Overly greedy rich elite

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 05:57PM

DivingDuck wrote: »

Only if we should also take the device you used to post this and sell it to do something good with it.

IMO, the real greed problem is people who have more than enough to survive (and the reality is that the vast majority of people who have the time and resources to post here fall into that category) are happy to complain about others who have more, while holding onto what they themselves have above and beyond what's needed.

Most of us here are greedy rich compared to people in the developing (or entirely undeveloped, in some cases) world. Until we divest ourselves of our extras in service of the needy, we really have no business telling others what to do with theirs.

Yeah... you see theres a small bit of a differnce between the bloke thats earning 200 more than he needs and buys nice things and the lad that has a look at his bank account as sees billions,

When 85 people have have billions, some even trillions... thats abit of an issue dont you think? perhaps slightly greedy even...

Or maybe they need that to survive who knows!

Herb Powell · 11-10-2015 05:59PM

eeguy wrote: »

And sure enough there's plenty of refugees and poor who'd say the same about you.

Wy don't you lead by example and donate 20% of your income?

I see this being said a few times in the thread, and I while I get the point ye're making, it's kind of nonsense.

Cost of living varies from country to country, but not even the most ardent capitalist could tell me with a straight face that anyone needs billions, or even millions upon millions.

There's a certain level of wealth where it's just a game, and a fairly tasteless one at that. Because really wtf is the point?

I suppose everyone has their thing that they're into, I personally find people who are into money to be obnoxious, generally.

MilesMorales1 · 11-10-2015 06:04PM

Capitalism stinks OP. What can ya do. Lots of people seem keen to tell us how bad it is, yet not one of them has a viable alternative.

A Primal Nut · 11-10-2015 06:06PM

evo2000 wrote: »

World's 85 richest individuals have as much money as 3.5billion poorest... with that said, should we not just take the money off these people? and do something good with it, its kinda ridiculous that there are 85 people strolling around with that much money while others starve im not saying take it all maybe like 90% or something they d still be rich just not greedy rich.

So then none of these 3.5 billion people would work; thus productivity would collapse and the price of goods + services would go way up; all that would happen is instead of 3.5 billion poor people there would be 7 billion poor people - so yes you would have equality but not a good equality (see any communist country).

One eyed Jack · 11-10-2015 06:11PM

evo2000 wrote: »

Cause i cant afford too, i need what i have to get by

Now say i had a billion times the amount i needed to get by id happily help them out.

Why would you expect billionaires shouldn't be allowed to say the same thing?

I wouldnt horde it greedily

Except that's exactly what you're doing by the standards of someone who is less wealthy than you are, a homeless person for example. As far as they're concerned, if you're not giving them your money, you're hoarding it greedily.

It's always easier to tell other people how they should spend their money, it's much harder to lead by example and part with your own.

11-10-2015 06:30PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would you expect billionaires shouldn't be allowed to say the same thing?

Well if those 85 people need all that money just to survive how do the other 3.5 billion manage?

I dont care if someone is rich, or super rich but there is a point when it becomes dangerous to have so much wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people

The Corinthian · 11-10-2015 06:37PM

evo2000 wrote: »

Cause i cant afford too, i need what i have to get by

Funny how it's always the one's 'unable' to sacrifice that are always asking others to do so for them.

What people should be concerned about is not equality of wealth, but equality of opportunity.

One eyed Jack · 11-10-2015 06:40PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Well if those 85 people need all that money just to survive how do the other 3.5 billion manage?

I don't think the 85 people particularly care how the other 7 billion people manage, let alone half that. Why should they have to? They have concerns of their own, and it's very easy for those with no money, to be able to advise those with money, how they should spend their money. Those 85 people didn't accumulate their wealth through sheer stupidity, and they may not share anyone else's particular altruism from a place where the reality is that those people don't have their wealth, and will never have their wealth, because by their own admission they'd give it away.

At what point do you suggest people have enough money and they should start giving away any excess money they earn?

I dont care if someone is rich, or super rich but there is a point when it becomes dangerous to have so much wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people

I imagine they feel the same way about the poor and the super poor. Why should they feel any differently? They owe society nothing, and it would become even more dangerous for society if those 85 people were simply to redistribute their wealth among the poor and the super poor in society. It just wouldn't work.

ygolometsipe · 11-10-2015 07:03PM

evo2000 wrote: »

should we not just take the money off these people?

You can try and take my money if you like but I can buy
a bigger gun and more bullets.

War's cost money

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:08PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Funny how it's always the one's 'unable' to sacrifice that are always asking others to do so for them.

What people should be concerned about is not equality of wealth, but equality of opportunity.

Imagine the trillionair sacrificing so much such a brave soul he gave away so much and now he only has billions left... we should commend such heroes

85 people hoarding away the majority of the worlds wealth is a different story whether u like to admit it or not there is something wrong there.

what you are saying is laughable, i donate money to local charity's and volunteer but unfortunately im unable to end world hunger or sustain a small country with my income sorry to disappoint u i guess i shouldnt have an opinion till i can.

But by all means continue to defend the greedy says alot about who u are when u see nothing wrong with the situation.

Bubbaclaus · 11-10-2015 07:08PM

Why do people think that these people have billions just lying around in their bank accounts doing nothing? They don't.

11-10-2015 07:09PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why do people think that these people have billions just lying around in their bank accounts doing nothing? They don't.

They're like dragons and they sit on their piles of gold laughing at the peasants

DivingDuck · 11-10-2015 07:10PM

evo2000 wrote: »

Yeah... you see theres a small bit of a differnce between the bloke thats earning 200 more than he needs and buys nice things and the lad that has a look at his bank account as sees billions,

When 85 people have have billions, some even trillions... thats abit of an issue dont you think? perhaps slightly greedy even...

Or maybe they need that to survive who knows!

I certainly see a difference, as you do. But I believe that's because we're part of the lucky group.

I suspect someone who is a part of the unlucky group --someone doesn't have food, shelter, or clean water-- might struggle to perceive that difference, however.

50c of that €200 you mention could mean the difference between life and death to someone like that. Doesn't that make it just as wrong of you to hold onto it, proportionally, as it is for the uber wealthy to hold onto their millions?

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:12PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why do people think that these people have billions just lying around in their bank accounts doing nothing? They don't.

Whos to say they arent using that power and wealth to profit even more off the backs of the poor? yano keep them poor and use the cheap labour to make more money ?! :rolleyes:

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:13PM

Tradesurplus wrote: »

If they earned it legally I don't see the problem.

you dont see the problem with that ? are you serious?

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:13PM

The people here defending it would be the type of people that if there neighbors were starving and they had way too much food they would rather let them starve because its there right to have food as much of it as they like! and theres absoutlely nothing wrong with it, what about whats morally right?

Canadel · 11-10-2015 07:14PM

strelok wrote: »

But by all means continue to defend the greedy says alot about who u are when u see nothing wrong with the situation.

Indeed. It's a silly attitude as much as it is one of servitude. There is nothing anti-capitalist or anti-democratic about suggesting that taxes be increased on those earning in the billions to prevent situations where 85 people control such a percentage of the world's wealth. It's common sense and fairness, but the usual suspects will twist it to make it seem like the silly socialists want to take their money and punish those who succeed in business etc.

Bubbaclaus · 11-10-2015 07:14PM

evo2000 wrote: »

Whos to say they arent using that power and wealth to profit even more off the backs of the poor? yano keep them poor and use the cheap labour to make more money ?! :rolleyes:

What?

11-10-2015 07:15PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why do people think that these people have billions just lying around in their bank accounts doing nothing? They don't.

Correct! They have stocks, bonds & shares worth billions of virtual money lying around their bank deposit boxes, plus the luxury of being able to be first in line for payment if the business or country goes bust! This means that they take ownership of an airport or something of similar value, look at what has just happened in Greece. These people become richer (in a real sense) in the world of "winner takes all" financial management.

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:15PM

DivingDuck wrote: »

I certainly see a difference, as you do. But I believe that's because we're part of the lucky group.

I suspect someone who is a part of the unlucky group --someone doesn't have food, shelter, or clean water-- might struggle to perceive that difference, however.

50c of that €200 you mention could mean the difference between life and death to someone like that. Doesn't that make it just as wrong of you to hold onto it, proportionally, as it is for the uber wealthy to hold onto their millions?

But its not proportional, you are talking about a 50c donation to the ability to wipe out world hunger?

Regardless tho 85 people having that much power and wealth is ridiculous you cant justify someone sitting on that much money, sure people say they are doing stuff with it but at the end of the day they are still sitting on billions.

Its legally right but morally wrong.

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:17PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What?

Exploitation ? ever heard of it?

FURET · 11-10-2015 07:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Correct! They have stocks, bonds & shares worth billions of virtual money lying around their bank deposit boxes, plus the luxury of being able to be first in line for payment if the business or country goes bust! This means that they take ownership of an airport or something of similar value, look at what has just happened in Greece. These people become richer (in a real sense) in the world of "winner takes all" financial management.

Do you think their money is more virtual than the piece of paper that says "20 euro" in your pocket?

One eyed Jack · 11-10-2015 07:19PM

evo2000 wrote: »

The people here defending it would be the type of people that if there neighbors were starving and they had way too much food they would rather let them starve because its there right to have food as much of it as they like! and theres absoutlely nothing wrong with it, what about whats morally right?

What about what's morally right?

Have you never heard of the idea of give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and he can feed himself for life.

We should be talking about helping people understand wealth creation, not soapboxing about wealth redistribution.

ps: You really shouldn't make ill-informed assumptions about people you don't know.

DivingDuck · 11-10-2015 07:23PM

evo2000 wrote: »

But its not proportional, you are talking about a 50c donation to the ability to wipe out world hunger?

Regardless tho 85 people having that much power and wealth is ridiculous you cant justify someone sitting on that much money, sure people say they are doing stuff with it but at the end of the day they are still sitting on billions.

Its legally right but morally wrong.

It is the same proportion of your wealth to donate 50c as it is for Bill Gates or whoever to donate some of their millions. You see the figure that's left after their necessities have been deducted as too big because you're vastly less wealthy than them. Someone vastly less wealthy than you would say the same thing about the amount you have left after necessities. It's all about perspective, is my point.

I think the reason a lot of people are "defending the rich"/not agreeing with you is because your position appears to be one of hypocrisy. "His surplus is too great, but my surplus is perfectly acceptable." Who gets to decide that? The amount that seems "too much to be moral" is going to vary enormously depending on how much the person making the call has to begin with.

IMO, it is odious to say that someone else's surplus should be taken while you are still holding onto your own. It is just as selfish as the super rich holding onto their earnings, but it's also coupled with self-righteous hypocrisy, which makes it difficult to stomach.

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What about what's morally right?

Have you never heard of the idea of give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, and he can feed himself for life.

We should be talking about helping people understand wealth creation, not soapboxing about wealth redistribution.

ps: You really shouldn't make ill-informed assumptions about people you don't know.

So you agree with 85 people have a good majority of the worlds wealth then,and see nothing wrong with it.

Honestly if theres anyone here thats ill informed and codding themselves it u

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:27PM

So the vast majority of people think its right here than and support the super rich elite? People should be allowed to hoard to the point of greed then because they can.

Tis a strange world we live in!

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:32PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

Atleast Bill Gatesshare the same idea as myself! tis a good thing the vast majority in this thread arent rich anyway or the world would be a far worse place!

There is hope yet!

One eyed Jack · 11-10-2015 07:34PM

evo2000 wrote: »

So you agree with 85 people have a good majority of the worlds wealth then,and see nothing wrong with it.

I couldn't care less what those 85 people have, I'm more interested in helping people in my immediate community to improve their own lives, learn how to create opportunities for themselves, and create their own wealth, rather than sit on their hands and wait to be fed. They'll be a while waiting before that happens.

Honestly if theres anyone here thats ill informed and codding themselves it u

And there you go again, making ill-informed assumptions about people you don't know. I'm not the person expecting even one other person to give away a cent of their earnings to someone who hasn't done anything to earn it.

DivingDuck · 11-10-2015 07:35PM

evo2000 wrote: »

So the vast majority of people think its right here than and support the super rich elite? People should be allowed to hoard to the point of greed then because they can.

Tis a strange world we live in!

The majority believe in fairness.

It's not fair to apply a concept like right of ownership only to some (the poor) and not others (the rich). Especially considering that the line between rich and poor depends and varies so much on the person drawing it.

evo2000 · 11-10-2015 07:36PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I couldn't care less what those 85 people have, I'm more interested in helping people in my immediate community to improve their own lives, learn how to create opportunities for themselves, and create their own wealth, rather than sit on their hands and wait to be fed. They'll be a while waiting before that happens.

And there you go again, making ill-informed assumptions about people you don't know. I'm not the person expecting even one other person to give away a cent of their earnings to someone who hasn't done anything to earn it.

Did you not do the exact same thing in ur reply to me lmao

By the way i do give to local charitys and i volunteer alot aswell, had u cared to read the thread ud have been informed of that tho... take ur own advice.

Overly greedy rich elite

Comments