There are now over 1,300 billionaires in the US according to Forbes.

Since many of these are created wealth empires as opposed to inherited wealth, not really sure who from "the 1%" was actually polled.

Emmeran wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

There are now over 1,300 billionaires in the US according to Forbes.

That list actually only has 20% of them at best, most don't make their holdings public if they can avoid it.  By way of example I didn't see Roger Stauback on that list...

I think Roger's net worth is a paltry 600 or 700 million.  Couldn't even get a seat at the rich boy's table.

Emmeran wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

That list actually only has 20% of them at best, most don't make their holdings public if they can avoid it.  By way of example I didn't see Roger Stauback on that list...

I think Roger's net worth is a paltry 600 or 700 million.  Couldn't even get a seat at the rich boy's table.

Yeah, well I've seen a few of his investment accounts - you might want to factor that x10.  Roger isn't really a show off and doesn't want to be on that list, I can personally name at least a dozen more people like that; the Caymen Islands are your friend.

Would you want your name on that list?

No, but it misses my original point, anyway.  Who the fuck did they poll?

GooberMcNutly wrote:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/86367 … 1401379000

What's surprising to me is that there is so much common ground.

(But do 53% of the general population really believe that if someone can't find a job (no matter their skill level) then the US Government should find them a job?) Back in my day they called that "The Army".

"The Army" isn't appropriate for recently divorced and suddenly impoverished old housewives like my mother was at one point. She got a job under a federal make work program for old people. She did useful work that she actually enjoyed and was able to make her mortgage payments, stay away from the food bank, and avoid having a welfare caseworker. She voted for Ronald Raygun, because he was a senior citizen and "understood the needs of older people" because he was one himself. Raygun cancelled the program that kept her off the street, and there was a scary year before she inherited a bit of money and was financially secure again.

Last edited by fnord (2014-06-02 16:58:41)

GooberMcNutly wrote:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/86367 … 1401379000

I am not surprised at the differences between the elites and the public.  The public is all in favor of spending government money to support society.  The elites have the obligation to provide the funding for those programs.

phreddy wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/86367 … 1401379000

I am not surprised at the differences between the elites and the public.  The public is all in favor of spending government money to support society.  The elites have the obligation to provide the funding for those programs.

Yes, it makes so much more sense to squeeze every last penny possible out of families working at three or more jobs to fund tax breaks for dressage horse owners.

Baywolfe wrote:

On a related note, and certainly not saying that this is 100% cause and effect but...
https://cruelery.com/uploads/157_taxing_the_rich.jpg

How many years of prosperity must pass before you can finally not blame the tax reductions?  The apparent answer is never.  This guy's cause and effect links are totally bogus.  Let's use his logic and raise the tax rate back up to 90% like Roosevelt did and we'll all live happily ever after.  Oh hell, lets just turn all our money over to the government and become rich.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs