- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Bill Gates' "solution" to income inequality. Oh, the hypocrisy! :LOL:
Posted on 11/9/14 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 11/9/14 at 5:01 pm
quote:Gates may want to distinguish. Problem is there is no economically distinguishing concept.
Bill Gates' solution to income inequality
by Chris Matthews
October 15, 2014
The billionaire philanthropist wants to distinguish between the wealthy who are using their money for good and those who are merely consuming it.
It might not come as a surprise to many that Bill Gates, whom Forbes’ magazine ranks as the second wealthiest man in the world, doesn’t agree with the ideas of French economist Thomas Piketty.
It’s Piketty, after all, who made a big splash this year with his book Capital in the 21st Century, which argued that it is a fundamental law of capitalism that wealth will grow more concentrated absent destabilizing events like global wars. Piketty’s solution? A global tax on capital that could help governments better understand how wealth is distributed and stem the tide of inevitably increasing inequality, which Piketty believes is socially destabilizing.
If you believe the Forbes list, there is nobody in the world besides Carlos Slim who has more to lose than Bill Gates if Piketty’s global tax on wealth were to be instituted.
-------------------
Imagine three types of wealthy people. One guy is putting his capital into building his business. Then there’s a woman who’s giving most of her wealth to charity. A third person is mostly consuming, spending a lot of money on things like a yacht and plane. While it’s true that the wealth of all three people is contributing to inequality, I would argue that the first two are delivering more value to society than the third. I wish Piketty had made this distinction, because it has important policy implications.
Gates shares Piketty’s goal of spreading wealth, yet he doesn’t want to discourage the uber wealthy (like Gates) who are taking risks . . .
None!
Unless monetary contributions are disproportionately economically stimulative.
10
Posted on 11/9/14 at 5:09 pm to NC_Tigah
Funds directed into his foundation are tax exempt. Seems to me that should be the limit of his concern on the matter.
Posted on 11/9/14 at 7:08 pm to NC_Tigah
So now we are trying to "value" the value of billionaires? ???
K
K
Posted on 11/9/14 at 7:16 pm to NC_Tigah
I have yet to hear a justification for why income inequality is a problem. A rising tide lifts all boats, generally speaking, so as the rich get richer, the less rich still get richer. It just so happens the richest receive the highest percentage of the increasing wealth since they have the most capital at risk to begin with. Why is this even remotely an issue?
Posted on 11/9/14 at 7:19 pm to NC_Tigah
Let's just call a spade a spade people bitching about income inequality are communist.
For what is the flip side of income inequality if not income equality which is communism.
For what is the flip side of income inequality if not income equality which is communism.
Posted on 11/9/14 at 7:32 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:You don't understand because you're not a Marxist
LeonPhelps
quote:You're correct. The notion that income inequality is inherently bad is a fundamentally Marxist tenet.
constant cough
Posted on 11/9/14 at 7:40 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
A third person is mostly consuming, spending a lot of money on things like a yacht and plane. While it’s true that the wealth of all three people is contributing to inequality, I would argue that the first two are delivering more value to society than the third.
If the third type of person doesn't exist, then the people who build the yachts and planes are out of a job.
The only way a rich person can "hurt" an economy is if he hoards money and doesn't spend/reinvest it. As long as it's steady being spent then it's a net positive for the economy. Most of those billionaires don't have billions in cash money sitting in banks (because that would be dumb) they have it invested in assets and businesses.
Posted on 11/9/14 at 8:17 pm to deltaland
quote:
The only way a rich person can "hurt" an economy is if he hoards money and doesn't spend/reinvest it. As long as it's steady being spent then it's a net positive for the economy. Most of those billionaires don't have billions in cash money sitting in banks (because that would be dumb) they have it invested in assets and businesses.
Exactly. Same for charity.
The philanthropist might be providing food for the poor. That's money spent at the local grocery store, which gets its food from truckers, whose big rigs run on diesel, made in a refinery from oil obtained from drilling operations, which use steel, which is manufactured from raw materials, which are either mined domestically or brought into the US at one of our ports, etc.
The second and third billionaires are providing demand for goods or services and that benefits everyone.
Posted on 11/9/14 at 8:22 pm to NC_Tigah
Taxing the wealthy doesn't really help me as a middle class person. It only seems to grow our bureaucracy and trickle into the pockets of special interests like all other types of income taxes.
Posted on 11/9/14 at 9:06 pm to deltaland
Here. Here. I'll never understand why so e think it is better, or more noble, to give someone food and shelter than it is to employ someone and pay them enough that they can provide for themselves.
I'd wager that since people keep saying that we need to get people spending again to get the economy moving that the billionaire who Is selfishly spending to buy things is doing more for the economy than the charity do-good ears. Considerably more good for the economy and, therefore, mor good for everyone.
I'd wager that since people keep saying that we need to get people spending again to get the economy moving that the billionaire who Is selfishly spending to buy things is doing more for the economy than the charity do-good ears. Considerably more good for the economy and, therefore, mor good for everyone.
Posted on 11/9/14 at 9:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
merely consuming
We know gates isn't stupid, so he must have some corrupt agenda to be displaying such an utter lack of knowledge about poverty and basic economics.
Posted on 11/10/14 at 2:31 am to NC_Tigah
Interesting...Because the consumer is contributing ml ore to the actual economy.
Posted on 11/10/14 at 6:21 am to NC_Tigah
Guys that work hard building yachts and planes don't need to eat?
Posted on 11/10/14 at 9:11 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
A third person is mostly consuming, spending a lot of money on things like a yacht and plane. While it’s true that the wealth of all three people is contributing to inequality, I would argue that the first two are delivering more value to society than the third.
This is total BS. Somebody had to build the yacht and the plane. Both need crews to operate and both will need sevicing and repair. These tasks aren't free, and need skilled labor to perform. Then you have the auxillary business needed to keep them operating - harbors and marinas for the yacht and airports and FBOs for the aircraft. It appears to me the third option actually creates jobs.
Posted on 11/10/14 at 9:17 am to deltaland
quote:
The only way a rich person can "hurt" an economy is if he hoards money and doesn't spend/reinvest it.
And "hoarding" money is all but completely impossible to do on any sort of large scale.
People who spend their time worrying about what other people do (or don't do) with their own money are the worst people in the world.
Posted on 11/10/14 at 9:29 am to LeonPhelps
quote:
A rising tide lifts all boats, generally speaking, so as the rich get richer, the less rich still get richer.
Except we are finding out more and more that this statement isn't really true. If it was true, then we would not having this widening gap.
Now that in no way means the libs are right, far from it. The lib answer of taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor does nothing to help either. If the libs wanted to take from the rich and INVEST in the poor (i.e. expand educational opportunities, help them become less dependent on government, etc) then I would listen to that idea. But the libs want to keep the poor because it makes them dependent on government.
As to Gates, money given to the poor is no longer part of one's wealth. So all the numbers about how wealthy he is, already counts the money he gives away. Sounds to me that if he's serious, he needs to give away a lot more of his money.
Posted on 11/10/14 at 10:03 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
A rising tide lifts all boats, generally speaking, so as the rich get richer, the less rich still get richer.
Except we are finding out more and more that this statement isn't really true. If it was true, then we would not having this widening gap.
Are you serious? Re-read your first sentence and really think about it. Your logic is that a rising tide does not lift all boats if some boats rise faster than others. That is one of the more nonsensical logical fallacies I've read on this site.
The fact that the gap is widening is no way whatsoever means that only the rich are seeing their wealth increase. If I start with a net worth of $10,000 and you start with a net worth of $10,000,000 and we both increase 5%, I go up $500 while you go up $500,000. Guess what, we are both better off than we were before. We are both wealthier than we were before. Because you had a higher base and more capital at risk, your dollar amount increase was considerably higher. But I don't see how that makes me any poorer when I am now worth more than I was before. The only reason I would be upset by this "widening wealth gap" is pure jealously.
Posted on 11/10/14 at 10:17 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
as the rich get richer, the less rich still get richer.
quote:
we are finding out more and more that this statement isn't really true. If it was true, then we would not having this widening gap.
Think that through.
Posted on 11/10/14 at 10:23 am to LeonPhelps
quote:
The fact that the gap is widening is no way whatsoever means that only the rich are seeing their wealth increase. If I start with a net worth of $10,000 and you start with a net worth of $10,000,000 and we both increase 5%, I go up $500 while you go up $500,000. Guess what, we are both better off than we were before. We are both wealthier than we were before. Because you had a higher base and more capital at risk, your dollar amount increase was considerably higher. But I don't see how that makes me any poorer when I am now worth more than I was before
But that's not what is happening in real life.
In your argument, the percentage of total wealth each of us own stays the same. But that's not what is happening in real life. In real life, the percentage of wealth owned by the wealthy is increasing.
It makes perfect sense in actual dollars that as the economy expands, the wealth explansion by the rich would in dollar terms be more than the wealth expansion of the poor.
What is happening in today's economy is that the percentages are changing.
If your example was relevant today, people would not be "feeling poorer", wages in current dollars would be increasing at the same rate accross wage classes, etc.
Please get out of the textbook and get into the real world before you make any more arguments.
Posted on 11/10/14 at 10:36 am to deltaland
quote:
The only way a rich person can "hurt" an economy is if he hoards money and doesn't spend/reinvest it. As long as it's steady being spent then it's a net positive for the economy. Most of those billionaires don't have billions in cash money sitting in banks (because that would be dumb) they have it invested in assets and businesses.
Um, yeah, this.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News