3 ms·

"Except for the extraordinary fact that a single person can accumulate 1 billion" Are you jealous? Bill Gates accumulated a whole lot more. So did Buffett. Wha

by TriinT 17y ago

"Except for the extraordinary fact that a single person can accumulate 1 billion" Are you jealous? Bill Gates accumulated a whole lot more. So did Buffett. What's extraordinary about 1 billion? The guy is not even among the world's top 100 richest. "The scale of debt should be applied equally to the scale of wealth" Should? Why? The rich can move their assets to another country at any time of their choosing. Just because America's blindness led to a huge debt, I don't see why the rich should pay for it... after all the Iraq War, the government's stupidity, the energy inneficiency, the over-consumption and lack of savings are not to be blamed on one billionaire alone, but on the entire American people. It's time for people to realize that the post-WW2 superpower status was an anomaly, not a birthright. The next generation of Americans won't enjoy the same standard of living as their parents did. Learn to live with it.

invisible 17y ago
I am jealous of that kind of wealth, yep. Even a million dollars can stretch around half of a lifetime of food, rent, water, electricity, and leisure. I was speaking in terms of that site that claims how much each individual person "is in debt" for the government. It doesn't take into account that certain people profited more while that debt was incurred. So yeah, people that earn more while the country is gaining debt should theoretically owe more when it's put in those terms. It's actually more logical that the rich are to blame since they have done very well for themselves during a period in which very bad decisions were made. Some of those decision were made by political agendas, to which the rich have some level of control. (And some were not, I do realize.)
- TriinT 17y ago
  For starters, I speculate that Peterson's 1 billion are mostly marked to Blackstone's stock. I doubt he has 1 billion in dollar bills under his mattress. Moreover, the guy is going to donate most of it. Sure, he's going to spend it in what seems to be a rather shady area, but nonetheless... I am not American. I came from a "socialist" country in Europe. I am tired to this blame-the-rich meme, the envy, the spiritual mediocrity associated with "socialism". If people do well in life, they should be able to keep most of their money. I personally think all billionaires should do philantropy, but I am don't think they should pay higher taxes. I believe one should have the right to decide how to distribute one's wealth, not allow the government to subsidize its propaganda machine with other people's money. Moreover, wealthy people doing philantropy are most likely better equipped than the government to distribute their wealth in an efficient manner. Do you honestly believe that the people working in the government are there to serve the American people?
  - invisible 17y ago
    Yet again: I was referring to something else (which concerned a site that claimed an individual's DEBT as incurred by the government), NOT TAXES. You're confusing the two topics: Peterson the man, and Peterson the non-profit. See this: http://www.pgpf.org/about/faq/ http://www.pgpf.org/about/faq/ under "Our Nation's Debt." Question #2 in that states, "or a $184,000 burden on every man, woman, child and newborn in this country." I was simply stating that a child that has earned $0 should not be grouped similarly to a man that's earned $1,000,000,000.

by TriinT 17y ago

invisible 17y ago

I am jealous of that kind of wealth, yep. Even a million dollars can stretch around half of a lifetime of food, rent, water, electricity, and leisure. I was speaking in terms of that site that claims how much each individual person "is in debt" for the government. It doesn't take into account that certain people profited more while that debt was incurred. So yeah, people that earn more while the country is gaining debt should theoretically owe more when it's put in those terms. It's actually more logical that the rich are to blame since they have done very well for themselves during a period in which very bad decisions were made. Some of those decision were made by political agendas, to which the rich have some level of control. (And some were not, I do realize.)

TriinT 17y ago
For starters, I speculate that Peterson's 1 billion are mostly marked to Blackstone's stock. I doubt he has 1 billion in dollar bills under his mattress. Moreover, the guy is going to donate most of it. Sure, he's going to spend it in what seems to be a rather shady area, but nonetheless... I am not American. I came from a "socialist" country in Europe. I am tired to this blame-the-rich meme, the envy, the spiritual mediocrity associated with "socialism". If people do well in life, they should be able to keep most of their money. I personally think all billionaires should do philantropy, but I am don't think they should pay higher taxes. I believe one should have the right to decide how to distribute one's wealth, not allow the government to subsidize its propaganda machine with other people's money. Moreover, wealthy people doing philantropy are most likely better equipped than the government to distribute their wealth in an efficient manner. Do you honestly believe that the people working in the government are there to serve the American people?
- invisible 17y ago
  Yet again: I was referring to something else (which concerned a site that claimed an individual's DEBT as incurred by the government), NOT TAXES. You're confusing the two topics: Peterson the man, and Peterson the non-profit. See this: http://www.pgpf.org/about/faq/ http://www.pgpf.org/about/faq/ under "Our Nation's Debt." Question #2 in that states, "or a $184,000 burden on every man, woman, child and newborn in this country." I was simply stating that a child that has earned $0 should not be grouped similarly to a man that's earned $1,000,000,000.