- 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
re: True or False: In a world with no billionaires
Posted on 6/7/26 at 11:41 am to AUveritas
Posted on 6/7/26 at 11:41 am to AUveritas
They create jobs but also create inequality because when they reach billionaire status they lobby for laws and regulations that their companies can absorb that smaller businesses cannot.
If the billionaires reach that status due to providing goods and services at max quality and/or efficiency then it benefits all. If they pull the ladder up to eliminate competition from smaller companies they destroy the middle/upper middle class business owners
How many retail stores that provided 6 figure income to the owners have been put out of business by Walmart and Amazon?
Take a Walmart in a town of 10,000 people. Walmart has 2-3 management positions that pay well. The rest are a couple dozen low wage earners. Earnings from this Walmart go to Walmart corporation out of state and the Walton family. Walmart puts local stores out of business. Town becomes rundown because local tax base is diminishing and empty building after empty building drives down real estate values and makes people move to nicer places.
Now take same town without Walmart. You have two or three locally owned clothings stores. You have a couple furniture stores. You have a couple hardware stores, you have a sporting goods store, a general store, a couple grocery stores. All employ 2-10 low wage earners, maybe one manager at a larger place. Proceeds of each go to the owners who live in the town and bank at local banks. Money stays in the local economy. Owners give back to the community improving public services, schools, etc because they care and want their town to grow to attract more people which means more customers.
Which is better?
If the billionaires reach that status due to providing goods and services at max quality and/or efficiency then it benefits all. If they pull the ladder up to eliminate competition from smaller companies they destroy the middle/upper middle class business owners
How many retail stores that provided 6 figure income to the owners have been put out of business by Walmart and Amazon?
Take a Walmart in a town of 10,000 people. Walmart has 2-3 management positions that pay well. The rest are a couple dozen low wage earners. Earnings from this Walmart go to Walmart corporation out of state and the Walton family. Walmart puts local stores out of business. Town becomes rundown because local tax base is diminishing and empty building after empty building drives down real estate values and makes people move to nicer places.
Now take same town without Walmart. You have two or three locally owned clothings stores. You have a couple furniture stores. You have a couple hardware stores, you have a sporting goods store, a general store, a couple grocery stores. All employ 2-10 low wage earners, maybe one manager at a larger place. Proceeds of each go to the owners who live in the town and bank at local banks. Money stays in the local economy. Owners give back to the community improving public services, schools, etc because they care and want their town to grow to attract more people which means more customers.
Which is better?
This post was edited on 6/7/26 at 11:43 am
0
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:03 pm to rltiger
quote:
How do you define wealth disparity? It is an extremely slippery slope.
From Jan 2026. Seems unhealthy to me and I’m someone in the higher income bracket.
The top 1% of households owned 31.7% of all U.S. wealth in the third quarter of 2025, the highest share on record since the Federal Reserve began tracking household wealth in 1989. That share has increased even as wealth growth for the rest of the population has stalled or slowed, the data shows.
Also the mean to median wealth factor is 5.5x in the US.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:03 pm to rltiger
Wealthy to me is being able to retire tomorrow with no worries. Not there yet. My wife wants to travel extensively so no, cannot retire until I have more than $5M in investments. In ten years I should be able to retire wealthy.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:10 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:
I would say false. Small/main street bidness is the undisputed king of suppling jobs at least in the US.
I think this is true, but leaves out jobs that are created indirectly by the billionaire spending his or her money. We can decry a billionaire having a private jet, but forget that jet has to be built, maintained, and flown by somebody else trying to make a living.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:37 pm to SnacknGold06
quote:
The top 1% of households owned 31.7% of all U.S. wealth in the third quarter of 2025, the highest share on record since the Federal Reserve began tracking household wealth in 1989. That share has increased even as wealth growth for the rest of the population has stalled or slowed, the data shows.
Also the mean to median wealth factor is 5.5x in the US.
You want to fix it quick?
Change the predatory credit card laws that Delaware enacted in 1981.
BTW, Biden’s home state.
This is the problem, accumulated debit. These companies are killing the middles class who, apparently, have no self control. Anyone can get a credit card now and they are being raped with interest and fees.
Here are a few of the companies taking advantage of Delaware’s system.
JPMorgan Chase
Bank of America
Barclays
Capital One
Applied Bank
WSFS Bank
TD Bank
Instead of people owning their situation, they want someone to fix it for them. One of the ways to fix it is take money from the wealthy to give to them.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:47 pm to AUveritas
True. Although the post after yours is correct, that there are a lot of non-billionaires creating value, the absence of billionaires would make us poorer.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:51 pm to SnacknGold06
quote:
That said, I do worry about growing wealth inequality so higher taxes on gains and dividends for extremely high incomes and/or liquidity events would benefit society.
I also worry about that. I think capital gains taxes have to be rethought. In some cases they should go up, but in some they should go down. Ultimately, if we taxed the rich much harder they would split, and we would fall off like Europe has. We already tax the rich as much as most far left democracies do.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:54 pm to AUveritas
We made them billionaires & I made more money when there were less of them.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:57 pm to AUveritas
There was once a world with a lot less billionaires and a lot more poverty. Poverty has always been here. Wealth has not.
200 years ago, there were very few wealthy or even upper middle class. 200 years ago most people had a shitty standard of living.
There is at minimum strong correllation if not outright causation between the increasing number of comfortable to filthy rich and proportion of those not in poverty.
200 years ago, there were very few wealthy or even upper middle class. 200 years ago most people had a shitty standard of living.
There is at minimum strong correllation if not outright causation between the increasing number of comfortable to filthy rich and proportion of those not in poverty.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News