Oligarchy

[Westside Steve]

So with all the pissing and moaning going on about oligarchs in Russia Ukraine Etc somebody help me out, WTF is the difference between them and these guys?

"Who Are America's 10 Richest Senators?" https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041516/who-are-americas-7richest-senators.asp

I'm guessing it's like a difference between a good clean hit and a cheap shot depending on whether it's a Browns or Squeelers player.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

- the Russian oligarchs are much, much more wealthy

- money corrupts politics, so if anyone leaves much more wealthy than they joined that's shady

- for those that accumulated a lot of wealth before entering, it would be great if there wasn't such a high cost barrier of entry for politics (on average)

 

I don't think anyone will argue with you. It's not really an apples to oranges comparison... Just really big apples to much smaller apples. 

But yes, the very wealthy being the "representatives" of the average citizen won't always work out. And if they can do enough propaganda you'll get the working class pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy because they think they'll get trickled on... or at the very least they'll get distracted by a manufactured culture war. 

[Westside Steve]

19 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

- the Russian oligarchs are much, much more wealthy

- money corrupts politics, so if anyone leaves much more wealthy than they joined that's shady

- for those that accumulated a lot of wealth before entering, it would be great if there wasn't such a high cost barrier of entry for politics (on average)

 

I don't think anyone will argue with you. It's not really an apples to oranges comparison... Just really big apples to much smaller apples. 

But yes, the very wealthy being the "representatives" of the average citizen won't always work out. And if they can do enough propaganda you'll get the working class pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy because they think they'll get trickled on... or at the very least they'll get distracted by a manufactured culture war. 

Well they're still apples. But don't be confused thinking about how much money someone has, in most cases the huge money to run that campaign doesn't really come from them anyway.

I think the propaganda comes in when people with enough money start to fume how about somebody who has 50 or 100 or 200 or however many millions or billions of dollars.

But yes, of course people with a lot of money and a lot of influence and a lot of power are going to control things.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

5 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Well they're still apples. But don't be confused thinking about how much money someone has, in most cases the huge money to run that campaign doesn't really come from them anyway.

I think the propaganda comes in when people with enough money start to fume how about somebody who has 50 or 100 or 200 or however many millions or billions of dollars.

But yes, of course people with a lot of money and a lot of influence and a lot of power are going to control things.

WSS

So you're saying that if you have enough money to live comfortably you shouldn't "fume" or say negative things about those that are incredibly rich?

 

 

You do realize that, when I say things like this, it isn't because I want more stuff, right? I do more than fine. I'm saying that stuff to help others. I truly believe the increasing wealth gap is a problem and that billionaires don't do near as much for society as they'd want you to believe. If people get rich, hey, more power to them, but I'm all for higher taxes. Not to go to me, but to go to those put in worse situations.

 

Just like with student loan forgiveness. That isn't for me.

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

 

[Westside Steve]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

So you're saying that if you have enough money to live comfortably you shouldn't "fume" or say negative things about those that are incredibly rich?

 

 

You do realize that, when I say things like this, it isn't because I want more stuff, right? I do more than fine. I'm saying that stuff to help others. I truly believe the increasing wealth gap is a problem and that billionaires don't do near as much for society as they'd want you to believe. If people get rich, hey, more power to them, but I'm all for higher taxes. Not to go to me, but to go to those put in worse situations.

 

Just like with student loan forgiveness. That isn't for me.

As to the very first paragraph my answer is yes. Absolutely. Seriously think about it. How much of your day is enriched by seething over the guy in the next neighborhood or even across the street who makes more money than you do? And that's not even somebody that's incredibly wealthy. And sure sometimes it irks me what I hear a singer or a songwriter, who I feel is seriously inferior to me, raking in mountains of cash. 

But I do my best and usually succeed in putting that feeling aside. I think the politics of Envy have poisoned the entire country. Is that a spiritual thing? Probably but you know me well enough to know I'm not a bible thumper. The happiest times of my life haven't had anything to do with how much money I had. It sucks that politicians pound it into people's heads that they can't be happy because somebody else has more money. And that politician is on their side and will punish the rich man.

And I think you understand that. At least I hope you would.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

14 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

As to the very first paragraph my answer is yes. Absolutely. Seriously think about it. How much of your day is enriched by seething over the guy in the next neighborhood or even across the street who makes more money than you do? And that's not even somebody that's incredibly wealthy. And sure sometimes it irks me what I hear a singer or a songwriter, who I feel is seriously inferior to me, raking in mountains of cash. 

But I do my best and usually succeed in putting that feeling aside. I think the politics of Envy have poisoned the entire country. Is that a spiritual thing? Probably but you know me well enough to know I'm not a bible thumper. The happiest times of my life haven't had anything to do with how much money I had. It sucks that politicians pound it into people's heads that they can't be happy because somebody else has more money. And that politician is on their side and will punish the rich man.

And I think you understand that. At least I hope you would.

WSS

I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with envy. I'm not saying we should increase taxes on the incredibly wealthy because of envy. 

And you going to that place explains a lot of the conservative mindset. Everything is through the lens of what helps you or those close to you.

I feel we would be better as a country, as a society, if we increased taxes on the incredibly wealthy and funneled that money to programs and assistance for those in worse situations. Closing tax loopholes, increasing taxes on the very wealthy, shrinking the wealthy gap, etc. None of that has anything to do with "envy" or "anger". It has everything to do with what I think would make a better country for everyone. Not to mention the indirect benefits I'd receive by us having a safer, more educated, happier, healthier, etc. country. 

Yes I realize there are inefficiencies and corruption in govt, and blah blah blah. I got it. But I'm trying to explain to you where I'm coming from. 

[Gorka]

13 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

So with all the pissing and moaning going on about oligarchs in Russia Ukraine Etc somebody help me out, WTF is the difference between them and these guys?

"Who Are America's 10 Richest Senators?" https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041516/who-are-americas-7richest-senators.asp

I'm guessing it's like a difference between a good clean hit and a cheap shot depending on whether it's a Browns or Squeelers player.

WSS

Doing a little digging.

To begin with the oligarchs are not always the wealthy politicians you are pointing to but rather outsiders such corporations and affluent outsiders.

Then there are 13 types of oligarchs, the most self serving appears to be what is known as a plutocracy.

A plutocracy is an oligarchy in which the ruling class is made up of extremely wealthy individuals who use their money to influence policy, typically with the goal of making even more money. (the ruling class does not mean politicians, but rather the rich who control them.)

So the question is are these senators obtaining their wealth by making policy dictated by the oligarchs?

Answer: It doesn't appear so.

All the senators in your link are described as gaining their wealth before entering politics.

Then again I may be barking up the wrong tree in reference to your question.

 

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

8 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with envy. I'm not saying we should increase taxes on the incredibly wealthy because of envy. 

And you going to that place explains a lot of the conservative mindset. Everything is through the lens of what helps you or those close to you.

I feel we would be better as a country, as a society, if we increased taxes on the incredibly wealthy and funneled that money to programs and assistance for those in worse situations. Closing tax loopholes, increasing taxes on the very wealthy, shrinking the wealthy gap, etc. None of that has anything to do with "envy" or "anger". It has everything to do with what I think would make a better country for everyone. Not to mention the indirect benefits I'd receive by us having a safer, more educated, happier, healthier, etc. country. 

Yes I realize there are inefficiencies and corruption in govt, and blah blah blah. I got it. But I'm trying to explain to you where I'm coming from. 

you are doing a poor job. but thanks for actually trying. ?

The simplistic utopian view you espouse is just like singing the song "Imagine".

Truth is, if you raise the taxes on the very wealthy, they are already wealthy. Tax their interest, ok, but that isn't

a big percentage of what they have already made.

And for the sake of argument, make a red line of 500,00 bucks - go over that, and you get hammered by a very high tax rate....ok. Those people will make sure they only make 485,00 bucks to be on the safe side.

   Sure, society would be better? how is that? If it did work, how does the rest of society benefit?

Lower taxes? no - the gov will just spend even MORE than they are now.

It could lower our out of control deficit - but would it? Or maybe somebody thinks all that money would be sent

to all the poor people ? socialism?  then those poor will never take care of themselves. More and more will sit back and live off everybody else that works, if they are able.

    Tax all the wealthy at a very, very high rate, get a whole lot of money from it..... sounds cool. But only if somehow we could get back to a balanced budget, which is probably not possible anymore.

  Tax the super rich, and they will stop investing. That is bad. They will probably stop all charitable donations.

and they will just leave and go live somewhere else. Like New Yorkers and Calinfornians are bolting out of their states.

Companies will go back to factories overseas. again.

   When simplistic utopian feelings are crashed into by reality, it is a learning experience. But it shouldn't always have to be learning the hard way. The rest of America would be damaged by the conflict.

******************************

   btw, you wish the super rich didn't have that wealth, right? You wish society had what the super rich have?

envy.

Envy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Envy (from Latin invidia) is an emotion which occurs when a person lacks another's superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it.^[1]

Aristotle defined envy as pain at the sight of another's good fortune, stirred by "those who have what we ought to have".^[2]Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness.^[3] Recent research considered the conditions under which it occurs, how people deal with it, and whether it can inspire people to emulate those they envy.^[4][5]

 

[calfoxwc]

https://nypost.com/2022/03/01/how-putin-became-worlds-richest-man-lies-affairs-greed/

[MLD Woody]

9 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

you are doing a poor job. but thanks for actually trying. ?

The simplistic utopian view you espouse is just like singing the song "Imagine".

Truth is, if you raise the taxes on the very wealthy, they are already wealthy. Tax their interest, ok, but that isn't

a big percentage of what they have already made.

And for the sake of argument, make a red line of 500,00 bucks - go over that, and you get hammered by a very high tax rate....ok. Those people will make sure they only make 485,00 bucks to be on the safe side.

   Sure, society would be better? how is that? If it did work, how does the rest of society benefit?

Lower taxes? no - the gov will just spend even MORE than they are now.

It could lower our out of control deficit - but would it? Or maybe somebody thinks all that money would be sent

to all the poor people ? socialism?  then those poor will never take care of themselves. More and more will sit back and live off everybody else that works, if they are able.

    Tax all the wealthy at a very, very high rate, get a whole lot of money from it..... sounds cool. But only if somehow we could get back to a balanced budget, which is probably not possible anymore.

  Tax the super rich, and they will stop investing. That is bad. They will probably stop all charitable donations.

and they will just leave and go live somewhere else. Like New Yorkers and Calinfornians are bolting out of their states.

Companies will go back to factories overseas. again.

   When simplistic utopian feelings are crashed into by reality, it is a learning experience. But it shouldn't always have to be learning the hard way. The rest of America would be damaged by the conflict.

******************************

   btw, you wish the super rich didn't have that wealth, right? You wish society had what the super rich have?

envy.

Envy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Envy (from Latin invidia) is an emotion which occurs when a person lacks another's superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it.^[1]

Aristotle defined envy as pain at the sight of another's good fortune, stirred by "those who have what we ought to have".^[2]Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness.^[3] Recent research considered the conditions under which it occurs, how people deal with it, and whether it can inspire people to emulate those they envy.^[4][5]

 

 

- Cal, that isn't how a progressive tax rate works. In your example, a higher tax rate would only apply to all of the money earned AFTER $500k. It wouldn't increase the tax rate on all of the money earned before it. You're saying they'd rather earn 0 more dollars over $500k than any amount of dollars over $500k, which doesn't make sense. 

- You claim my view is too simplistic when your belief is essentially that if rich people don't continue to have some of the most generous tax rates ever (And tax loopholes) that the economy will just stop...

[Westside Steve]

23 hours ago, Gorka said:

Doing a little digging.

To begin with the oligarchs are not always the wealthy politicians you are pointing to but rather outsiders such corporations and affluent outsiders.

Then there are 13 types of oligarchs, the most self serving appears to be what is known as a plutocracy.

A plutocracy is an oligarchy in which the ruling class is made up of extremely wealthy individuals who use their money to influence policy, typically with the goal of making even more money. (the ruling class does not mean politicians, but rather the rich who control them.)

So the question is are these senators obtaining their wealth by making policy dictated by the oligarchs?

Answer: It doesn't appear so.

All the senators in your link are described as gaining their wealth before entering politics.

Then again I may be barking up the wrong tree in reference to your question.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah really had nothing to do with any kind of semantics. Just basically we b**** about oligarchs while the richest people in the world are always going to run the world. Whether they call them oligarchs or senators or what the hell ever.

"Poor man want to be rich rich man want to be king.; and a king ain't satisfied till he rules everything."

WSS

[calfoxwc]

8 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

 

- Cal, that isn't how a progressive tax rate works. In your example, a higher tax rate would only apply to all of the money earned AFTER $500k. It wouldn't increase the tax rate on all of the money earned before it. You're saying they'd rather earn 0 more dollars over $500k than any amount of dollars over $500k, which doesn't make sense. 

- You claim my view is too simplistic when your belief is essentially that if rich people don't continue to have some of the most generous tax rates ever (And tax loopholes) that the economy will just stop...

Ok, hold on. I was trying to explain that if a red line is drawn, the rich will stay under that line. Or, you have an exorbitant tax rate for everybody. I'm not getting it - if you want to tax only the ultra wealthy, what is the line? What is the income that the extra high tax starts?

confusing to me, ya. The rich will stay under the line. It's counter productive to make way too much money - after spending so much in R&D for years, then you get hammered when it finally pays off?

So, you want to tax the high rich folks for all their income, say, if they make a 600,000 bucks, you tax them extra high - for all their income. But someone who "only" makes 500,000 bucks is paying the lower tax rate.

Outside of the lower income that is considered poverty, I favor a flat tax.

That is because innovation requires a high investment over many years. My experience over ten years, as a programmer in an R&D dept - by the time it reaps financial benefit, it takes some years to recoup and make a profit. So a company fiinally hits big, but they get a really high tax rate? Sounds good to a gov that is spending into destructive debt - but it is not fair. It will stifle investment in advanced technology.

Not my strong point, to be honest. But it seems that it's a pipe dream - wham corp America for more money, what can go wrong?

a lot.

https://taxfoundation.org/rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/

The Myth That the Rich Don't Pay Their "Fair Share" of ...

https://fee.org › articles › the-myth-that-the-rich-don-t-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes

The Myth That the Rich Don't Pay Their "Fair Share" of Taxes. Allegations that higher-income earners don't pay their "fair share" of taxes are a mainstay misrepresentation of the political left. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have led the charge to add many zeros to what some Americans should be given at others' expense.

Sorry, AOC: The rich already pay their fair share

https://nypost.com › 2021 › 09 › 17 › sorry-aoc-the-rich-already-pay-their-fair-share

Sep 17, 2021One recent poll found that 80 percent of voters were annoyed that corporations and the wealthy don't pay their "fair share." Polls rarely ask these people what a "fair share" looks like ..

[Westside Steve]

On 4/18/2022 at 4:29 PM, MLD Woody said:

I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with envy. I'm not saying we should increase taxes on the incredibly wealthy because of envy. 

And you going to that place explains a lot of the conservative mindset. Everything is through the lens of what helps you or those close to you.

I feel we would be better as a country, as a society, if we increased taxes on the incredibly wealthy and funneled that money to programs and assistance for those in worse situations. Closing tax loopholes, increasing taxes on the very wealthy, shrinking the wealthy gap, etc. None of that has anything to do with "envy" or "anger". It has everything to do with what I think would make a better country for everyone. Not to mention the indirect benefits I'd receive by us having a safer, more educated, happier, healthier, etc. country. 

Yes I realize there are inefficiencies and corruption in govt, and blah blah blah. I got it. But I'm trying to explain to you where I'm coming from. 

Government corruption and inefficiency it's just sort of an aside. I don't think your response is too simplistic I think it's naive in a way usually associated with younger people, actually younger than you. And I'm not trying to insult you with that statement.

The gap between the working stiff and a billionaire is almost infinite. America has between seven and eight hundred billionaires who control 20% of the United States g n p. Man that's a lot of dough. Even the gap between said stiff and a millionaire or multi-millionaire is pretty damn wide.

So we get down to this: how much more will it take to make poor people or less rich people happy? You know my opinions of paying off college loans and free education. We have free education now and that's why a high school diploma isn't really worth much. Oh sure it's better than somebody that never graduated but those people are really on the bottom of the social ladder. Healthcare? We already have a system in which poor people get it for nothing. So let's say we give it to everybody for free. Will that be enough? Free healthcare and K through 16 education?

I don't think people are basically happy and I don't think that would make them happy. Maybe the very first generation that gets everything for nothing would be at least happier but the second generation where those benefits are just a given? At that point the politicians will appeal to them with something else, whatever it might be. Because dammit that guy in Fairlawn Heights house is worth twice what mine is worth! Benefits are like chasing the dragon oh, a cocaine term meaning you never ever reach the high you want. I don't think the time ever comes when people say great; this is good I have all I need.

And, in my opinion, that's because for whatever reason, no finger pointing, people will always want more than they have and be angry with people who have it.

Compared to realtor people around the world those of us participating and these online discussions are as rich as kings. And still poor people in America who get their housing utilities food Medical Care Transportation cell phones cable TV... all paid for probably won't be able to look around at the rest of the world and say "Wow! I'm really in pretty good shape here." But, and I think you realize I'm right, whatever level of benefits people are given they will find something else that they want and be upset about it. And the politicians will tell them they deserve it. Just vote for us!

But again if you can figure out a number that would satisfy people let me know. Just a ballpark, how much of the millionaires wealth could we logically take away that would make everyone happy?

WSS