Posted on 01/26/2022 7:09:39 AM PST by rktman
“A recent report reveals the world’s nearly 3,000 billionaires increased their wealth by $5 trillion last year....Which prompts Mark Whitaker to ask: When is more than enough, enough?,” host Jane Pauley announced at the top of the segment. Whitaker went on to warn viewers: “The wealth gap has reached stratospheric levels. The richest one percent of Americans now has almost 13 times the wealth of the bottom 50 percent. It’s led some to consider: Maybe you can be too rich.”
He turned to a far-left, European philosophy professor to explain her socialist ideology of seizing wealth by giving it a new name: “Professor Ingrid Robeyns teaches philosophy and ethics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. She’s been promoting a concept called limitarianism. Define limitarianism.”
Robeyns lectured: “So limitarianism is just the word for the thought that there should be a moral limit to how much wealth you can accumulate. So it’s the idea that it’s fine to be well off, but at some point one has too much.”
After noting that she was “talking mainly about the really rich,” Whitaker wailed: “Robeyns believes the case against the super rich isn’t just moral; it’s also environmental. From the profits of businesses that haven’t paid for polluting the atmosphere to the emissions from mega mansions and private planes, and the unused dollars just sitting in offshore accounts.”
The radical professor argued private fortunes should be confiscated to combat climate change:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Yep, and Jane and her commiehubby Garry Trudeau are still richer than you.
No kidding. How much of that stimulus money eventually made it's way to big business, and the super wealthy? And how much of that money in the hands of billionaires made it's way back to politicians in Big Government? That's the money cycle of a government that can print and borrow at will.
I don't really care about the rich getting richer, as long as I can work and save and build my own little savings. But it always surprises me how much the poor don't realize that they're being scammed.
The best way to have the “rich pay their fair share” of taxes [hint: they already pay more taxes than the poor, by far] is to implement a flat tax with an exponential rise.
from my home page
___________________________________________________________________
I proposed a Shallow Exponent Flat Tax.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4006199/posts
Something like Tax = 10% X {[Income]^1.05}
but with the flat tax coefficient more like 2.4 and the exponent more like 1.13......
___________________________________________________________________
Conceptually yes, you can be too rich. Thank you Karl Marx
The billionaire class of today are taking away your rights left and right, Facebook, Google and Twitter censoring, Bezos wiping put retail and mom and pops and gaining untold power and his workers are two steps away from slave labor.
Zuckerberg spent millions to sway the votes away from Trump to Biden
..and you stick up for these autocratic oligarchs.
These folks are dangerous.
I Know I know I will be called a commie liberal. I want people to have has much as they want to earn but the system we have today with billionaires controlling our press, govt and elections is outright dangerous.
There needs to be controls to their power.
None of there business!
Everyone at CBS should demand a drastic pay cut.
Value Capture is offensive.
Oh they will start with billionaires, but remember— when the income tax was passed it was sold as being a tiny levy on the extremely wealthy.
I simply despair at the ignorance people have regarding economics. What possible disadvantage do I have if my neighbor is rich? Even if my neighbor is extremely rich, what impact does that have on me?
Wealth is not equal to currency. Wealth is not limited. It is theoretically possible that wealth could increase by a factor of a thousand or more.
Ask yourself this. Is the world wealthier today than it was ten thousand years ago? Wealth disparity is not a problem for anyone.
Trouble is the elites advocating socialism seem to avoid having their wealth confiscated and redistributed. I imagine Jane Pauley is making some pretty good bucks and lives a lavish lifestyle compared to us poor schlubs. Maybe if Jane Pauley were to give up some of her money and move to a three bedroom home in Norfolk, Nebraska and pack up her family in a Ford SUV to take her family vacations in the Black Hills ofSouth Dakota or at a modest resort on a lake in northern Minnesota she would have more credibility.
The mere existence of ultra-rich threatens Progressives’ god of government, single-handedly creating jobs, enabling charities, pursuing peaceful international diplomacy, and creating society-advancing wealth benefiting all - without subservience to the 534 high priests.
“Wealth disparity is not a problem for anyone.”
We are becoming a nation of have and have nots. I have seen it as a business owner dealing with clients and customers. Right now it’s about 50/50 but the have not side is growing.
Wait until the have nots vote in socialism or communism.
Our country is at a terrible point right now.
Wait until automation and AI kicks in and 4 million truck drivers lose their jobs over a period of 1-3 years.
Don't hold your breath.
Artificial Intelligence may be artificial, but stimulus/response and intricate IF/THEN programming ain't intelligence.
When it goes wrong, and it will, it will be epic.
‘Maybe You Can Be Too Rich’
Liberals think that if you have a job, you’re RICH
So Ms. Ingrid, have you given up 3/4 of your wealth to combat climate change?
(Personally I am in favor of confiscating all of the wealth of rich leftists and giving it as reparations to those whose lives and families have been damaged by the ideas that they, the leftists, have imposed on the rest of us.)
You are correct. History shows us that extreme wealth disparity has been met by things like the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution. In an earlier post, I subscribed to the idea that we need to tax the super-rich at the 90% level AND reduce our government spending to bring the national debt down. I wasn't surprised that this proposal was met by ridicule. I also suggested to look at the tax rates for the super rich in the 40s 50s and 60s. Many will be surprised. Too many billionaires are being taxed way too little. Too many corporate oligarchs own our legislators. It's time that these people and super rich corporations (Amazon, Google, Pfizer ....) pay more --- much more!! If wealth continues to accrue at incredible rates toward the top 1%, history tells us that there will eventually be serious consequences to the billionaires and those in power.
Our government would be wise to take some lessons from history regarding the consequences of acute wealth disparity.
None of those have-nots are deprived by the haves. Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Most people don’t understand this so the threat of mobilized stupidity is real but the basis for it is not.
So, kill ‘em all and take their stuff.
That’s what they want to do to most of us.
But like Mr. Wong said when Mrs. Wong had a white baby...
“Two Wongs don’t make a white!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.