I will restate my point to make it clearer. My understanding of your argument is that we have many problems with things like poor infrastructure, poor education, and poor healthcare while we have billionaires. To address those we should then be taxing billionaires to make up for the inequities being caused by capitalism. Is that a correct take? My point is that perhaps those aren't the fault of billionaires or of Capitalism itself but misplaced priorities. Our national budgets are much larger than they are now and rapidly growing. Under Keynesian economics which both parties accept now, this isn't a matter of actually paying for these things but where we spend for the most good of society. We could address all the issues of infrastructure, education and health care without raising taxes. We would either have to shift spending from other areas and / or borrow more. I'm not recommending that but it could be done. Regarding your specific example on Europe note that there are still European billionaires even with socialist style policies so the existence of billionaires isn't a hinderance to implementing those policies.
Should billionaires exist is really asking if Capitalism should exist unfettered. I'm not necessarily pro-billionaire, but I am pro unfettered capitalism as it is the only system that allows for the true nature of humans to be realized to its greatest potential. Why work your butt off to create a product or cultivate an idea only to watch others interfere, change or take over?
I apologize for jumping down your throat but saying "I'm just going on what I see", is a pet peeve. I'm not going to apologize for sounding condescending. I know I can come off very pedantic but I've long since tired of filtering what I say in a things like "Debate and Discussion" just because people's eyes might glaze over or turn away when I mention names like David Hume. I personally believe philosophy is very important and it is something that all of us should study more. This country is the first country founded on philosophy but so few Americans understand that. My own experience is that it often seems people will use those who seek to understand political philosophy against them, ie "elitist intellectuals out of touch with real people " You wrote a good and thoughtful post and appreciate you tolerating my rant to respond thoughtfully.
No the won't go quietly to 90% but you will get a lot more allies when you don't say they should not exist.
If we truly agree here, your choice of support for presidential candidates becomes a bit confusing, I guess it depends on how strongly you feel on the subject compared to other issues. Bernie and Warren are proposing wealth taxes, so if one believes billionaires shouldn’t exist, they are the only two candidates offering substantial policies to address the problem of absurd wealth collection.
I agree with what you laid out in this post and My initial favorite candidate was Warren but I soured on her because she came off as an opportunist and she didn't really have a plan for everything. I don't dislike Bernie or his programs I just don't think he would get anything done as president because he could not get anyone to convert. I am also not sure his programs are best for America but that is debate-able. I don't like demonizing a class of people and claiming you have the answer to everything when you can't even get the numbers right. But we are definitely in agreement that the wage gap is out of control and wealth should be progressively taxed.
He was competing with other Billionaires. And it can be said that under his stewardship the industry benefitted from having one vision while emerging.
And just because subsidies where there does not mean it would have been done correctly. Vanderbilt had a uniqe vision that benefitted the railroads and the country. Its not a great argument when you only point out the negatives of the uber wealthy and gloss over the good.
I’m fine with them existing. Innovation and investment savvy should be rewarded in a free society. I love my iPhone. However, I would be curious to see the percentage that actually donate in the hundreds of millions to philanthropy. I think there’s a moral and civic duty to do so. It’s only fair that you give back to the society which had markets that allowed you to flourish in the first place.
Thanks appreciate it. Honestly if not for the flu I wouldn't have posted this or my "Questions from a Trump Supporter" thread
If Bernie's tax policy had a chance in hell of passing you would need a bigger wall than Trump wants to keep billionaires and their money in this country. Not to mention over 1/3 of the stock market is foreign owned and an even higher percentage of the bond market is owned by foreigners. The money that would be fleeing this country would be absolutely epic.
This is really the key question and why I raised this thread. Listening to the Nevada debate the argument from Sanders is that the bad of extremely wealthy outweighs any good that they might do. Obviously Bloomberg has a different opinion. To Ayn Rand the pursuit of wealth isn't just a good for society but a moral imperative in the sense that if an individual were to maximize their talent they should be rewarded financially and to not reward them would stunt society. She goes as far as to say it would be a crime. I don't agree with that extreme of a view but am uneasy with the Marxist idea that value is only created by labor. This is a philosophical question and I've raised it here mainly as philosophy but it does have some very real implications that we're seeing being played out in this election.
I only personally know one Billionaire. My wife worked for him. He made a lot of other people rich, and he built it from nothing by taking a lot of risk. Its easy to knock Billionaires, but he had a choice at one point...stay steady at some millions of dollars, retire, quit, live a really good life... or risk it all (every bit of it) and go for it. He went for it. His name is now on half the hospitals in the Medical Center based on his generosity. Stuff that wouldn't exist otherwise. His risk paid of for hundreds of people that worked for him and reaped the benefits too. Did he deserve to be a Billionaire? Yes Is Houston better off because he was a Billionaire? Yes Is my family personally better off because he was a Billionaire? Yes So, personally, I've seen what a Billionaire can do and basically the world needs more like him.
It's impossible to effectively implement this level of socialism when you live in a world where you are surrounded by billionaire lifeboat countries, and when you consider how the change of power and legislation occurs in this country.
I'm all for them going to their life boats. Just cut them off from our public infrustrcture from public research to our thriving market of consumers who have healthcare and are ready to spend money.
Not as big a threat anymore. Southeast Asia has double the US population by itself and the economies are growing at about 5%. The lifeboats aren't just little caribbean islands anymore. New Zealand, Ireland, Turkey, Cyprus, Singapore, Monaco, Malta, etc all have citizenship my investment programs. A passport from malta can be acquired in 12 months and gives you EU citizenship and the right to live, work, or study anywhere in the EU. It also gives you visa free travel to the US.....
