5 ms·

If you provide a service people want/need, you are going to end up with more money.. It's not rocket science. This is how the capitalist cogs turn.

lobotryas 7y ago
You are right. What some people want is to punish your success by arbitrarily deciding how much money is “too much” and using taxes to take away what they think you should not have.
hannasanarion 7y ago
What "Service" does Bill Gates provide? He hasn't worked in 15 years, but his net worth has more than doubled.
- lucaspm98 7y ago
  Is that a serious question? Bill Gates provided a very valuable service that runs most personal computers to this day along with productivity tools that have improved almost every business in the world. He also built one of the largest companies in the world that now employs over 100 thousand people. If there is anyone who should be disproportionately rewarded it would be Bill Gates. He now has a large fortune, which after paying the highest tax rates possible he can invest in other companies further adding to the economy or give away to improve the world altruistically.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Yeah, and he stopped doing all that in 2004. Why does he deserve the profits from the hard work done by thousands of engineers to make Vista, 7, 8, and 10, which he had absolutely nothing to do with?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      What is your alternative? That when a founder retires, should they be stripped of all ownership of the company they founded, because they are no longer working? Or should the owners of a company receive zero of the profits of the company? Either of those will have rather large consequences, at least some of them rather negative. So... what's your plan?
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        How about we start with: the people who actually work in the company get the profits. Corporations are supposed to exist to fill a public need and employ people, not to make their owners richer than kings.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        That has consequences, namely, that nobody invests in the company. Because why would they, if they aren't going to make money by doing so? But that means that the company can't get outside money to buy tools that will improve productivity. That is, your approach, writ large, harms the economy as a whole. Don't think of that just as money. Think of it as stuff being produced. If there's less stuff produced, that's not good for the workers either.
        hannasanarion 7y ago
        It harms the individuals who currently control the economy. It does not harm the economy as a whole. In fact, it greatly benefits most people, since, as workers, they get a fairer share of their work product and control over their own workplaces, and as consumers, the corporations that they rely on are no longer incentivized to fuck them over to make a quick buck. I think that's worth the cost to the bankers and barons.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        How does "produce less stuff" not harm the economy as a whole? What is the economy as a whole, if not the sum of the stuff that's produced? You seem to have completely ignored the point of the comment you replied to, which is: If the investor doesn't get part of the profits of the company, then nobody will invest in a company. Any company that needs outside investment to buy tools to increase efficiency therefore will not be able to do so. That loss of efficiency impacts the economy as a whole, not just the "bankers and barons". Is there any step of that logic which you can actually refute?
    - stale2002 7y ago
      The reason is because the future value of a company was a part of his compensation, for creating the company in the first place. There is nothing wrong with selling away the future value of your contributions, or for other people buying the future value of your contributions.
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        But they aren't Gates' contributions. He doesn't have anything to do with modern Windows operations. Windows 10 was built by people that he never met. Why does he deserve the proceeds of their work? Why does he deserve it virtually tax free? Why does he deserve more than the average MS worker can make in a million years while doing no work himself, just because he owns some pieces of paper? Seriously, you could have worked at Microsoft as a full time engineer from the time before the genus Homo evolved to the present, through 100 ice ages, and still not have been paid as much as Bill Gates has in his retirement. How can you possibly justify this?
        stale2002 7y ago
        > Why does he deserve it virtually tax free? Because as a part of someone's compensation, you can be paid for with future value. > How can you possibly justify this? If I want to sell off my future value of my future work, in exchange for someone else's past work, that is my right to do so, that's why.
    - lucaspm98 7y ago
      So your ownership of a company should be taken away if you don't actively manage it? Would you advocate against me being able to own my 10 shares of Microsoft stock and profiting from the hard work of the engineers? People of all levels of wealth offer their capital to companies in exchange for some return on their investment. Bill Gates provided disproportionate value to the economy and was rewarded as such. He then has large amounts of capital to invest in companies that need it, which he is compensated for. I don't understand what's wrong with this. Bill Gates is one of the best examples of the 0.01% benefiting society.
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        I don't think you understand. Bill gates isn't doing anything. He's been retired for 15 years. He doesn't work anymore. None of the profit that Microsoft has made since then can be in any way attributed to his effort. Nonetheless, he has increased his hoard of wealth by 60 billion dollars, 120% of what he retired with. That money was made by the hard work of Microsoft's current engineers, devs, testers, managers, salespeople, call center workers, the whole bunch. THEY are the ones benefitting society, and they would be doing the same job whether Bill Gates existed or not. THEY should be the ones reaping the rewards.
    - humaniania 7y ago
      He is on the board of directors: https://news.microsoft.com/leadership/ https://news.microsoft.com/leadership/

lobotryas 7y ago

You are right. What some people want is to punish your success by arbitrarily deciding how much money is “too much” and using taxes to take away what they think you should not have.

hannasanarion 7y ago

What "Service" does Bill Gates provide? He hasn't worked in 15 years, but his net worth has more than doubled.

lucaspm98 7y ago
Is that a serious question? Bill Gates provided a very valuable service that runs most personal computers to this day along with productivity tools that have improved almost every business in the world. He also built one of the largest companies in the world that now employs over 100 thousand people. If there is anyone who should be disproportionately rewarded it would be Bill Gates. He now has a large fortune, which after paying the highest tax rates possible he can invest in other companies further adding to the economy or give away to improve the world altruistically.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Yeah, and he stopped doing all that in 2004. Why does he deserve the profits from the hard work done by thousands of engineers to make Vista, 7, 8, and 10, which he had absolutely nothing to do with?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    What is your alternative? That when a founder retires, should they be stripped of all ownership of the company they founded, because they are no longer working? Or should the owners of a company receive zero of the profits of the company? Either of those will have rather large consequences, at least some of them rather negative. So... what's your plan?
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      How about we start with: the people who actually work in the company get the profits. Corporations are supposed to exist to fill a public need and employ people, not to make their owners richer than kings.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        That has consequences, namely, that nobody invests in the company. Because why would they, if they aren't going to make money by doing so? But that means that the company can't get outside money to buy tools that will improve productivity. That is, your approach, writ large, harms the economy as a whole. Don't think of that just as money. Think of it as stuff being produced. If there's less stuff produced, that's not good for the workers either.
        hannasanarion 7y ago
        It harms the individuals who currently control the economy. It does not harm the economy as a whole. In fact, it greatly benefits most people, since, as workers, they get a fairer share of their work product and control over their own workplaces, and as consumers, the corporations that they rely on are no longer incentivized to fuck them over to make a quick buck. I think that's worth the cost to the bankers and barons.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        How does "produce less stuff" not harm the economy as a whole? What is the economy as a whole, if not the sum of the stuff that's produced? You seem to have completely ignored the point of the comment you replied to, which is: If the investor doesn't get part of the profits of the company, then nobody will invest in a company. Any company that needs outside investment to buy tools to increase efficiency therefore will not be able to do so. That loss of efficiency impacts the economy as a whole, not just the "bankers and barons". Is there any step of that logic which you can actually refute?
  - stale2002 7y ago
    The reason is because the future value of a company was a part of his compensation, for creating the company in the first place. There is nothing wrong with selling away the future value of your contributions, or for other people buying the future value of your contributions.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      But they aren't Gates' contributions. He doesn't have anything to do with modern Windows operations. Windows 10 was built by people that he never met. Why does he deserve the proceeds of their work? Why does he deserve it virtually tax free? Why does he deserve more than the average MS worker can make in a million years while doing no work himself, just because he owns some pieces of paper? Seriously, you could have worked at Microsoft as a full time engineer from the time before the genus Homo evolved to the present, through 100 ice ages, and still not have been paid as much as Bill Gates has in his retirement. How can you possibly justify this?
      - stale2002 7y ago
        > Why does he deserve it virtually tax free? Because as a part of someone's compensation, you can be paid for with future value. > How can you possibly justify this? If I want to sell off my future value of my future work, in exchange for someone else's past work, that is my right to do so, that's why.
  - lucaspm98 7y ago
    So your ownership of a company should be taken away if you don't actively manage it? Would you advocate against me being able to own my 10 shares of Microsoft stock and profiting from the hard work of the engineers? People of all levels of wealth offer their capital to companies in exchange for some return on their investment. Bill Gates provided disproportionate value to the economy and was rewarded as such. He then has large amounts of capital to invest in companies that need it, which he is compensated for. I don't understand what's wrong with this. Bill Gates is one of the best examples of the 0.01% benefiting society.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      I don't think you understand. Bill gates isn't doing anything. He's been retired for 15 years. He doesn't work anymore. None of the profit that Microsoft has made since then can be in any way attributed to his effort. Nonetheless, he has increased his hoard of wealth by 60 billion dollars, 120% of what he retired with. That money was made by the hard work of Microsoft's current engineers, devs, testers, managers, salespeople, call center workers, the whole bunch. THEY are the ones benefitting society, and they would be doing the same job whether Bill Gates existed or not. THEY should be the ones reaping the rewards.
  - humaniania 7y ago
    He is on the board of directors: https://news.microsoft.com/leadership/ https://news.microsoft.com/leadership/