligated to give away their money to the poor, and if I were a billion air I would NOT give away my money to the poor. Not one cent.

I would make a fund for low interest loans. If the want a loan to dig themselves out of the hole, then they can. But they have to PAY it back. No hand outs for the poor, that's insulting to human dignity.

Well obviously, throwing money at something never works. I think incentive programs are the best way to go. Things like offering extra tax breaks to those who work and support children and free child care if you are willing to work. Make it harder to claim for welfare and bum around, force people to make a serious effort to look for work to get their checks. Harsher penalties for people trying to cheat the system, even prison terms. As you said loans, but at reasonable rates of interest. Urban redevelopment incentives for businesses. More training, apprenticeships etc, so you are not limiting your roles to only the most highly qualified. In fact you could go on for ages.

I'd never become rich, I just don't have the urge to acquire money, and if I did by some miracle become obscenely wealthy I'd probably end up giving most of it away. Enough money is all I want, any more is probably going to be a waste. Can't be arsed wearing myself out trying to build up a huge fortune, when I could be enjoying other things that mean about a million times more. Comfortable would be nice, enough to do what I want to do.

 

[turbo]

Can't be arsed wearing myself out trying to build up a huge fortune, when I could be enjoying other things that mean about a million times more. Comfortable would be nice, enough to do what I want to do.

Really! An evening fly-fishing on a remote pond during a heavy hatch of mayflies using flies that I tied myself is Heaven! One night, my buddy and I were fishing a remote pond full of wild brookies during a Hexagena hatch and we had only brought one landing net - an oversight, since we had "doubles" over and over again and had to pass the net from end-to-end along the canoe to land them. The next night, some guys at the put-in recognized our voices and said "Hey you're the guys who were whooping it up last night!" "What were you catching them on?" Blaine and I showed them the huge fluorescent green flies made with green elk-hair bodies and wings and tails of green calf-tail hair, and they called us liars - as if we were trying to pull a trick on them. If they had been gentlemen about it, I might have given them one or two of my flies, but I let them suffer instead.

 

[ShawnD]

Capitalism has its flaws, but it's much better than many, many systems out there, not the least of which because it is closely tied to a democratic form of government.

Capitalism tends to move toward areas that have very little freedom, where people don't have the ability to vote for things in their best interest. This is why riot-happy France, and other places with labor unions, have more socialist economies, and why dictator-lead China can build sweatshops at record speed. USA is an interesting case because lobbying has turned it into a pseudo-democracy where a significant portion of laws and bills are decided by bribery (lobbying).

Lobbying from capitalists is also why the USA isn't in The Economist's list of top 15 most democratic nations. It doesn't matter who you vote for, because they all get bribed by the same people anyway.

 

[russ_watters]

Why is it wrong (or not) to put a law that prevent people from owning (for example) more than 20 million dollars …..

Countries that purport to have freedom shouldn't be making arbitrary laws like that. There is no good reason to prevent people from making more money than that.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Really! An evening fly-fishing on a remote pond during a heavy hatch of mayflies using flies that I tied myself is Heaven! One night, my buddy and I were fishing a remote pond full of wild brookies during a Hexagena hatch and we had only brought one landing net - an oversight, since we had "doubles" over and over again and had to pass the net from end-to-end along the canoe to land them. The next night, some guys at the put-in recognized our voices and said "Hey you're the guys who were whooping it up last night!" "What were you catching them on?" Blaine and I showed them the huge fluorescent green flies made with green elk-hair bodies and wings and tails of green calf-tail hair, and they called us liars - as if we were trying to pull a trick on them. If they had been gentlemen about it, I might have given them one or two of my flies, but I let them suffer instead.

See I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, beyond fly fishing on a pond. But it sounds great.

I think taxation is enough, no reason to stop people making money if they want to, even billions. On the other hand, it'd be nice if they actually gave something worthwhile to help the abject poor, but there you go. At least some uber rich people are decent human beings, makes up for the rest. Who will no doubt die on an obscene pile of money/assets, without actually spreading it around a little. It's hard to really care much about one less obscenely rich billionaire in the world.

 

[Cyrus]

Why do you think rich people have to give anything to others SD? Is there some law that says there supposed to?

You just said throwing money does not solve a problem, and yet your wanting the mega rich to give something worthwhile. You are a hypocrite.


There is a prince, sultan, something like that in dubai that has an entire rolls royce that's silver. Watch it be part of a museum collection one day. And when people go to see this car in the museum, it will be only because some mega rich guy wanted something outrageous. How about we go to the smithsonian down the road from me and look at all the crazy jewlery from kings and queens of the past? Same thing there.

 

[Moonbear]

Why do you think rich people have to give anything to others SD? Is there some law that says there supposed to?

You just said throwing money does not solve a problem, and yet your wanting the mega rich to give something worthwhile. You are a hypocrite.

He didn't say they HAVE to, he said it would be nice if they did.

I think DaveC explained it well. These people aren't literally sitting on piles of cash, it's invested in things like the buildings their companies are housed in that give people a place to go to work every day, equipment used for those jobs, etc. And when they do spend on lavish indulgences for themselves, someone is getting paid to provide those services or products. If someone is going to coat the interior of their helicopter with gold leaf, they're paying someone to do that job for them (and for a job like that, they're probably paying pretty generously too).

By giving the money to their employees who help them earn more money, they keep the cycle of benefits going much longer than if they just earned a lot and handed it all back out to the homeless, in which case, it's one-time help and then they're out of cash.

 

[Cyrus]

I guess the rest are not descent human beings because they did not 'give something worthwhile' -please.

His entire paragraph is full of assumtions and nonsense.

 

[turbo]

Cyrus, pleas cut SD some slack. The mega-rich that have benefited from the US government and its lack of regulation on investment firms, corporations, etc, should be taxed to provide basic "floors" for the poor people who lack health insurance, food assistance, fuel assistance, etc. Many of these people are working 2-3 part-time jobs with no benefits. They are the backbone of our local economies, and their livelihoods are critical to the underpinnings of our society.

 

[lisab]

I guess the rest are not descent human beings because they did not 'give something worthwhile' -please.

His entire paragraph is full of assumtions and nonsense.

Well I do determine how decent someone is based on how givng they are. Could be money, could be time, could be respect, forgiveness or affection...I can't stand stingy people. They just take, take, take.

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, pleas cut SD some slack. The mega-rich that have benefited from the US government and its lack of regulation on investment firms, corporations, etc, should be taxed to provide basic "floors" for the poor people who lack health insurance, food assistance, fuel assistance, etc. Many of these people are working 2-3 part-time jobs with no benefits. They are the backbone of our local economies, and their livelihoods are critical to the underpinnings of our society.

I agree with you 100%. I have the utmost respect for people that work hard - rich or poor...Now, why does that mean rich people have to give their money to poor people? If the us government did not regulate these companies, why is it the fault of the companies? Why should they now have to give up their money? How about I come and take your money and give it to someone who has less than you? Does that sound fair?

No free handouts in life.

 

[Cyrus]

Well I do determine how decent someone is based on how givng they are. Could be money, could be time, could be respect, forgiveness or affection...I can't stand stingy people. They just take, take, take.

I agree with you, with the exception of money. Money is something you don't give out. You can loan money to the poor. You don't give money to the poor. I don't care how rich you are and how poor they are.


I would do a google on Dr. Muhammad Yunus. He has a bank system in the 3rd world countries. They give loans to very poor people who have to pay the money back. This way they have their dignity becuase they are not getting free handouts, they always pay it back, and they move up and have a better life. But they have to work for it.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I guess the rest are not descent human beings because they did not 'give something worthwhile' -please.

His entire paragraph is full of assumtions and nonsense.

I don't see a problem with lauding people who give a little back to society, and saying that other people weren't so decent. I mean who's going to remember someone who was only out for themselves, apart from their family? What's wrong with saying that people who give a bit more back are better people? I'm not saying these people have to, just that it would be nice if they did.

 

[Cyrus]

How did we suddenly get to someone being only 'out for themselves'?

Why do you correlate handing out money because I am rich and you are poor as that act making me a good person? Its called paying someone off to be your friend. Thats exactly what you are doing. Let me give a big wad of cash to some poor people and become their new hero. Meanwhile, you did NOTHING to help them long term. Some moral person that guy must be.

 

[lisab]

Think of Andrew Carnegie, who made millions (probably billions, in today's $) and gave almost all of it away by building libraries all across the US. And Bill Gates, who is in the process of giving away his billions in the form of vaccination programs, scholarships, etc.

I see your point that simply giving money away to the poor may not result in improving their life, long term. But directed giving, in the form of improving a poor kid's life expectancy or education, is different.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

How did we suddenly get to someone being only 'out for themselves'?

Why do you correlate handing out money because I am rich and you are poor as that act making me a good person? Its called paying someone off to be your friend. Thats exactly what you are doing.

I never said to just hand it out, I think I made that perfectly clear earlier, that's what charities and community projects are for, to best decide where to allocate money. I'm not talking about them being chauffeured around the ghettos throwing rolls of notes at the peasantry here.

I'm talking about giving money to projects which will improve a great deal of peoples lives, that's a good thing. These people probably won't care about me at all, many won't even realize where the money came from. I don't think that's the reason you'd do it, man your cynical.

Think of Andrew Carnegie, who made millions (probably billions, in today's $) and gave almost all of it away by building libraries all across the US. And Bill Gates, who is in the process of giving away his billions in the form of vaccination programs, scholarships, etc.

I see your point that simply giving money away to the poor may not result in improving their life, long term. But directed giving, in the form of improving a poor kid's life expectancy or education, is different.

Those would be the people I was talking about earlier who make up for the not so generous of spirit.

 

[Cyrus]

Think of Andrew Carnegie, who made millions (probably billions, in today's $) and gave almost all of it away by building libraries all across the US. And Bill Gates, who is in the process of giving away his billions in the form of vaccination programs, scholarships, etc.

I see your point that simply giving money away to the poor may not result in improving their life, long term. But directed giving, in the form of improving a poor kid's life expectancy or education, is different.

Yes, and many of their VERY opulent homes are now museums. Were it not for their vast wealth, you would not have those homes around the country today.

 

[Cyrus]

Also, microsoft pretty much screws any company that gets in their way and puts them out of business. But hey, Bill Gates gave away lots of money. Hes a good guy!

I think If I ever became rich and did something bad, Id just give away lots of money. Its a great way to cover your ass and keep the people quiet and have the public love you.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yes, and many of their VERY opulent homes are now museums. Were it not for their vast wealth, you would not have those homes around the country today.

You mean I should hark back to the past, when comparing the actions of people in today's societies. Not sure how a tycoon investing his wealth in schemes for the poor, is going to change the number of rich peoples houses that are now museums exactly?

Bill Gates is ruthless as a businessman, if you actually look at what he is done he is the epitome of the capitalist system (in fact he probably hasn't done anything any other business man wouldn't do given half the chance) But despite his ruthless (and frankly standard business practices) he's also a nice bloke who wants to give something back, we can overlook some of his more conventional business practices.

 

[Cyrus]

:rofl: He breaks the law and puts other companies out of business. But he's a 'nice bloke' because he gave away some of his money. :rofl:


-okayyyyyyyyyyy...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

:rofl: He breaks the law and puts other companies out of business. But he's a 'nice bloke' because he gave away some of his money. :rofl:-okayyyyyyyyyyy...

I never said it's ok, I just said that at least he's a nice bloke in that he's thinking about others. Frankly he has the business clout to do pretty much whatever he wants in your system, if anything he's a success story for capitalism. I'd blame the system though for his business practices, which I don't condone, but they are just ordinary methods of doing business in the US, even if they are skirting the edge of what is legal sometimes. I mean we can probably list dozens of companies who haven't quite got away with it or have.

See just as two wrongs don't make a right, one wrong and a heap of right to help out truck loads of people, does not make a wrong. It makes a businessman with at least some sense of community spirit. So yes, if you ever become obscenely rich, and end up pouring millions into schemes to help the poor, people may well like you more. I know that's terrible, but I think I can live with the fallout?

 

[Cyrus]

What do you mean by 'my system'. When did I say breaking the law was ok?

What do you mean they are 'ordinary business practices in the us'? Breaking the law is not ordinary, nor allowed. That statement is a bunch of crap, I am sorry.

If I become rich, I will give out loans to people and companies to better themselves, and I expect every one of them to PAY ME BACK. Because when they pay me back I can reinvest it into something else. How are you going to do that when you give away all your money like a dope?