A Few Questions about Wealth and Large Corporations

This site seems to be inundated with people commenting how this person is "too" rich or this corporation has "too much" profits. I have a couple questions for those people. Please don't take this as facetiousness or sarcasm.

1. What is an acceptable level of richness? Please explain your answer.

2. What is an acceptable level of profits for a large corporation?

3. If I start my own small business, and it succeeds, and I open multiple branches or franchise it, and I start to become quite profitable, at what point do I cross from "a good hearted local businessman providing jobs in my community" to something you view as greedy, selfish, etc?

4. At what point do you think you or others are entitled to the profits my business earns?

5. Finally, if your answers to any of the above are along the lines of "It's okay as long as you give X amount to this, pay X amount of taxes, don't use any tax exemptions, employ X% of X type of people, etc" please indicate why you feel that those conditions are appropriate.

a reply to: stolencar18

3. If I start my own small business, and it succeeds, and I open multiple branches or franchise it, and I start to become quite profitable, at what point do I cross from "a good hearted local businessman providing jobs in my community" to something you view as greedy, selfish, etc?

Ooh! I got it!

When you start buying off politicians to pass laws that only help you!

originally posted by: stolencar18
This site seems to be inundated with people commenting how this person is "too" rich or this corporation has "too much" profits. I have a couple questions for those people. Please don't take this as facetiousness or sarcasm.

1. What is an acceptable level of richness? Please explain your answer.

There is no real limit to what's acceptable. Gaining wealth requires a healthy and functional society that allows this person to gain it. What is done with this wealth after using society to gain it is what a person must be judged on.

originally posted by: stolencar18
2. What is an acceptable level of profits for a large corporation?

Again, it matter what the corporation does with it. If the profits are held off-shore to avoid taxation or to abuse some other loophole, that is unacceptable. If the profits are sunk directly into sweatshops and outsourced instead of creating jobs in their own nation, that needs to be examined.

originally posted by: stolencar18
3. If I start my own small business, and it succeeds, and I open multiple branches or franchise it, and I start to become quite profitable, at what point do I cross from "a good hearted local businessman providing jobs in my community" to something you view as greedy, selfish, etc?

A poor person can show the same greed a rich person can. A successful cut-throat business man who finds every loop-hole he can to turn the misery of others into his new Ferrari or yacht is the same ethical level of a poor man who shoplifts.

The difference is scale and impact. A wealthy person has more social responsibility as they've already benefited from those around them.

originally posted by: stolencar18
4. At what point do you think you or others are entitled to the profits my business earns?

Did you earn them in a society? Did people use roads to get to your store? Roads paid for by taxes? Did the infrastructure that provides you with electricity and other utilities pop up without your help?

Unless you live on a private island and truly made your wealth without the help of anybody but yourself, you owe society for some of your success. You can't play Monopoly without Hasbro boxing it up and putting it on the shelf for you. If you want to play it that way, go get a stick and draw the game board in the dirt and use rocks for tokens. See how fun that is.

originally posted by: stolencar18
5. Finally, if your answers to any of the above are along the lines of "It's okay as long as you give X amount to this, pay X amount of taxes, don't use any tax exemptions, employ X% of X type of people, etc" please indicate why you feel that those conditions are appropriate.

I did.

You are playing a game that's been created by people who came before you, who are next to you, and will continue to be supported by people long after you are dead. Why should you be the only person to not contribute to the game when the game is the only reason you are successful?

a reply to: stolencar18

How can these questions be answered one at a time. They cannot. Answering them one at at time only allows for each one to be countered with statements defending the point of view held by the asker. The asker holds a certain world view and to the asker, that world view is perfectly logical, perfectly moral. It is the 'order' of things.

But taken as a whole, the question arises 'just what IS the general context of human existence. Are we all here on our own? Are we all here and just fulfilling our independent needs in accordance with our dna and genetic heritage? Is, as this set of questions suggests, the reality of our existence nothing more than 'winner take all" and no matter to the rest as they just do not have the superior talent, brains and will to succeed?

Because according to this belief system, the answer One is there is none. Winner take all
The answer to TWO is there is none, winner take all
Three... there is no line to cross, it is all part of winning it all
Four..... Never. winner take all
Five..... They are never appropriate in a winner take all belief system.

And brother, you better believe it. Those guys playing at the top of this economic system are playing by those rules and those rules alone. Though we might think of this world as a world where people can, with the right approach, be successful, it is only a matter of time until they too are gobbled up by the real winners of that game.

a reply to: stolencar18

It's just like driving. Everyone who is going faster than me is a speeding nut. Everyone who is going slower than me needs to speed the f up.

originally posted by: stolencar18
This site seems to be inundated with people commenting how this person is "too" rich or this corporation has "too much" profits. I have a couple questions for those people. Please don't take this as facetiousness or sarcasm.

1. What is an acceptable level of richness? Please explain your answer.

2. What is an acceptable level of profits for a large corporation?

3. If I start my own small business, and it succeeds, and I open multiple branches or franchise it, and I start to become quite profitable, at what point do I cross from "a good hearted local businessman providing jobs in my community" to something you view as greedy, selfish, etc?

4. At what point do you think you or others are entitled to the profits my business earns?

5. Finally, if your answers to any of the above are along the lines of "It's okay as long as you give X amount to this, pay X amount of taxes, don't use any tax exemptions, employ X% of X type of people, etc" please indicate why you feel that those conditions are appropriate.

1. There is no answer because "richness" is not a function of how much is in your bank account. The amount you collect beyond what you can actually use, is based on pride. Pride is selfish and cannibalistic. It only leads to pain and suffering. If your pride is a function of others pain and loss, you are evil and would be a fine CEO. Again, this has nothing to do with the size of your bank account.

2. There is no answer. The question is when will a profit machine have enough? The clear and indisputable answer is --never. It will never stop. When will government have enough power? Never.

3.See #1.

4. Businesses deal with operating costs every day. Operating in a collective society brings a certain debt to the society. This debt can and should be paid but it is not solely in units of money. Government is wasteful and inefficient by nature. It is still necessary to have some organization and some leadership to organize. It is necessary to have some efficiency in the deployment of finite resources.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think you've taken this a step too far. I appreciate your approach but my questions are directly to those people who express opinions that people get too rich or companies make too much money. If someone states something is "too much" then they must also have an opinion of what is "not enough" and "just right".

And in response to Cuervo...
I'm intrigued. One could argue that my share of taxes (assuming I pay legal taxes) and the wages I contribute to my workers give back to those who I profit from. I use a portion of roadways and enjoy the benefits of streetlights and local parks, and in response I pay X% of my gross revenue as taxes. Additionally, I have X employees who agree to work for X wages, which compensates them for their work to build my product. The impression I get from you is that even though the idea to develop this wonderful product that everyone wants and makes me rich, and I pay my taxes, and I pay my employees, and suppliers, etc, you feel entitled to more. Sure, people helped me 'build that' as O would say, but...
When I use a roadway, I compensate the public for that with tax dollars.
When a worked contributes hours of his time to my idea, I compensate that worker.
What more do you want? And how much more?
If I make $10,000,000 revenue in one year, and 1,000,000 of that is profits (10%) after taxes and wages and supplies, is that too much? What if I generate 10 billion in revenue, and of that, 3 billion goes to taxes (I'm pulling a number out of my arse...don't take it too literally) and 6 billion goes to wages, supplies, facilities, and I pocket 1 billion, is that acceptable?

a reply to: stolencar18

1) no limit
2)no idea
3) you cross over when you break the law and get away with it
4) no point but you need to pay the same taxes I have too
5)because I have to abide by those law. Justice and application of the law needs to be equal

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

You're entirely missing the point of my questions. People comment daily on here that (insert name of person or corp) has too much money.

WHY is it too much?

Sure, nobody needs a Corvette or Lamborghini or mansion, but really, nobody needs a Chevy Cruze when a 90's Chev Cavalier would suffice.

I'm basing this on the principle that I want to have MORE than I currently have, so I start a business and it succeeds and I one day become able to buy a Porsche (which nobody needs). Am I a terrible person for owning one? Of course not.

If I decide that I want to collect cars as a hobby and bank 100 billion dollars to ensure my children and grandchildren (and so on) remain wealthy, why is that wrong?

I feel obligated to include my own beliefs in this.

1. No limit, as long as no laws were broken to get here.
2. Same.
3. When laws of the land - whether you agree with them or not - are broken a line is crossed and a penalty must be imposed.
4. Short of the above penalty, never.
5. As long as #1 or #2 are true there should be no conditions on wealth.

In short, I, as a middle class person, desire to be rich and make more than average and buy myself a Corvette one day. And then some more cars. But I don't feel entitled to anyone else's money.

originally posted by: stolencar18

1. What is an acceptable level of richness? Please explain your answer.

There must be a limit, because over on the Trump Thread, there are a few people saying that since he is already rich, he would not go into politics for more money.

So, What is the limit to you?

Is it acceptable if it is done at the expense to your country, like buying politicians to enact Trade Polices you wrote to utilize Communist Labor in China? You know about Supply and Demand in Economics and the impact that has on people?

If they make 1 million in profits in the US, and can make 10 million in China, why not.

a reply to: stolencar18

Work it out.
How many of the 1% made their money legitimately?

People aren't stupid, the Forbes and Sunday times rich lists are b.s.
Let's not include trillionaires, the slaves might get really pissed!

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: stolencar18
This site seems to be inundated with people commenting how this person is "too" rich or this corporation has "too much" profits. I have a couple questions for those people. Please don't take this as facetiousness or sarcasm.

1. What is an acceptable level of richness? Please explain your answer.

There is no real limit to what's acceptable. Gaining wealth requires a healthy and functional society that allows this person to gain it. What is done with this wealth after using society to gain it is what a person must be judged on.

originally posted by: stolencar18
2. What is an acceptable level of profits for a large corporation?

Again, it matter what the corporation does with it. If the profits are held off-shore to avoid taxation or to abuse some other loophole, that is unacceptable. If the profits are sunk directly into sweatshops and outsourced instead of creating jobs in their own nation, that needs to be examined.

originally posted by: stolencar18
3. If I start my own small business, and it succeeds, and I open multiple branches or franchise it, and I start to become quite profitable, at what point do I cross from "a good hearted local businessman providing jobs in my community" to something you view as greedy, selfish, etc?

A poor person can show the same greed a rich person can. A successful cut-throat business man who finds every loop-hole he can to turn the misery of others into his new Ferrari or yacht is the same ethical level of a poor man who shoplifts.

The difference is scale and impact. A wealthy person has more social responsibility as they've already benefited from those around them.

originally posted by: stolencar18
4. At what point do you think you or others are entitled to the profits my business earns?

Did you earn them in a society? Did people use roads to get to your store? Roads paid for by taxes? Did the infrastructure that provides you with electricity and other utilities pop up without your help?

Unless you live on a private island and truly made your wealth without the help of anybody but yourself, you owe society for some of your success. You can't play Monopoly without Hasbro boxing it up and putting it on the shelf for you. If you want to play it that way, go get a stick and draw the game board in the dirt and use rocks for tokens. See how fun that is.

originally posted by: stolencar18
5. Finally, if your answers to any of the above are along the lines of "It's okay as long as you give X amount to this, pay X amount of taxes, don't use any tax exemptions, employ X% of X type of people, etc" please indicate why you feel that those conditions are appropriate.

I did.

You are playing a game that's been created by people who came before you, who are next to you, and will continue to be supported by people long after you are dead. Why should you be the only person to not contribute to the game when the game is the only reason you are successful?

These are the BEST response I have seen in a long time and people are still trying to dismiss and argue with the outlined points. CRAZY!!! There is no hope for Americans at this stage, they have FULLY bought into the illusion and there is no going back. Those that know different must escape the nation before its too late, its populace cannot and is unwilling to be swayed at this juncture.

originally posted by: stolencar18
1. What is an acceptable level of richness? Please explain your answer.

It's an interesting question. What I feel an acceptable level of richness is, is when the purpose of accumulating more wealth is the purpose of your work rather than simply making your life more comfortable. Money is great until it ceases to improve your life. That's just my personal outlook though, and it's not right to project my own moral standards onto others. So in a broad sense I would say that any level of richness is acceptable, and what matters instead is what you choose to do with your money and how you're making it. Then again I've never made the argument that certain people have more money than they should be allowed to have. A slum lord with a relatively low income is much worse to me than a CEO who makes a lot but is kind to his employees.

2. What is an acceptable level of profits for a large corporation?

This is the same as #1. To give some examples, Apple is a soulless evil corporation, they engage in slave labor and brag about the fact they could hire Americans to build their products but don't in order to increase profits. Google is the exact opposite, with a culture of valuing employees but still generating large profits. Microsoft is in a grey area, they're a good company and make good profits but are some of the best at hiding their money to avoid taxes.

3. If I start my own small business, and it succeeds, and I open multiple branches or franchise it, and I start to become quite profitable, at what point do I cross from "a good hearted local businessman providing jobs in my community" to something you view as greedy, selfish, etc?

It's not about how much you personally make, it's about how well those who are working for you do. If you could still make enough money to sustain the business and have a nice lifestyle for yourself while making sure your employees also have a living wage (or even better if you're doing well), then you're not a bad company. When you're someone like Walmart who could afford to pay more but has most employees getting food stamps and rent assistance, you're a bad company.

Companies like Walmart are the corporate version of slum lords. I would say that if your corporate policy towards your employees not being able to afford enough food to eat is to tell them to chop their food into small pieces so it feels like they have more, then you're a horrible evil company that needs to be shut down.

4. At what point do you think you or others are entitled to the profits my business earns?

Do you mean taxes? My opinion on taxes is that we should eliminate corporate taxes and fund everything through a tax on wealth. Each person is taxed proportionately to their percentage share of the nations wealth. If an individual owns 1% of the wealth in the nation, then they pay 1% of the tax bill.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The above thread covers my thoughts on it. Under the current wealth distribution this would result in many people getting a tax cut while those at the top would pay much more. But under a more equitable system like we used to have it would actually result in the top few paying fewer taxes while those below them pay more.

5. Finally, if your answers to any of the above are along the lines of "It's okay as long as you give X amount to this, pay X amount of taxes, don't use any tax exemptions, employ X% of X type of people, etc" please indicate why you feel that those conditions are appropriate.

Again this is a tough one, what's appropriate and what's possible are two different things. 40% of the employed people in the country currently makes less than the minimum wage in 1967 by CPI numbers and by purchasing power minimum wage would need to be $24/hour today. The economic climate has dropped wages by a couple percent per year for over 30 years running now though and a sudden shift to wages can't fix that, it takes a gradual change over decades to get back to where we should be.

We built the roads by walking. Same way as always. To say someone is owed is a thieving lie.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: stolencar18

1. What is an acceptable level of richness? Please explain your answer.

There must be a limit, because over on the Trump Thread, there are a few people saying that since he is already rich, he would not go into politics for more money.

So, What is the limit to you?

Is it acceptable if it is done at the expense to your country, like buying politicians to enact Trade Polices you wrote to utilize Communist Labor in China? You know about Supply and Demand in Economics and the impact that has on people?

If they make 1 million in profits in the US, and can make 10 million in China, why not.

Dont think anyone is saying trump should not run, Anyone born in the USA has that as a right.

What people are saying is you shouldnt vote for him due to his sketchy bankruptcy background and potential coflicting intrests.

a reply to: stolencar18

With all due respect, you will never convince the people you are attempting to reach with logic. They have an unshakeable hatred and envy against the wealthy. They perceive the wealthy as:

* did not earn what they have.
* don't care about poverty or those in poverty
* make a living on the backs of the poor
* wanting to enslave the world
* simply murder 7 billion people to gain more resources for themselves
* only care about their own greed

Too bad that reality is far different, but what's the point in trying to convince them? NOTHING you do will ever EVER change their opinion.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
* did not earn what they have.
* don't care about poverty or those in poverty
* make a living on the backs of the poor
* wanting to enslave the world
* simply murder 7 billion people to gain more resources for themselves
* only care about their own greed

Can you convince me that they did not do these things to obtain wealth? Obviously not ALL wealthy people are guilty of these crimes, but many are.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: stolencar18

With all due respect, you will never convince the people you are attempting to reach with logic. They have an unshakeable hatred and envy against the wealthy. They perceive the wealthy as:

* did not earn what they have.
* don't care about poverty or those in poverty
* make a living on the backs of the poor
* wanting to enslave the world
* simply murder 7 billion people to gain more resources for themselves
* only care about their own greed

Too bad that reality is far different, but what's the point in trying to convince them? NOTHING you do will ever EVER change their opinion.

I like this response. It hits the nail on the head. To add to what you've said, I think the hatred is driven by laziness and jealousy. Let's all be honest and admit that some people work harder than others and deserve (yes...DESERVE) more than others. A luxurious lifestyle is a privilege that many people go that extra mile to earn. I feel like there are too many people now who feel that millionaires have "too much" and to make it "fair" (which is a bs word) they should just give away most of their wealth. I've never understood why people feel entitled to other peoples money.

originally posted by: stolencar18
I like this response. It hits the nail on the head. To add to what you've said, I think the hatred is driven by laziness and jealousy. Let's all be honest and admit that some people work harder than others and deserve (yes...DESERVE) more than others. A luxurious lifestyle is a privilege that many people go that extra mile to earn. I feel like there are too many people now who feel that millionaires have "too much" and to make it "fair" (which is a bs word) they should just give away most of their wealth. I've never understood why people feel entitled to other peoples money.

Can you convince me that they did not do these things to obtain wealth? Obviously not ALL wealthy people are guilty of these crimes, but many are.