Let’s debunk/dissect all of these, shall we…
Comparing dollars to to an arbitrary measurement has no actual value of discussion other than trying to create some shock value. If you measured one million atoms to one billion atoms, it would still be non-visible to the human eye. Being afraid of extra zeroes is just impractical and illogical.
You claim that a billion is such a large number that it couldn’t be spent…yet most wealth of the “the rich” is made up of assets that did require spending, so try again. Furthermore, most cash or cash equivalents assets “hoarded” by billionaires gets spent by financial institutions as billionaires don’t just “save” their wealth for the most part.
You are correct that the wealth gap is increasing, but that is because that is how numbers work exponentially, especially when taken into account that the bottom portion of the population has seen a tremendous increase in wealth too….for example, if a doctor and a janitor both receive 5% raises, then although both of their incomes have increased by the same relative amount, the doctor most likely increased significantly more when compared at the absolute amounts.
Wealth centuries ago was much more supported by tangible assets, whereas today most wealth is entirely supported by intangible assets, therefore most wealth has minimal bearing anyone’s livelihood.
Claiming that 44% of billionaires became billionaires primarily due to their inheritance is not only misleading, but it is incorrect. Ironically, the same source that the 44% number that is being misquoted is using, clearly states that, “in fact, almost all of the current richest billionaires are self-made, from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world with a current net worth of more than $155 billion, according to Forbes, to Google co-founders Larry Page (more than $53 billion) and Sergey Brin (more than $52 billion), the 10th and 11th richest respectively, according to Forbes.”
Claiming that the only alternative to accumulating wealth besides inheritance is due to “cold blooded, merciless exploitation of the working class”, yet in reality there are numerous ways, but the most common way by far is through investment building and financial market speculating, which has very little to do with the working class’ labor.
Trying to compare saving wealth to investing wealth is probably one of, if not the number one reason people fail to build significant wealth. In other words, you’re comparing linear growth to exponential growth and questioning why there is a disparity.
Claiming Jeff Bezos’ primary driver of his wealth building is due to the profits provided by his warehouse workers is once again inaccurate as Amazon is not paying profits to shareholders and most financial speculators credit Amazon’s growth in the past years primarily due to Amazon Web Services, not their warehousing segment.
Their charitable contributions basis has no reliable relevance as the “net worth” quotes are based off of insufficient information. To give you an example; imagine someone criticizing you for your charitable donations based off of your wealth alone; ignoring your taxes, actual income, debt, contract obligations, etc. Furthermore, as I have said prior, most of their wealth is tied to non-cash equivalent assets, therefore it would be like going to your local business owner and saying because the building, their inventory, equipment, etc, have a valuation of $1m+ they should donate at least X amount of money.
Once again, wealth does not equate to taxable income. Furthermore, most wealth valued is actually non-realizable, which means it gets taxed when realized. For example; if you buy a stock today for $100 and next year it is worth $110, you don’t have to pay taxes on the $10 you earned until you realize it (sell it), but for “wealth” measurements you will have accumulated $10 of wealth.
The government being corrupt and the public being easily manipulated seems far broader of an issue than boiling it down to billionaires.
Your whole homelessness estimate is just inaccurate from top to bottom as the $20 billion estimate was poorly derived. Additionally, if it truly was that cheap, then why has the government not done it, considering their annual budget is expected to be $8.12 trillion for 2020 between federal, state, and local? Furthermore, Bloomberg probably does not have $20b in cash equivalent assets, so no that wealth calculation is not accurate.
germansingergirl
izzy806
baratheonpilled
snowghoul
titsay
yousharknotpass
