Three very rich guys talk about Trump, taxes, and the 'vilified' 1%

[lockedout]

Why one or the other and not both? The government can have bad tax laws, and individual people (successful or not) can be greedy.

Warren Buffett seems to be saying both are problems.

What's wrong with being greedy?

[lockedout]

I'll let you figure that one out by yourself.

So absolutely nothing. People are just jealous.

[Vash The Stampede]

All three said they feel the top 1% in the country are vilified for their success, more than they're admired or appreciated for the charitable donations they've made.

The reason for the hate is because of the lobbying and lack of reasonable wages. You change laws and effect our freedom for that success, and hire often illegal workers for that 1% success. The people owe you nothing, and you owe the people your lively hood.

Charitable work will feed people for a day, but changing the rules would feed them for a lifetime. Also Goldman Sachs is nothing to be proud of.

[lockedout]

There is nothing to be jealous of. Jealousy stems form greed. As for "nothing" keep telling yourself that, maybe if you repeat it enough you will actually believe it.

Nothing wrong with being greedy.

[Deleted]

For all the people that say that taxing the rich than the poor is wrong and shouldn't be allowed

You don't mind people with plenty of money pay less % of their labor than people with almost zero income labor?


The rich shouldn't fucking cry and just pay up. Oh wait nevermind they own the government and thus the police force that protects them... And most rich dont have that much labor compared to a regular employee that they have. And no they don't make the choices so everyone under them keeps there job... They have a thnk tank for that.

The moment 1 person in a company gets paid 300x times more than a average worker(So the average income of employees) I don't give a fuck if they pay u 80% of there income to taxes, cause they don't work 300 times as hard. And also you do know how taxes work right?

The first income they make(which is enough to life with aslng as the companies charge normal prices) you don't pay 50% income to taxes.


Let me make it easy to understand:

person 1 makes 10.000 dollar
person 2 makes 100.000 dollar
person 3 makes 1.000.000 dollar


first tax 20% 0 15.000
second tax 40% 15.000 - 150.000
3 tax 60% 150.000 - 300.000
4 tax 80% 300.000 - infinity


Person 1 income after taxes


8.000 dollar


person 2 income after taxes

15.000 * 0.8 = 12.000
85.000 * 0.6 = 51.000

total 63.000

I could go on with person 3 and 4, but as you already see that making more money will not make you end up with less than the person that makes the minimum income to survive. So please stop with the bullshit that rich people get taxed more... They choose to make more and share it less with the people working for them so I don't feel sorry. If they pay there employees more and themselves less they wont loss so much money to the state and have a working economy.

- - - Updated - - -

It's actually funny cause the "rich" are on top anyway, opinions don't really matter. Oh and no, you can't tax the top 0.1% (give or take) for one very simple reason. Whether the system is socialist or capitalist, the people in power are the ones who want it the most, the ones with ambition. The only difference is that in socialism, they just lie to you more and the average person has less with less options and no way of getting to the very top unless they have connections or is related to one of them.

Eh that is also the case with capitalism in the current. Don't know if you noticed it, here in the Netherlands and America the same families are the ones in high cirkels.

That you can make it if you work hard is kinda bullshit. You have more chance to fail than to succeed and the differences absurd. f it was a 50 50 chance than hey oke I would be able to deal with th but now not even 1 % makes it. Its more like a 0.0001%.

[Choda]

I'll let you figure that one out by yourself.

A condescending, mocking non-answer. It's nice to see yet another nicely brainwashed, more-likely-than-not Hillary voter.

You're confusing being greedy with stealing. It's not the same.

What's wrong with being greedy?

[Deleted]

So your whole angle is, because people have actually put work into their lives making something of themselves and earning money, they should shoulder the vast cost of the tax economy because the poorer people didn't do as well as them.

Seems like people like to punish those that are better than them.

- - - Updated - - -



To keep society in check. I mean if you are hinting that these guys are breaking laws when they are clearly working smart inside them your point is rather well... pointless.

Because rich people are better than poor people. Its all clear to me now, thanks.

[Deleted]

They're not breaking "Tax" rules. They're working around them, because it's possible. And if it wasn't there for them to do it, they wouldn't.
And you're terribly wrong. It doesn't mean it's failing. It just means that the competitors are doing the same and getting a huge advantage so that you will have to do it yourself.

You talk about some random jobs being created by this magnificent business runner, but who is this someone? How would it benefit you as a consumer? How would it benefit you as a worker? It wouldn't. And that someone is not going to randomly "Poof". It has more with consumers to do than business owners, but I'm not going to lecture you in that.

Pay 0 taxes? Burdening who? Please, educate yourself. They're taxing more than your family will, even your children and theirs for the whole lifetime. They've taxed for much more than that. They're the one creating jobs. Yes, they WILL use EVERY chance they have to reduce their taxes, but that's because they're already paying so much, that many of the top companies wouldn't work with the amount of taxes. And it's not to say they're paying low numbers of taxes, they're not. They still pay A LOT. And again, they're the one funding the country, not you. If you work all your life, you probably haven't even taxed enough for keeping your town up in 1 day.

1% funding 95%. Yet you still complain. It's sad.

Yeah they do pay more in total but they don't in % that keep of the money they do get because of these tax tactics.

Example I have a regular job, make regular money, don't have my own store, cause I don't have a starting capital yet. Oke so im saving for it, but Allready have to give up a % because of taxes. Than I have to set some apart for schooling, food, housing and saving for my own bussnis.

This means because I have a smaller total money which means I have lower chance to get the capital to compete with someone who has a bigger capital. This difference is what is the problem.

Its better to spread 100 dollar over 100 people when you want to sell bread to people.

1 bread is lets say 10 cent. If you give 95 people 9 dollar and 50 cent and 5 people 18 dollar and 10 cent

This will result in 95 people not having enough money to by a bread and something else. So 95 people have to choose if they buy a bread or not. While 5 people can buy the bread without a problem and have more than enough left to buy other stuff. Now most rich people don't waste their money on more bread so you have 50 cent guarantee cause bread can be seen as a basic need. While the other 95 have to safe money to get a occassioneel bread. So they are not a prime source of income.

Now you the bread seller wanna expand, but you need workers. The only way you can get workers is if you pay them example 10 cent. This means every bread you sell you can hire 1 person. But 1 person can make atleast 20 bread. This means you just need 1 worker cause you might sell 20 bread once in a while. This results in people not getting a job cause they aint needed. Meanign the government needs to pay for them. Now the people with 18 dollar and 10 cent have tax tricks and only pay like 5 dollar in total. The other 95 people pay 3 cent resulting they pay 2.85 dollar. Way lower than the other 5, but remember this means they have to safe more to pay for a bread once in a while so you need less bread, resulting in less income for the bread seller resulting in less people needed for work, resulting in more taxes to keep the workless people fed.

In the beginning it doesn't seem so bad, but as time goes by companies fall and get taken over by bigger companies resulting in big profits for the people in power, resulting in less money free to hire people cause less people have money to buy your products. A company will downscale or create machines for lesser cost workers which result in less income for the bigger group and less money to spend.

Have you ever thought about this? You can see the bread as basic needs and some extra's. The people who got 18,10 pay way less for there basic needs and saying they are rich they should be allowed to have more money for basic needs is just stupid. Cause why should the bigger group think about choices while having less means to improve while the group that has the means, power and money for enriching themselves with knowledges and income shouldn't have to think about choices?

When a company fails the big shots still have a big enough bank to live for a long time. Oke instead of 3 cars they have 1, instead of big yard they have a smaller yard now, but selling those stuff will make sure they can live their life. While the people that already have it heavy loss their job and thus might to have to foodbanks, which cause taxes which the rich try to avoid. Im sorry but once you have like a bank of 300.000 dollar a year you can buy almost everything for a super solid provided live with extra's and shit.

[Daelak]

A condescending, mocking non-answer. It's nice to see yet another nicely brainwashed, more-likely-than-not Hillary voter.

You're confusing being greedy with stealing. It's not the same.

What's wrong with being greedy?

Greed, or in real economic terms of how individual wealth and tax evading strategies that keep tens of trillions from being taxed or being transacted through the economy depresses markets, destabilizes governments, and creates a lower quality of life for everyone. The extreme wealth of the very richest on Earth is a manifestation of a flaw in the current economic design, it is neither efficient nor highest and best use of that wealth, even when the majority of it is being invested in venture capital, because the wealth isn't getting the maximum amount of return through one individual.

[Choda]

A few things, both for you, and for the people around you. I hinted at it in the second reply.

But it's something you have to figure out for yourself, other people explaining it will sound like preaching.

There is a balance between taking the things you need to survive, or live comfortably, and taking in excess at the expense of other people and society.

In our society an exemplar of greed is Martin Shkreli.

In your body it is cancer; cells that take more than they need and slowly kill and crowed out the healthy cells.

In your mind greed creates all kind of ripples that most normal people are repelled by, jealousy being one I already mentioned.

But someone saying there is nothing wrong with it (greed) cannot be reached by these statements, until they question that statement themselves.

There is a quote I once heard that really rings true to this day - people need to realize that no one is against them, everyone is for themselves. This is a universal truth, the instinct of self-preservation. Selflessness only applies in 3 cases: As long as it's convenient, toward loved ones and as a mental illness.

But, there it is again - "normal people". You talk as if "greed is bad" is a tautology when in reality it's not. Greed, by the commonly used definition is simply wanting more than one needs. By this definition, having a savings account is greedy, as is eating anything but bread and water - after all, it's greedy, people in Africa don't eat for days! God forbid you throw away food, just how greedy are you?

The emphasis above is on the fact that it's not greed if it's convenient. The only reason you, and people with your mindset call people like Marting Shkreli, or any other rich person for that matter, greedy is because it inconveniences you. You do not see the exact identical system at work behind your back, except this time you take the role of Shkreli, and whoever is gathering dead mice to feed his children takes your role.

People are living in some fantasy fairy world in which these things are black and white, when in truth you will find well-reasoning, intelligent and successful people of all sorts on both sides of the debate.

As a final example - Bill Gates has done more for society than you and I ever will. Even if Donald Trump doesn't pay a single more cent in taxes for his entire life, he will have given more than 99% of the people on this forum combined. The paychecks his employees receive mean that he's fed more mouths than most people.

At the end of the day, yes, rich people should pay more taxes since it's a much smaller dent to their income overall, but once again let's not pretend to be saints here, most people support the notion just to "get back at those fucking scumbags hoarding all the money".

[Choda]

This is why I said its something you need to figure out for yourself.

It falls on deaf ears when you don't see it as a vice. It is irrelevant that sociopaths feel a certain way, when the vast majority does not, the sociopath will be removed from society.

The main issue is you bought into an anti-human mindset with your opening statement of everyone is out for themselves. Some people are, many care about humanity and society at large. You choose which idea you want to bring into reality by your actions.

You will never convince people that cancer(greed) is good.

It's very easy to shine a negative light on it, yes, but it's equally easy to turn that light around. To demonstrate:

"You're arguing that we should forcibly take away money from people just because they're more successful. Despite there being no proof of whether or not the wealth was legitimately acquired, most people automatically assume that it was somehow exploited, and buy into the idea of forcibly taking it away."

Greed, or in real economic terms of how individual wealth and tax evading strategies that keep tens of trillions from being taxed or being transacted through the economy depresses markets, destabilizes governments, and creates a lower quality of life for everyone. The extreme wealth of the very richest on Earth is a manifestation of a flaw in the current economic design, it is neither efficient nor highest and best use of that wealth, even when the majority of it is being invested in venture capital, because the wealth isn't getting the maximum amount of return through one individual.

These are all valid problems, but these are symptoms of a bad system and / or straight up theft. Perhaps an overly crude analogy would be - "People are being murdered, so thinking about killing someone is fundamentally bad and / or a crime". It's shifting the blame into "thought crime" territory, masking the ugly truth in the process (everyone is greedy / everyone thinks there are people who deserve death).

Greed is a manifestation of the human self-preservation instinct. Being disgusted by greed is your own self-preservation instinct reacting to someone else's self-preservation instinct potentially jeopardizing your own self-preservation.

Edit: Please guys understand that I do not disagree with the propositions that the rich should be taxed more or that the wealth amassing among the wealthy is hurting the middle and lower classes considerably. I know this to be true and I agree with it.

HOWEVER, I am vehemently against knee-jerk reactions and bandwagon-politics, as those phenomena gave birth to things such as "stare-rape" as well as any other blatantly lunatic bullshit that permeates western society for the past few years that I don't have the strength to think of right now.

[wheresmywoft]

But there's no actual instance of direct harm. If I save my money, you are not harmed... it's as simple as that. If I choose not to purchase a product from your company, I'm not harming you. Your company simply failed to find a way to sell a product. You cannot blame me if that company then has to reduce employees. I support the idea of saving money, because spending it just to spend it, makes no sense at all.

I have no problem with a slow or sluggish economy, if that's what the basic laws of economics dictate for those specific circumstances. It's far more dangerous to try and artificially boost demand (or reduce supply) in order to stimulate an economy.

- - - Updated - - -

People want to blame banks for the housing bubble, but the vast majority of the blame should fall on those who bought homes they couldn't really afford, then leveraged against the equity in their homes, hoping that the value would continue to increase. It is very dangerous to use a primary home as the source of financial investments, and a lot of people got burned. My house is worth the exact same amount I paid for it in 2008... it's worth one house. it will be worth the exact same in 20 years, and the day I die.

Assuming you're someone making average wage. No, you as an individual saving some money will not greatly harm the economy. This isn't something against savings.

Most Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. But this discussion has NOT been about the average American. It has been about the extremely wealthy. When you take $1,000 out of the economy, it will most likely be cycled within the next 6 months, it has essentially no effect. The same cannot be said about removing 9 orders of magnitude more money.

And since you are okay with a slow or sluggish economy as a result of this. You are definitely okay with their actions harming others.

If you believe that the laws of economics dictate what occurs in specific circumstances. You would want changes to address these specific circumstances would you not?

- - - Updated - - -

There is a quote I once heard that really rings true to this day - people need to realize that no one is against them, everyone is for themselves. This is a universal truth, the instinct of self-preservation. Selflessness only applies in 3 cases: As long as it's convenient, toward loved ones and as a mental illness.

There is a problem with the quote you chose. Someone can most definitely be against your interests when it is beneficial to them.

[Daelak]

It's very easy to shine a negative light on it, yes, but it's equally easy to turn that light around. To demonstrate:

"You're arguing that we should forcibly take away money from people just because they're more successful. Despite there being no proof of whether or not the wealth was legitimately acquired, most people automatically assume that it was somehow exploited, and buy into the idea of forcibly taking it away."



These are all valid problems, but these are symptoms of a bad system and / or straight up theft. Perhaps an overly crude analogy would be - "People are being murdered, so thinking about killing someone is fundamentally bad and / or a crime". It's shifting the blame into "thought crime" territory, masking the ugly truth in the process (everyone is greedy / everyone thinks there are people who deserve death).

Greed is a manifestation of the human self-preservation instinct. Being disgusted by greed is your own self-preservation instinct reacting to someone else's self-preservation instinct potentially jeopardizing your own self-preservation.

Edit: Please guys understand that I do not disagree with the propositions that the rich should be taxed more or that the wealth amassing among the wealthy is hurting the middle and lower classes considerably. I know this to be true and I agree with it.

HOWEVER, I am vehemently against knee-jerk reactions and bandwagon-politics, as those phenomena gave birth to things such as "stare-rape" as well as any other blatantly lunatic bullshit that permeates western society for the past few years that I don't have the strength to think of right now.

Greed is a symptom of OCD, the same behaviors and self-reinforcing of their hoarding is a hallmark of someone suffering under the disease, whether it be with money or useless trash. The quicker people understand that it is a maladjusted behavior that is reinforced through their own funded think tanks and pundits which are then emanated throughout the public sphere, the quicker we can move on to solve this both individually debilitating and societal destroying disorder. They don't want society to believe that they have severe OCD, so they have used their own wealth to convince the public that they are "superior" or more "successful". It's all a lie.

[Teaklog]

You realize that the government gets lobbied at every level by these "rich guys" to pass legislation just like carried interest and other loopholes.

Business will always have an incentive to want laws to be in their favor. The people's job is also to push laws to be in their favor. Both sides have incentives. Much of being a politician is recognizing both of those incentives and creating laws according. Lobbying is a way to push your agenda. The politicians are not "forced" to create these laws.

It reminds me of when I tell people to do something. They listen, then get angry at me for my suggestion if I am wrong. Its like, if some guy you know tells you to do something, you really don't have to listen.

[Daelak]

Business will always have an incentive to want laws to be in their favor. The people's job is also to push laws to be in their favor. Both sides have incentives. Much of being a politician is recognizing both of those incentives and creating laws according. Lobbying is a way to push your agenda. The politicians are not "forced" to create these laws.

It reminds me of when I tell people to do something. They listen, then get angry at me for my suggestion if I am wrong. Its like, if some guy you know tells you to do something, you really don't have to listen.

I find it funny you think the "people" and business interests are on equal footing.

[Theinquisition]

And they are also corrupting the word "Successful".. in that some people think Greed and Success are synonymous.

Elon Musk is Successful, but he also is trying to actively improve society. Ditto for people like Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, etc...

Greed is distinct from success, in that a greedy person does not understand that their success is dependent on other people. They think that so long as they win, the others (or environment) do not matter.

A true successful person understand that they do well because society is doing well. No one will buy your nicknack, if they do not have the money to.

No matter how good your product is, if you come off greedy, people and/or government will punish you for it, not due to the "good" of the product, but because you broke an unspoken social contract that most people (rich or poor) understand.

Everyone is greedy connal, everyone. To deny that basic function of human nature is ignorant at best, destructive at worst.

You are greedy

I am greedy

Even daelek is greedy.

[Daelak]

Everyone is greedy connal, everyone. To deny that basic function of human nature is ignorant at best, destructive at worst.

You are greedy

I am greedy

Even daelek is greedy.

It's not a basic function, it's a symptom of OCD, hoarding. It's irrational and a debilitating illness, exacerbated by the messaging extremely wealthy people channel out into society about superiority, successfulness, to shroud the truth that they are suffering from a disorder that is actually encouraged en masse.

[Machismo]

Assuming you're someone making average wage. No, you as an individual saving some money will not greatly harm the economy. This isn't something against savings.

Most Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. But this discussion has NOT been about the average American. It has been about the extremely wealthy. When you take $1,000 out of the economy, it will most likely be cycled within the next 6 months, it has essentially no effect. The same cannot be said about removing 9 orders of magnitude more money.

And since you are okay with a slow or sluggish economy as a result of this. You are definitely okay with their actions harming others.

If you believe that the laws of economics dictate what occurs in specific circumstances. You would want changes to address these specific circumstances would you not?

- - - Updated - - -



There is a problem with the quote you chose. Someone can most definitely be against your interests when it is beneficial to them.

At what point does it become harmful? If you cannot determine that, then all saving s are harmful, or none of them are. Let me know the exact dollar amount where savings becomes harmful to others. Also, I'd like to know how you actually came to that total. If all savings harms people, then we should go out of our way to tax everyone, including stripping away some (all?) of their savings. If not, then everyone is harming the economy... and we cannot have that, can we?

[Theinquisition]

I disagree. I am not greedy, and if I ever come off that way, I make it a point to not be and give back, and share. To me, being greedy is shameful. It is not something I want others to think of me, and not something I want to be.

The nice thing about "human nature" is that being self aware we can change it. Republicans call that being responsible, I call that being disciplined.

Everyone is greedy Connal, even you. Do you drive a nice car, live in a nice home with climate control? Maybe you have a nice computer or console for gaming?

If you have more than someone else, subjectively to that person, you are greedy.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a basic function, it's a symptom of OCD, hoarding. It's irrational and a debilitating illness, exacerbated by the messaging extremely wealthy people channel out into society about superiority, successfulness, to shroud the truth that they are suffering from a disorder that is actually encouraged en masse.

Wrong...it's basic human nature. Everyone is greedy, whether they admit it or not. If they weren't governments that have practiced communism wouldn't have become shitholes.

[Theinquisition]

I guess we have different definitions of greed. Simply having more than me doesn't make another person greedy, it just means they have more money. That doesn't require you to be more greedy.

the terminology of greedy is subjective. To someone living in a trailer park, I may seem greedy since I drive a nice SUV and can afford to take a nice vacation every year.

Everyone wants more than what they already have, if they say they don't either they are naïve or in denial.