View Profile Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 04:44 pm
McGentrix wrote:

Let's say that tomorrow, all the money in the US was evenly divided between every man, woman and child. That every single person had the exact same amount of money, how long will it be before the people that were rich yesterday were once again rich and the people that were poor yesterday would be poor again? I'd give it less then 5 years.

Rich people are rich for a reason, same as poor people are poor for a reason. Sure, not all people will have the same exact reason, but they will find themselves in the zone they know. No amount of education or shifting of dollars from the rich to the poor will change that. The poor people will spend their money, play their console games on their new big screen TV's while drinking and smoking their money away while the rich will save it and work their butts off becoming wealthy again.

This is why I am against wealth distribution in any form. Most people have no idea what to do with their money. They waste it like it means nothing to them. It just doesn't work.


While I think history would support your theory as reasonable, are you SURE you want that to be your reason to be against wealth distribution? I rather look at the Founders' attitude toward legally/ethically acquired property as an unalienable right not to be violated. While we consent as part of the social contract to necessary shared responsibilities for the common good--not the good of the special interest or not the good of the individual or not to make the politician look good but the common good--it is against everything the Constitution is based on to presume authority to confiscate what Citizen A legally/ethically acquired and give it to Citizen B for Citizen B's personal use. Once we give government that kind of power, we have no protection of any kind against a government gone bad.
  0  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 04:55 pm
"Wealth distribution" is an oxymoron. There ain't no such animal on this planet.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 04:58 pm
How much would you have each McG if it was shared out as you say?
0 Replies
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 06:22 pm
The top 50,000 in income make more than the bottom 150,000,000. The vast majority of those in the 50,000 are heirs to fortunes, not the risk takers who initially made fortunes.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 06:44 pm
McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Usually, because of the money their parents had. It's actually the same reason.

Cycloptichorn


here are the 20 wealthiest people in America.

The 20 Richest Americans
Quote:

1. William Gates III


Bill Gates' family wasn't rich per se, but was definitely upper middle class. His father was a lawyer, his mother sat on the board of a few companies and his grandfather was a bank president. He attended prep school and certainly was given an advantaged education.

2. Warren Buffett


Warren Buffett didn't come from wealth but he certainly had connections; his father was in the investment business and was a 4-term Republican Senator.

Quote:
3. Lawrence Ellison


A truly self-made man by any estimation.

Quote:

4. Jim Walton
5. S Robson Walton
6. Alice Walton
7. Christy Walton & Family


The Waltons of course inherited their family fortune, as you pointed out.

Quote:

8. Michael Bloomberg


I can't find any conclusive information either way about Bloomberg's early life either way, so there is no reason to assume he is anything but a self-made man.

Quote:

9. Charles Koch
10. David Koch


Charles and David Koch inherited their company, Koch Industries, from their father. If that doesn't count as 'wealth inherited from parents,' I don't know what does.

Quote:

11. Michael Dell


Son of an orthodontist and a stockbroker. My guess is that he had all the money he needed, including funding from his grandfather to start his business in the first place.

Quote:

12. Paul Allen


Allen's family was well-off and his father was Director of the library system for UW. Private school all the way.

Quote:

13. Sergey Brin
14. Larry Page


These two guys are interesting; both came from educated families but not rich ones. Self-made men.

Quote:

15. Sheldon Adelson


Definitely a self-made man, Adelson came from no real money or education background.

Quote:

16. Steven Ballmer


Hard to say.

Quote:

17. Abigail Johnson


Made her money working for her father's company, Fidelity investments. Her father is somewhere on this list as well; worth about 11 billion himself.

Quote:

18. Jack Taylor & Family


Self-made man, founded Enterprise rent-a-car and flew fighter planes in WW2.

Quote:

19. Anne Cox Chambers


Inherited her money from her father's newspaper biz fortune.

Quote:

20. Donald Bren


Son of a Producer in Hollywood, but he was pretty poor at one point of his life and built his own way up from what I can tell.

Quote:
Which ones are wealthy because their parents were? I would guess a few of the Walton's, but I would still call them new money as Dad just recently became super-wealthy.


Well, let's see.

4. Jim Walton
5. S Robson Walton
6. Alice Walton
7. Christy Walton & Family
9. Charles Koch
10. David Koch
17. Abigail Johnson
19. Anne Cox Chambers

8 out of 20 can honestly be said to have inherited their money or a big business from their parents. Most others on the list had parents who were well enough off to ensure them a great education. Very few came from neither money nor educational advantage. I agree that all of these are what you would call 'new money.'

Cycloptichorn
View Profile Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:16 am
You are a jealous loser.

0 Replies
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 07:49 am
Some of you are naming a few who are at the top of the list of the wealthy. However, there are, say, 50,000 whose combined wealth far exceeds the combined wealth of those few.
0 Replies
 
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 08:54 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Rich people are rich for a reason, same as poor people are poor for a reason.


Usually, because of the money their parents had.


Wrong again Cyclotroll... most is new money earned by hard work.
0 Replies
 
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 08:59 am



When history is written 20, 30, 50 years from now... credit for
the fall and failure of this great republic will be given to Obama.


  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:44 am
We don't have to wait that long; Bush has already proven that maxim: created failure in all of his eight years in office.

Show us what he did right? You should be able to name eight successes for his eight years in office.
View Profile rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 04:57 pm
GITMO. His greatest success?
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 04:59 pm


Bush, Bush, Bush... Rolling Eyes

Obama is the president and his growing list bonehead moves are what will ruin this country.
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:01 pm
rabel22 wrote:

GITMO. His greatest success?


The senate has spoken, they think GITMO is great and that it should remain open.
0 Replies
 
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:05 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:



Show us what he did right?


CICE FAILS!!!

Report Shows Air Quality Improved During Bush Administration

Show us what O boy has done right so far... I bet you can't name 3 things.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:09 pm
I believe the top three are 1) Iraq war, 2) economic crisis, and 3) Katrina.

Others would include 4) torture, 5) illegal wiretaps, 6) firing of regional judges, 7) lying to the American people and the world, and 8) cutting taxes and increasing the deficit.
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:27 pm
Read the entire article by this right wing think tank and the EPA answers -- Bush can't take much of the credit but as a fact: As a governor Bush changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union, and placed Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America.
0 Replies
 
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:30 pm
PrezBO did all that?

Amazing Laughing
  2  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:47 pm
Yeah, isn't it amazing that Obama saved our country in only 100 days in office from a great depression that took GWBush eight years to destroy.
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:59 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:


Yeah, isn't it amazing that Obama saved our country in only 100 days in office ...


Rolling Eyes Did you eat a big bag of shrooms this morning???
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:18 pm
H2O MAN wrote:
Obama is the president and his growing list bonehead moves are what will ruin this country.


Remember when you kept saying shit like, "McCain is going to be President"? You're like an anti-oracle. In other words, keep spreading the good news!
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
I AM PROUD - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. able2know
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1266
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.55 seconds on 11/25/2009 at 06:42:02 Top End