Top billionaires got richer during COVID-19

a reply to: HalWesten

Yeah I am not stupid- I planned on buying stocks when they were super low, like gas and even airlines but the extra money I planned on having never really came up...I thought of using some of my savings but its a savings. . .

a reply to: Waterglass

You do realize that its not like a few extra billion magically dropped into their bank account. Their stock value just went up which drove up their net worth.. So if their stock drops by 10% their net worth drops by 10%. Are you going to have the UN write them a check every time their stock value drops?

This is the biggest transfer of wealth in human history. It's not the billionaire's fault for using this as an opportunity. It's your fault for not...

a reply to: Waterglass

Whilst I understand your anger and think it typifies everything that is wrong with the world the only thing I really have to say is that I'm surprised that anyone is surprised at this.

People have profited from wars and other peoples misery for donkey's years, why did anyone think this outbreak would be any different?

Unfortunately this is what you get at the pinnacle of capitalist society.

Jeff Bezos (not amazon) earns about $5,000,000 (5 million) per hour. The average middle class person would have to work every day for a 1000 years to earn what Bezos earns in a day.

The fact is, in the current version of capitalism, you don't create wealth by working. You create wealth from other people's work.

The most unfortunate thing is, that innovation and technological discovery is linked to large collectives of wealth. Society generates the need for Googles, Apples, Amazons, Microsofts, etc. when the need for progress is coupled with economics rather than quality of life. In other words, the inherent unbalance of wealth in a capitalist system leads to the development of things like computers and mobile phones, not because it's a good idea, but because it is a valuable idea.

The alternative is socialism (the versions we have mostly seen anyway), that doesn't work for many other reasons. If the wealth is evenly distributed, there is no opportunity for competition and progress (you never get your iPhone).

Given that we need (want?) progress, the question becomes, is it "just" for Bezos to be earning twice from people's efforts?

He earns once from the employees of his business (unequal equity distribution in a business... as is his right as owner), he earns twice form the effort of others who purchase his products (the income of which is also unequally distributed (is this a third stream?) within his business... which is also his right). Is that technically earning thrice?

This seems fine for small business, but does there come a critical point where the "importance" of a product or service to society grows so much, that a single person/organization represents a significant chunk of a countries wealth just by owning the business.

Is there an argument for when a person/organization reaches a certain percentage of GDP, that at least one of the revenue streams leading to an individual/organisation has to be socialized at a company or country level to avoid monopolisations?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Jeff Bezos'gets paid $80,000/yr by Amazon. His wealth comes from the ever increasing value of his Amazon stock. Should we socialize your 401k? Should we socialize part of the other millions of Amazon's shareholders stock?

a reply to: MRinder

Do you want to only be combative, or do you want a conversation?

I didn't say we should "socialise" everything. I asked a question... which you didn't even attempt to answer. You actually didn't attempt any type of constructive discourse.

The question was, when put anther way, is; Is there a point of capital growth (individual or organization), that the size of the wealth center, in relation to the GDP, has to be considered in terms of the greater public? (My 401k doesn't come close to being big enough to even be considered in this question).

Or you could put the question many other ways, if you're willing to put in the effort to understand what I am trying to discuss, and not just knee-jerk argue.

Any constructive comments?

originally posted by: MRinder
Jeff Bezos'gets paid $80,000/yr by Amazon.

Also, that's a massively loose interpretation at best, and a complete misrepresentation at worst.

Regardless of the "form" Bezo's wealth takes at any particular moment in time, or what his recorded "wage" from "his" organisation is. The fact is, that if he wanted to, he could "convert" his personal "earnings" into about $100 million dollars a day.

My wage from my business (I pay myself last) doesn't even vaguely represent my wealth.

Tomorrow Bezos could have $100,000,000 in hand, if he really wanted to (obviously him doing that would have some interesting market effects). Can you, or any average business owner or worker do that?

So what was your point exactly?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: MRinder

Do you want to only be combative, or do you want a conversation?


The question was, when put anther way, is; Is there a point of capital growth (individual or organization), that the size of the wealth center, in relation to the GDP, has to be considered in terms of the greater public? (My 401k doesn't come close to being big enough to even be considered in this question).

Or you could put the question many other ways, if you're willing to put in the effort to understand what I am trying to discuss, and not just knee-jerk argue.

Any constructive comments?

Didn't think asking questions was being combative, but whatever.

I don't think the government should take or tax wealth under any circumstances.

Nobody is stopping any of us from starting a multi billion dollar business, so no need to be jealous of other people's wealth.

Furthermore, why do you think the government would use the money more wisely than Jeff Bezos? Government's are notorious for just pissing money down a rat hole.

Jeff Bezos spent the last 25 years of his life building that company and the government could piss away his entire net worth in 15 minutes.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

That's only 100 million dollars. He sells a billion dollars of stock yearly to fund blue origin.

But really who cares what he does with it? It's his money. He earned it.

Tell me why do you think his money would be better in the hands of the government? So they can write checks to lazy people or buy more bombs with it. What value does government create? Bezos creates a # load of value.

a reply to: MRinder

I didn't suggest the government should have his money. I'm questioning the influence that wealth creates, and idealistically I agree with you, I don't think we should have income tax, at least in it's current form. One of the issues down this line of inquiry is that income tax is inherently linked to company taxes... as a business owner, it's easy to pay yourself $80,000 (within the same tax system as everyone else), and make the money elsewhere (outside of the tax system)... and this gets easier the bigger your business gets. So I don't see an easy way to just "remove" income tax, as the system currently stands.

Yes it is his "wealth", but when dealing with a publicly floated company and him earning $80,000, what exactly is his wealth, and how does it apply to the same taxes that the rest of us are subject to?

No, the government shouldn't get control of his wealth, however, when an individual or organisation's wealth gets big enough to effect political decisions (and thus start setting ideologies... which as we currently see is dangerous, from both perspectives) based purely on revenue size in context to GDP, then a question needs to be asked about how the indivdual is using their wealth.

It's what regulation is supposed to be, but fails dismally, regularly... so maybe we need a more inherent way of individuals/organisations, when reaching a certain public "size", to also have some type of associated public responsibility... preferably bi-partisan in nature.

I'm not suggesting anything definitive, I am putting thoughts out there for discussion.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

What kind of public responsibility do you suggest?

I assume the man pays his taxes to the letter of the law or the IRS world be all up in his ass.

What other public responsibility should be forced upon him?