If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Some billionaires, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, have pledged to give away the vast majority of their fortunes to charity. Then there are the Waltons, who inherited their billions and are going to fight to keep every last dime   (gawker.com) divider line 475
    More: Interesting, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Walton family, John D. Rockefeller, Gilded Age  
•       •       •

18254 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Sep 2013 at 3:29 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



475 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-12 05:42:27 PM

WhyteRaven74: nosferatublue: Do you not realize that thousands have done this already in similar contexts?

Why are you trying to stand up for people who screw over others?


I guess I just have this insane desire to save you from yourselves. I know it won't stop you, though. Screw away.
 
2013-09-12 05:43:05 PM
 The comments on this article amaze me. Jealousy is such an amazing personality trait. How about working harder and earn more money you pathetic losers. Maybe get a part time job at Walmart. Maybe Obammy can take their money and distribute it to all of you worthless lazy pieces of crap. Then you can upgrade your mobile home and buy your little woman a carton of cigarettes. ENVY is a pathetic trait of the uneducated and sloths that make successful people shake their head.
 
2013-09-12 05:43:32 PM

WhyteRaven74: Odds are, buy another stock. Meanwhile financing to start a small business is rather hard to come by these days.


It is, and the problem starts with the idea that the guy who made the 50 million on that sale, owns that money.  It's a really hard thing to get around.

It would be a really simple thing to say, "That's too much money for you to have, it's not yours anymore." but it's a really hard thing to do without it having real consequences.  If you introduce the risk into investment, it's not going to happen in a vacuum.
 
2013-09-12 05:43:52 PM

nosferatublue: I guess I just have this insane desire to save you from yourselves. I know it won't stop you, though. Screw away.


so defending people that hurt the economy is saving people from themselves?
 
2013-09-12 05:44:10 PM
WhyteRaven74:
I alone am best: It isnt the Waltons fault that people have to resort to working there.

It is their fault Walmart employees are so badly paid that taxpayers are left to in effect subsidize Walmart.


Once again, no it is not. These are not jobs that you keep until you are 40 years old. These jobs should be filled with teenagers. The problem is the people working there do not have the qualifications for anything better. Whose fault that is I guess would be up for debate, but it isnt the employers.
 
2013-09-12 05:44:43 PM
It didn't take long for the usual deluded douchebag to show up here and defend the plutocratic assholes who rule them.

cptrios
I'm a liberal. I despise the Waltons and everyone else in the "we're rich enough to live like kings for 1000 years, but we're still willing to make lots of other people's lives worse in order to push that to 1100" camp (the Kochs being the worst, followed by loads of others including, yes, the dreaded Soros). But actually  legislatingagainst that would be pretty much impossible. What are you going to do, make it illegal to have anything over a certain amount of money?

Seriously? You can't think of some ways to ease the obscene gap between the rich and poor in the US? Then why is it that we have the biggest wealth gap among modern nations?

Here are some tips:
Close the goddamn tax loopholes that the uber wealthy are forever abusing.
Raise the top tax rate or better yet add a new, higher tax rate for incomes over, say, a million bucks.
Tax capital gains the same as other income.
Raise the estate tax rate.
Stop passing legislation that weakens unions. What's needed is the exact opposite. 
Stop cutting social programs for poor people. Strengthen them.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more ways we could use legislation to decrease the disgraceful gap between rich and poor in the United States. Sadly and pathetically, the GOP has convinced millions of poor and middle class people to fight on behalf of the super wealthy.
 
2013-09-12 05:44:58 PM

WhyteRaven74: nosferatublue: Do you not realize that thousands have done this already in similar contexts?

Why are you trying to stand up for people who screw over others?


You know, when ol' Sam started Wal-Mart, people had already been biatching about the mega-rich in the US for 150+ years.  Somehow, he managed to start with very little and end up with a lot.  People are still starting out with little and succeeding -- even going from nothing to the 1%.  Sorry you got left behind.
 
2013-09-12 05:45:49 PM

rjkline: earn more money


so how much of their billions did the Waltons earn by hard work?

paygun: It is, and the problem starts with the idea that the guy who made the 50 million on that sale, owns that money. It's a really hard thing to get around.


It's not about having a lot of money, it's about utility. Simply investing in stocks and bonds is from a macroeconomic view not the best utility.
 
2013-09-12 05:46:27 PM

WhyteRaven74: nosferatublue: I guess I just have this insane desire to save you from yourselves. I know it won't stop you, though. Screw away.

so defending people that hurt the economy is saving people from themselves?

 
2013-09-12 05:47:31 PM

WhyteRaven74: paygun: I think that's exactly the point, and it was funny because it's wrong.

if I were to buy ten thousand shares of Apple today, how much of the money I spent on those shares would go to Apple?


The original location of the goal posts were somewhere around, "the secondary sale of stocks does the issuing company no good" which puts you in disagreement with far more people than just me.
 
2013-09-12 05:47:42 PM

nosferatublue: WhyteRaven74: nosferatublue: I guess I just have this insane desire to save you from yourselves. I know it won't stop you, though. Screw away.

so defending people that hurt the economy is saving people from themselves?


goshdarnit.

That last one...youmissedthejoke.jpg.
 
2013-09-12 05:47:50 PM

I alone am best: The problem is the people working there do not have the qualifications for anything better.


That argument would work, if not for places like Costco, which pay people far better than Walmart.
 
2013-09-12 05:48:23 PM

what_now: FlashHarry: well, that's their right, of course. just as it's my right not to shop at their shiatty stores.

Exactly. You can biatch about this on facebook...or you can just not shop at WalMart.

My brother works for Wal Mart. Everything you've heard about their shady practices are true.


My mother works at Wal Mart.  Some of what you've heard is true, others simply false or exaggerated....
 
2013-09-12 05:49:06 PM

paygun: "the secondary sale of stocks does the issuing company no good" which puts you in disagreement with far more people than just me.


So, how does me buying those Apple shares today help Apple?
 
2013-09-12 05:49:16 PM

Scoop84: People are still starting out with little and succeeding -- even going from nothing to the 1%.


Very few people. Which is kind of the point.

mattbruenig.com

Link
 
2013-09-12 05:49:23 PM

paygun: WhyteRaven74: paygun: I think that's exactly the point, and it was funny because it's wrong.

if I were to buy ten thousand shares of Apple today, how much of the money I spent on those shares would go to Apple?

The original location of the goal posts were somewhere around, "the secondary sale of stocks does the issuing company no good" which puts you in disagreement with far more people than just me.


Actually, it was something like "the secondary sale of stocks does the economy no good" but he's gradually learning. Stick with him.
 
2013-09-12 05:49:56 PM

WhyteRaven74: It's not about having a lot of money, it's about utility. Simply investing in stocks and bonds is from a macroeconomic view not the best utility.


We're back again to the same problem.  If it's their money, they get to choose how to use it.  Maybe the purpose of investing for them is to make more money.  Crazy, I know, but that's what some people get into investment for.
 
2013-09-12 05:50:08 PM
MONEY FIGHT

ivy.aholic.us
 
2013-09-12 05:50:32 PM

nosferatublue: Actually, it was something like "the secondary sale of stocks does the economy no good" but he's gradually learning. Stick with him.


so, how does the secondary sale of stocks help the economy?
 
2013-09-12 05:50:52 PM

nosferatublue: J. Frank Parnell: Phineas: What's this?  Another thread full of liberals whining about other people having things, and mistakenly believing that the fact that others have things somehow prevents they themselves from having things?  Carry on.

It's not really a liberal thing as much as a global economics thing. There's only so much wealth in the world, and the people hoarding trillions actually are preventing others from having it.

Because they bury it under a rock and leave it to rot, right?

What do you think all this money is doing, pray tell?


Poor and middle class people that are given money spend it, increasing demand. Rich people that are given money spend some of it, but less than equivalent poorer people would given the same amount, and thus create less extra demand because invest a lot of it. Now if the economy is short of investment capital then money going to rich people might be better for the economy overall because the extra investment could increase employment more than just an increase in demand. But the last 30 years at least there have been massive surpluses of investment capital, hence all the asset booms - too much money chasing too few good investment opportunities.

So effectively every extra $70k or so each rich person accumulates from the economy in the modern situation works out to be one less jobs worth of aggregate demand, and one more person out of work, due to the opportunity cost of the same money being paid in wages to someone would spend it all rather than just some of it.
 
2013-09-12 05:51:04 PM
Dear Grandma, Grandpa and John Boy.

It's a zero sum game.

And you are leaving it all here and it will likely be pissed away or torched by poors when the sh*t hits the fan.

And all your money won't another second buy.  Ha ha.
 
2013-09-12 05:52:06 PM

WhyteRaven74: paygun: "the secondary sale of stocks does the issuing company no good" which puts you in disagreement with far more people than just me.

So, how does me buying those Apple shares today help Apple?


Start by imagining how well IPO's would go in a world where stock is not resold. Hint - they'd go crappy!
 
2013-09-12 05:52:53 PM

WhyteRaven74: So, how does me buying those Apple shares today help Apple?


We'll go again, but I've already answered this once.  Demand on the secondary market keeps the price high.  High prices directly benefit Apple when they issue more stock.
 
2013-09-12 05:53:25 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Scoop84: People are still starting out with little and succeeding -- even going from nothing to the 1%.

Very few people. Which is kind of the point.

[mattbruenig.com image 549x400]

Link


Obviously, 100% can't be in the 1%.

Does that chart show that 57% move up from the bottom quartle?  That's higher than I expected.
 
2013-09-12 05:53:31 PM

letrole: Anyone who makes snide remarks about Wal-Mart also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Drink microbrewery beer
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Ride a bike wearing spandex stretch trousers
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac


I lol'd at #6.  I simply don't trust those kinds of people.
 
2013-09-12 05:54:09 PM
"But.. we need to supersize our meals!  And, the boats!  The planes!  They cost a fortune!  Hush money to the parents of 9 year old Costa Rican boys!  Attorneys!  Corporate whores!  Wealth managers!  Judges and legislators!  The gardener alone wants something like 800.00 a month!  Oh, how we suffer!"
 
2013-09-12 05:54:58 PM

WhyteRaven74: so, how does the secondary sale of stocks help the economy?


People make money from it, which can then be spent.  Other people make money from it indirectly, by having jobs in that industry.

It all starts making sense if you can just step back from the idea that money is immoral.
 
2013-09-12 05:55:23 PM
To all the "who cares" people.  Even if you don't shop at walmart, you are subsidizing their profits though taxes.  They don't pay their employees a living wage, so those employees get public benefits which are paid by you.  Walmart is a socialized retail chain with privatized profits.  It is absolutely un-American.
 
2013-09-12 05:55:35 PM

WhyteRaven74: nosferatublue: Actually, it was something like "the secondary sale of stocks does the economy no good" but he's gradually learning. Stick with him.

so, how does the secondary sale of stocks help the economy?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-12 05:56:04 PM

letrole: Anyone who makes snide remarks about Wal-Mart also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Drink microbrewery beer
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Ride a bike wearing spandex stretch trousers
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac


You forgot cast broad brush, assumptive opprobrium based upon dime store stereotypes.
 
2013-09-12 05:57:43 PM

paygun: Maybe the purpose of investing for them is to make more money.


Except having more money serves no utility to them. They are not able to do anything if their net worth increases by $5 billion that they aren't able to do already. Also, the Waltons are depending on the good will of others to make the money. If the NYSE gets tired of Walmart, they can delist the stock at their discretion. See, they're acting like everything is theirs and society has no role in it. Thing is, a handful of people could reduce their net worth by a lot in an hour and the government not only would have no role in it, it would have no authority to stop it. Acting like you exist apart from society at large is a game that gets riskier the longer you play it. Funny thing is, a handful of people could be undone not by society at large acting against them, but a handful of people who might not even be thinking about society.
 
2013-09-12 05:59:47 PM

nosferatublue: WhyteRaven74: nosferatublue: Actually, it was something like "the secondary sale of stocks does the economy no good" but he's gradually learning. Stick with him.

so, how does the secondary sale of stocks help the economy?



When you buy your $5 dollar footlong, the $5 doesn't disappear.

When you buy a stock on the secondary market, that money doesn't disappear, either.
 
2013-09-12 05:59:47 PM

stonicus: Fade2black: stonicus: dropdfun: Who cares, really its their money slaves to do with as they please as long as they are not breaking any laws...

Placed this into a different context so that hopefully you will understand why sometimes the law needs to change.

Except that slaves don't get paid, and are forced to work against their will.  I take it the employees filled out an application at gunpoint and get nothing in return every 2 weeks?

Then you're an idiot.

Back in the day, slavery was legal.  Today tax "loopholes" are legal.  Drunk driving used to be legal.

Our legal system is dynamic for a reason.  Sometimes the laws are bad, or aren't working as intended, or could be improved upon.  Do you disagree with that statement?


Changing tax laws doesn't fit the allegory you tried to make with slavery.  I don't disagree with your statement, but you seem to be trying the tried and true method of the Left, which is being rich is bad, mention slavery...anything involving race mention Hitler.  They have nothing to do with the point you tried, and failed, to make.
 
2013-09-12 06:00:19 PM

Scoop84: Obviously, 100% can't be in the 1%.


Right, I'm pretty sure no one here is suggesting every single citizen can or should be in the 1%. There will always be rich people and there will always be poor people. The problem is the middle class is sliding downward while the rich are getting richer. An economy 70% reliant on consumer spending cannot be sustained without a strong middle class. There's just not enough aggregate demand. No demand, no hiring, no hiring, no wages, no wages, no demand. It's a downward spiral. And it's only getting worse.
 
2013-09-12 06:01:34 PM

WhyteRaven74: Except having more money serves no utility to them.


I think you need to stop telling other people what has utility to them.
 
2013-09-12 06:02:34 PM

WhyteRaven74: Except having more money serves no utility to them. They are not able to do anything if their net worth increases by $5 billion that they aren't able to do already.


Says you.  Good luck getting them to listen.  Look I understand where you're coming from, I frequently say that the world would be a much better place if I was made benevolent dictator.  I have a hard time selling people on my qualifications.

My Weeners in this thread was that we're going to continue to have these kinds of problems until we make being rich illegal.  Don't hold your breath.
 
2013-09-12 06:02:35 PM
img188.echo.cxMOAR!!!!11!!
And that, believe it or not,

is pretty much it.
 
2013-09-12 06:03:37 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: To all the "who cares" people.  Even if you don't shop at walmart, you are subsidizing their profits though taxes.  They don't pay their employees a living wage, so those employees get public benefits which are paid by you.  Walmart is a socialized retail chain with privatized profits.  It is absolutely un-American.


According to the left, that is exactly how things should be run.
 
2013-09-12 06:03:42 PM

nosferatublue: Start by imagining how well IPO's would go in a world where stock is not resold. Hint - they'd go crappy!


Really? Nobody would buy a stock in a company if they couldn't resell it? Here is a hint- the companies would have to -gasp- give out dividend payments instead! Unbelievable, I know!
 
2013-09-12 06:04:06 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Scoop84: Obviously, 100% can't be in the 1%.

Right, I'm pretty sure no one here is suggesting every single citizen can or should be in the 1%. There will always be rich people and there will always be poor people. The problem is the middle class is sliding downward while the rich are getting richer. An economy 70% reliant on consumer spending cannot be sustained without a strong middle class. There's just not enough aggregate demand. No demand, no hiring, no hiring, no wages, no wages, no demand. It's a downward spiral. And it's only getting worse.


Yeah, yeah.  But didn't your chart show that 57% of people whose parents were in the bottem quartile move up one or more quartiles in a single generation?  That's pretty damn bootstrappy.
 
2013-09-12 06:05:20 PM

Fade2black: BraveNewCheneyWorld: To all the "who cares" people.  Even if you don't shop at walmart, you are subsidizing their profits though taxes.  They don't pay their employees a living wage, so those employees get public benefits which are paid by you.  Walmart is a socialized retail chain with privatized profits.  It is absolutely un-American.

According to the left, that is exactly how things should be run.


Oh look how stupid you are!
 
2013-09-12 06:05:30 PM
I am just gonna sit back and watch the barely middle class people defend the vomit inducing avarice of this pack of pricks cause "the lefty left libbies!"  *snort*
 
2013-09-12 06:05:30 PM

Scoop84: Yeah, yeah.


Okay.
 
2013-09-12 06:05:33 PM

FlashHarry: well, that's their right, of course. just as it's my right not to shop at their shiatty stores.


They are Lawful Evil and therefore nothing is wrong? Just because they aren't directly extorting the farmers growing stuff doesn't mean that they aren't profiting from hiring people who do that for them.

Oh, if they didn't like it they should just change the laws? Guess how much lobbyists regular Americans have and how many WallMart (and similar companies) have.

www.piccer.nl

Maybe instead of going for what is legal, people should go for what is moral. Instead of going for "it is my right to do this" they should go "is it right to do this?" Only children should be needed to be told what to do and what not to do. After you age a bit something in the brain should start bothering if millions of people suffer because of the (business) practices employed.
 
2013-09-12 06:05:54 PM

Dinki: nosferatublue: Start by imagining how well IPO's would go in a world where stock is not resold. Hint - they'd go crappy!

Really? Nobody would buy a stock in a company if they couldn't resell it? Here is a hint- the companies would have to -gasp- give out dividend payments instead! Unbelievable, I know!


Aaaand you just showed all of us you know fark all about how IPOs - and dividends - and publicly traded companies - work. Nice and fast, too.
 
2013-09-12 06:06:50 PM
It is interesting to note all the people defending the Walton's and other members of the ultra rich, are the same people the ultra rich would (possibly have) toss under a buss to make an extra buck.

That said, I would also like to point out that Greece is horribly in debt right now, and most of the problems that the country has can be directly related to the countries national pastime of tax evasion.
 
2013-09-12 06:06:59 PM
The article stumbles very quickly:

"What most reasonable people would agree on, I think-what we would regard as basic human decency and common sense-is that it is not healthy for such great wealth to exist in perpetuity, passed down from generation to generation endlessly, creating ever-larger dynasties..."

There is a word for people who do this, "royalty", and a term for what they control, a "kingdom". If you are against all kingdoms, then okay, you would agree with the above statement. But I think most people are more or less accepting of kings, princes, emperors, and such, at least within the confines of constitutional monarchy.

The only difference with the Walton family (or other American dynasties) is that they lack official titles and rather than ruling over a unified chunk of land de jure (with limited powers in a constitutional monarchy) they rule over various parcels spread throughout the world de facto. They have somewhat fewer powers than royalty but also many fewer responsibilities.

That said, what the Waltons have is both absurd and immoral. That we, as a society, tolerate homelessness and high rents while others "own" so much is a reflection of how sorry our society is. I do not favor collective or government ownership, but I do favor distribution of wealth, particularly real property, which is the root of all other wealth.
 
2013-09-12 06:07:02 PM

Scoop84: WhyteRaven74: Except having more money serves no utility to them.

I think you need to stop telling other people what has utility to them.


Seriously - preaching about "utility" sounds a little weird coming from a dude that wears glossy high heels.
 
2013-09-12 06:07:22 PM

patrick767: It didn't take long for the usual deluded douchebag to show up here and defend the plutocratic assholes who rule them.

cptrios
I'm a liberal. I despise the Waltons and everyone else in the "we're rich enough to live like kings for 1000 years, but we're still willing to make lots of other people's lives worse in order to push that to 1100" camp (the Kochs being the worst, followed by loads of others including, yes, the dreaded Soros). But actually  legislatingagainst that would be pretty much impossible. What are you going to do, make it illegal to have anything over a certain amount of money?

Seriously? You can't think of some ways to ease the obscene gap between the rich and poor in the US? Then why is it that we have the biggest wealth gap among modern nations?

Here are some tips:
Close the goddamn tax loopholes that the uber wealthy are forever abusing.
Raise the top tax rate or better yet add a new, higher tax rate for incomes over, say, a million bucks.
Tax capital gains the same as other income.
Raise the estate tax rate.
Stop passing legislation that weakens unions. What's needed is the exact opposite. 
Stop cutting social programs for poor people. Strengthen them.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more ways we could use legislation to decrease the disgraceful gap between rich and poor in the United States. Sadly and pathetically, the GOP has convinced millions of poor and middle class people to fight on behalf of the super wealthy.


Except all that money gets funneled and extrapolated through the government...when it comes out their ass it's already embezzled or a fraction of what it was before.  The only difference is now you can say your nanny is protecting you from the evil rich.

And your Union stance is laughable.  The only vortex of more wasted money other than the government is the crime bosses that run "local 1086"...because we need 4 people holding up a shovel at $30/hr, because LIVING WAGE!
 
2013-09-12 06:08:14 PM

DerAppie: Maybe instead of going for what is legal, people should go for what is moral. Instead of going for "it is my right to do this" they should go "is it right to do this?" Only children should be needed to be told what to do and what not to do. After you age a bit something in the brain should start bothering if millions of people suffer because of the (business) practices employed.


So adults should have a developed conscience and ethics and a moral construct that easily identifies the bad results of bad ideas?  What kind of Obamunist, libby libtard, sosh'list, Muzlim terr'ist summab*tch are you?
 
Displayed 50 of 475 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report