- Jul 1, 2008
- 1,441
- 0
- 19,230
Obama Says: Steve Jobs Deserves to be Rich
- Thread starter Marcus Yam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- American Job Market
- Status
What Obama failed to mention is that after Steve makes that money that he believes it is his responsibility to give it away to minorities around the county. His fundamental transformation of society by redistribution of wealth.
Silmarunya
Distinguished
- Nov 3, 2009
- 390
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]haryyloid[/nom]What Obama failed to mention is that after Steve makes that money that he believes it is his responsibility to give it away to minorities around the county. His fundamental transformation of society by redistribution of wealth.[/citation]
You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...
Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.
Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?
And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.
Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit.
It's a win win situation!
(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)
You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...
Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.
Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?
And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.
Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit.
It's a win win situation!
(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)
Why should he be slapped? He was adopted at an early age, grew up in a modest home, co-founded Apple, turned it from almost nothing to one of the top companies in history, and fought/survived pancreatic cancer - pretty much considered a death sentence in the medical community. Just because you don't like Apple products doesn't mean you should hate Steve Jobs....he's neurotic but he deserves every friggin penny he has.
Allowing an environment where anyone can work hard and become wealthy is one thing.
Allowing an environment where the wealthiest 1% use their power to maintain their wealth and prevent others from succeeding is quite another and this is how things are currently.
Our system needs drastic change because currently it requires one to learn to become ever more greedy in order to continue to be successful. Call it redistribution if you want, in reality it's just making the playing field level and fair for all. Increasing taxes by 3-5% on the wealthy will hardly dent their bank accounts, whereas spending that money on improved healthcare and schools greatly improves the lives of lower and middle class people.
I for one am working hard with a goal of making $100k per year before the end of the next decade. I would have absolutely no problem with being in a higher tax bracket to help those in need, it's called paying back society and anybody that has a problem with it should move to another country and try to maintain their wealth over there.
Allowing an environment where the wealthiest 1% use their power to maintain their wealth and prevent others from succeeding is quite another and this is how things are currently.
Our system needs drastic change because currently it requires one to learn to become ever more greedy in order to continue to be successful. Call it redistribution if you want, in reality it's just making the playing field level and fair for all. Increasing taxes by 3-5% on the wealthy will hardly dent their bank accounts, whereas spending that money on improved healthcare and schools greatly improves the lives of lower and middle class people.
I for one am working hard with a goal of making $100k per year before the end of the next decade. I would have absolutely no problem with being in a higher tax bracket to help those in need, it's called paying back society and anybody that has a problem with it should move to another country and try to maintain their wealth over there.
Usersname
Distinguished
- May 10, 2010
- 129
- 0
- 18,630
Tell us the % of rich to poor American's, Mr. Obama?
Tell us, how realistically realisable is the American Dream, Mr. Obama?
Tell us, how many patriotic high-tech US corps choose cheap Asian labour over the citizens of America Mr. Obama?
Tell us, how is it the rich contribute significantly lower taxes than the poor, Mr Obama?
Tell us, why do the poor have to pay much more to borrow money when the rich are more prone to spectacularly losing it, Mr. Obama?
Edited to remove a comment which could be misconstrued as racist ... ehich I am sure your not.
Tell us, how realistically realisable is the American Dream, Mr. Obama?
Tell us, how many patriotic high-tech US corps choose cheap Asian labour over the citizens of America Mr. Obama?
Tell us, how is it the rich contribute significantly lower taxes than the poor, Mr Obama?
Tell us, why do the poor have to pay much more to borrow money when the rich are more prone to spectacularly losing it, Mr. Obama?
Edited to remove a comment which could be misconstrued as racist ... ehich I am sure your not.
If you tax the rich more than even more of them will rescind their United States citizenship like others in the past and reside in a tax haven around the world, like Monaco, Andorra or Campgain d' Italia in Switzerland.
France had that problem. They raised the taxes on the wealthiest French and they all left so now they are getting a lot less revenue than what they planned. Now they are trying to negotiate a far lower tax rate to woo them back to France so they can get at least some revenue out of them.
Ironically, tax havens have business that are thriving even still and people are considered the happiest in the world.
Something to think about.
France had that problem. They raised the taxes on the wealthiest French and they all left so now they are getting a lot less revenue than what they planned. Now they are trying to negotiate a far lower tax rate to woo them back to France so they can get at least some revenue out of them.
Ironically, tax havens have business that are thriving even still and people are considered the happiest in the world.
Something to think about.
shortbus25
Distinguished
- May 17, 2009
- 18
- 0
- 18,560
Hey let's all celebrate Steve Jobs and the wonderful IPad, and IPhone who in which brings the people of China to commit suicide at the factory were the circuit boards for his products are made.
claudecat
Distinguished
- Nov 6, 2010
- 7
- 0
- 18,510
Jobs makes millions selling overpriced, made in China luxury items to rich, mainly white, mainly maniacal fanboys that can afford the extra cost and the ever-so-hip status symbolism. The rest of us detest him for utterly pissing on his alleged hippie past, and for being just a dillwad... not to mention the turtlenecks. Oh yeah... he also sues anyone remotely involved in anything that he might want to lay claim to. John Lennon would punch him in the groin.
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit. It's a win win situation!(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)[/citation]
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit. It's a win win situation!(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)[/citation] IDK why you almost made my cry.. +1 I hope you become one of the richest man on earth and not change your perspective. Godbless you!
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit. It's a win win situation!(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)[/citation] IDK why you almost made my cry.. +1 I hope you become one of the richest man on earth and not change your perspective. Godbless you!
[citation][nom]squanto[/nom]@SilmarunyaI agree, but what you are proposing is called taxes, and people don't like that idea very much.[/citation]
The wealthy can easily afford to pay a higher percentage of taxes than lower and middle class Americans. All that is needed is a very modest increase in taxes on the wealthiest 1% and we could easily pay to put teachers back to work and fund a national healthcare system. Nobody is going to move out of the country over a modest tax increase. Even if they did if they were really important to the American economy their change of residency would not change their financial ties to the US so they would still be required to pay taxes.
The problem is that the wealthy have hired the best lobbyists money can buy; republicans. These lobbyists specialize in manipulating the general public in ways unimaginable to the rest of the world. They were successful in lowering the taxes for the wealthy while stalling a 9/11 responders health bill, and yet they still have supporters that think this party cares about protecting and honoring 9/11 victims.
The wealthy can easily afford to pay a higher percentage of taxes than lower and middle class Americans. All that is needed is a very modest increase in taxes on the wealthiest 1% and we could easily pay to put teachers back to work and fund a national healthcare system. Nobody is going to move out of the country over a modest tax increase. Even if they did if they were really important to the American economy their change of residency would not change their financial ties to the US so they would still be required to pay taxes.
The problem is that the wealthy have hired the best lobbyists money can buy; republicans. These lobbyists specialize in manipulating the general public in ways unimaginable to the rest of the world. They were successful in lowering the taxes for the wealthy while stalling a 9/11 responders health bill, and yet they still have supporters that think this party cares about protecting and honoring 9/11 victims.
Tell us, how realistically realisable is the American Dream, Mr. Obama?
Apple and Microsoft both started as small companies. I think HP also started in the garage. That was the 70s and 80s.
Amazon and Google were once small Internet start ups. eBay had a nice idea and grow on it. That was the 90s.
Today, we have facebook and youtube, tons on people working on various facebook and phone apps, numerous companies that start with good game and turned it into a franchise.
There are opportunities everywhere all the times. It is up to the people to grab and turn their ideas into something special. Just that most of us are not hardworking enough to make our idea work.
Apple and Microsoft both started as small companies. I think HP also started in the garage. That was the 70s and 80s.
Amazon and Google were once small Internet start ups. eBay had a nice idea and grow on it. That was the 90s.
Today, we have facebook and youtube, tons on people working on various facebook and phone apps, numerous companies that start with good game and turned it into a franchise.
There are opportunities everywhere all the times. It is up to the people to grab and turn their ideas into something special. Just that most of us are not hardworking enough to make our idea work.
The wealty CREATE YOUR JOBS. Keep taxing them higher and higher and they take their business (and your job or your neighbors job) some where else.
Cut taxes on business' and give incentives to the wealthy, and they will WANT to be here, do more business which in turn makes more jobs....
Man in general doesn't know how to fix anything.....
Cut taxes on business' and give incentives to the wealthy, and they will WANT to be here, do more business which in turn makes more jobs....
Man in general doesn't know how to fix anything.....
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Can Minecraft 1.20.51 Apk be installed with high graphics on Realme 5?
- Started by BertramBlythe
- Replies: 0
-
-
Question low-cost laptop recommendations for gaming?
- Started by gutta
- Replies: 1
-
Question Buy a new Changingtouch lapdock recommendation- Started by Harold Robeson
- Replies: 1
-
Question NordPass issues with email masking?
- Started by Spotty352
- Replies: 0
-
Blacklisting phone with various variables- Started by Blindcracker
- Replies: 3
-
Facebook
Twitter