NationStates Jolt Archive

Rank/Name/Nation/Net Worth (Billion US $)/Source

1. William Gates III US 46.5 (Microsoft)
2. Warren Buffett US 44.0 (investments)
3. Lakshmi Mittal India 25.0 (steel)
4. Carlos Slim Helu Mexico 23.8 (telecom)
5. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Saudi Arabia 23.7 (investments)
6. Ingvar Kamprad Sweden 23.0 (Ikea)
7. Paul Allen US 21.0 (Microsoft)
8. Karl Albrecht Germany 18.5 (supermarkets)
9. Lawrence Ellison US 18.4 (Oracle)
10 S. Robson Walton US 18.3 (Wal-Mart)
11. Jim Walton US 18.2 (Wal-Mart)
11. John Walton US 18.2 (Wal-Mart)
13. Alice Walton US 18.0 (Wal-Mart)
13. Helen Walton US 18.0 (Wal-Mart)
15. Kenneth Thomson and family Canada 17.9 (pubishing)
16. Liliane Bettencourt France 17.2 (L'Oreal)
17. Bernard Arnault France 17.0 (LVMH)
18. Michael Dell US 16.0 (Dell)
19. Sheldon Adelson US 15.6 (casinos)
20. Theo Albrecht Germany 15.5 (supermarkets)

Buffett gaining on ol' Bill. Wonder if he has trouble sleeping at night. :p

11. Jim Walton US 18.2 (Wal-Mart)
11. John Walton US 18.2 (Wal-Mart)
13. Alice Walton US 18.0 (Wal-Mart)
13. Helen Walton US 18.0 (Wal-Mart)

Does anyone else think this is a little screwy?

If I had 46.5 billion I'd have no problems sleeping at night. :D

Does anyone else think this is a little screwy?
Not really, I mean, it is how ol' Sam wanted their inheritance divided...

Does anyone else think this is a little screwy?
You missed


10 S. Robson Walton US 18.3 (Wal-Mart)

WTF does one need 40+ billion for?? or, for that matter, any billion(s)?

i'd settle for 5 million, myself

WTF does one need 40+ billion for?? or, for that matter, any billion(s)?

i'd settle for 5 million, myself
At the moment I'd be happy with 20k, but then again, I'm a college student...

Whatever. It's still:

1. Oldest son
2. Other sons
3. Wimmenfolk (widow and daughter)

WTF does one need 40+ billion for?? or, for that matter, any billion(s)?

i'd settle for 5 million, myself
I could find some uses for 40 billion. Think of the impact you could make on the world. Think of the neat stuff you could own.

I could find some uses for 40 billion. Think of the impact you could make on the world. Think of the neat stuff you could own.
bah, it'd be nice not to have to worry about bills, mortgage or job. you could still afford some pretty neat stuff with 5 mil - a nice house, a boat, a nice car, and still have enough to invest & live off. 5 mil (or so... i'm talking pounds here, so that's 10 mil dollars-ish) would be enough to live happily.

i can honestly say that if i had 40 billion i would give most of it away (ok i might keep a little more than 5 mil just in case... :D )

Whatever. It's still:

1. Oldest son
2. Other sons
3. Wimmenfolk (widow and daughter)
I'd find that a reasonable reason for the distribution is because they invested in different means. If I remember correctly, he distributed it evenly.

Whatever. It's still:

1. Oldest son
2. Other sons
3. Wimmenfolk (widow and daughter)
Didn't realise that.

Though if I had 18 Billion, I wouldn't bother quibling over .2 (or .3)

Shoot. With $40 billion, I'd start buying things I *didn't* like, just to close 'em. (Ie: Apple Computer, PETA, and the Rush Limbaugh Show....)

40 billion would bring more worries than it would rid for me.

A cool million would do me just fine.

40 billion would bring more worries that it would rid for me.

A cool million would do me just fine.
With 40 Billion you could buy a small country and pay them to worry for you.

Wow, that's a lot of money those guys have accumulated.

Socialist Response: Tax them til their rectums bleed!

Communist Response: They're EVIL. Tax them til their rectums bleed!

With 40 Billion you could buy a small country and pay them to worry for you.


I'd still be paranoid. 40 billiion would just be too much for me to handle. And I wouldn't trust anyone else to handle it for me. Too many worries. One or a few million wouldn't be a problem though :p

Does anyone else think this is a little screwy?

Why, does it to you?

I believe it shows that they divided the Company up quite evenly!

:D

Regards,
Gaar

World Rank/Name/Net Worth (Billion US $)/Source

21 Roman Abramovich 13.3 (Oil)
68 Philip Green 6.3 (Retailing)
80 Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor 5.6 (Real Estate)
122 David Sainsbury 4.3 (Sainsbury's)
151 Bernard Ecclestone & family 3.6 (Gambling/Leisure)
160 David & Frederick Barclay 3.4 (Banking)
170 Richard Branson 3.2 (Virgin)
219 Charles Cadogan 2.7 (Real Estate)
272 Clive Calder 2.3 (Record Sales)
321 Bruno Schroder 2.0 (Banking)

Wow, that's a lot of money those guys have accumulated.

Socialist Response: Tax them til their rectums bleed!

Communist Response: They're EVIL. Tax them til their rectums bleed!
nah, communists take everything,
there's no incomem tax in comunist countries ;) there also no income

Plus just having a few million wouldn't get my name on lists like this one. hehe

I wouldn't even want people to know I had a million. lol

Why, does it to you?

I believe it shows that they divided the Company up quite evenly!

Yeah, it does seem screwy to me. What I think is screwy is that it is so close to an even division, but it still gestures at the traditional "oldest son, other sons, womenfolk" line of inheritance.

Why not just chop it evenly? Or, if you're going to favor your oldest son, why not do so in more than a nominal manner? It seems half-measures to me.

This kind of richness distributed among a few people makes me sick. Meanwhile the rest of the world goes down the drain in poverty. Bah.

The total for these 20 people is 433.8 billion US dollars.

$433,800,000,000.00

Assuming for a minute that there is some valid reason why a person would need a billion dollars in their life, suppose each of these people was let keep a billions dollars (that's $1,000,000,000.00), and the collective "us" (the rest of the world) took the rest to defray the cost of hunger, poverty, Aids, u-name-it.

Imagine what could be done with $413,800,000,000.00 to solve some major world problems. And that's only from the top 20 richest people in the world.

Now - can anyone out there truly defend a need for more than a billion dollars for one person in one lifetime?

If what I've read about Warren Buffet is true, I find him interesting. He still lives in the same 31,000 house he bought in the 50's. He is not leaving his kids large amounts of money when he dies - he feels they should earn it on their own. (I think he has helped his sons - don't know if he has daughters - set up corporations to make money themselves).

He started on his road to riches while still a child, I can't remember if it was lawn mowing, collecting soda bottles, or??? He bought his first real estate at 14 and rented it out, banking the rent payments for other investments.

He seems to be someone who truly has a gift for making money. He invests in companies that he thinks are going to do well, and the vast majority of the time he is right. When he buys stocks, he keeps them for years - sometimes decades, so he really isn't making quick money by rapid buying and selling.

The total for these 20 people is 443.8 billion US dollars.

$443,800,000,000.00

Assuming for a minute that there is some valid reason why a person would need a billion dollars in their life, suppose each of these people was let keep a billions dollars (that's $1,000,000,000.00), and the collective "us" (the rest of the world) took the rest to defray the cost of hunger, poverty, Aids, u-name-it.

Imagine what could be done with $413,800,000,000.00 to solve some major world problems. And that's only from the top 20 richest people in the world.

Now - can anyone out there truly defend a need for more than a billion dollars for one person in one lifetime?

Because the minute you do that, you've just set a limitation into the economy. It doens't matter if it's a billion bucks or 200,000 or whatnot.

Once that's done, in a few years we'll be fighting in the street for cans of Alpo after the system collapses.

Really.

If what I've read about Warren Buffet is true, I find him interesting. He still lives in the same 31,000 house he bought in the 50's. He is not leaving his kids large amounts of money when he dies - he feels they should earn it on their own. (I think he has helped his sons - don't know if he has daughters - set up corporations to make money themselves).

He started on his road to riches while still a child, I can't remember if it was lawn mowing, collecting soda bottles, or??? He bought his first real estate at 14 and rented it out, banking the rent payments for other investments.

He seems to be someone who truly has a gift for making money. He invests in companies that he thinks are going to do well, and the vast majority of the time he is right. When he buys stocks, he keeps them for years - sometimes decades, so he really isn't making quick money by rapid buying and selling.

Warren Buffet does seem like a genuinely nice guy. As I understand, all his money is going to charity when he dies.

Ein Deutscher']This kind of richness distributed among a few people makes me sick. Meanwhile the rest of the world goes down the drain in poverty. Bah.
I agree. They should give it to me. They would feel so much better if they gave it all to me.

Because the minute you do that, you've just set a limitation into the economy. It doens't matter if it's a billion bucks or 200,000 or whatnot.

Once that's done, in a few years we'll be fighting in the street for cans of Alpo after the system collapses.

Really.Who was it that washed your brain? ;)

Who cares if there is a limit set on the economy? The guys who are really scraping around in dumps and garbage cans around the world for empty cans of Alpo? The little kids dying of Aids in poverty in the 3rd world? People in some of the supposedly richest countries in the world living in cardboard boxes?

They might not care if the economy took a little dip in exchange for a decent meal, or place to stay, or their health.

To have that kind of wealth in this kind of world without sharing MOST of it is immoral.

Because the minute you do that, you've just set a limitation into the economy. It doens't matter if it's a billion bucks or 200,000 or whatnot.

Once that's done, in a few years we'll be fighting in the street for cans of Alpo after the system collapses.

Really.
what is your economic basis of this arguement? i don't get it - a limit on the amount you earn would simply be like a 100% tax above a certain bracket. how would this cause an economy to collapse (apart from the evident loss of motivation and incentive)?

151 Bernard Ecclestone & family 3.6 (Gambling/Leisure)

what does Formula One have to do with gambling? :confused:

Yeah, it does seem screwy to me. What I think is screwy is that it is so close to an even division, but it still gestures at the traditional "oldest son, other sons, womenfolk" line of inheritance.

Why not just chop it evenly? Or, if you're going to favor your oldest son, why not do so in more than a nominal manner? It seems half-measures to me.

And how do YOU know it wasn't evenly distributed and that they have divested some and made money in other ways? The oldest would have had access to his money before the younger ones and been able to do more with it since.

Funny how you would assume what you did, just from this list.

Regards,
Gaar

Down with the evil Gates!

Now - can anyone out there truly defend a need for more than a billion dollars for one person in one lifetime?

A "need" perhaps not...

But the real onus is on you; can YOU defend a position that says that they should not be able to accumulate such Wealth in a Free Society?

Regards,
Gaar

what does Formula One have to do with gambling? :confused:
The Formula One is leisure.

The gambling is from smoking which he passively encourages via sponsorship.

The total for these 20 people is 433.8 billion US dollars.

$433,800,000,000.00

Assuming for a minute that there is some valid reason why a person would need a billion dollars in their life, suppose each of these people was let keep a billions dollars (that's $1,000,000,000.00), and the collective "us" (the rest of the world) took the rest to defray the cost of hunger, poverty, Aids, u-name-it.

Imagine what could be done with $413,800,000,000.00 to solve some major world problems. And that's only from the top 20 richest people in the world.

Now - can anyone out there truly defend a need for more than a billion dollars for one person in one lifetime?

Well it is THEIR money, they made it/inherited/married into it and pay an already sizable tax on it, why shouldn't they be allowed to keep what rightfully is theirs? Much along the lines of the rights of private property, its yours, its yours to keep, it isn't the property of the state or the impoverished, its yours.

A "need" perhaps not...

But the real onus is on you; can YOU defend a position that says that they should not be able to accumulate such Wealth in a Free Society?

Regards,
Gaar
the question boils down to Freedom vs Fairness.

if one holds freedom in highest regard, accumulation of any amount of wealth - and subsequent inequality - is justified. (Nozick)

if one holds fairness to be just, then freedoms (such as Rights) may be circumvented in the name of redistribution and equality. (Rawls)
It just depends on where you fit between those two extremes.

What about the Sultan of Brunei? :confused:

Down with the evil Gates!

You do know just how much he gives to charity each year, don't you?

Ask all of those impoverished black kids if he is so evil!

And how do YOU know it wasn't evenly distributed and that they have divested some and made money in other ways? The oldest would have had access to his money before the younger ones and been able to do more with it since.

Funny how you would assume what you did, just from this list.

Regards,
Gaar

Funny how you assume what I assume.

Here's what I know: The oldest son was made chairman, which accounts for his slightly larger share. Supposedly, the others got equal 20% cuts (with Helen receiving Sam's 10% on top of her 10%). Now Sam's 10% would have been subjected to estate tax when it went to Helen, whereas the kids' shares would not (they given their shares before death for this purpose). But this would have made a considerably larger dent than 200 million. So that doesn't tally.

But assuming that the split was perfectly equal, it is still awful screwy how the list shapes up. This means that by coincidence and luck of investment, the oldest son still did best and the ladies still did worst. You don't see both propositions as a bit odd?

Regards.

Please - property rights over hunger, poverty and health? When we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars? People should be allowed to die who could otherwise be kept alive, so that these people can keep money they could not possibly have a need for?

As to "the ball's in my court" and I have to show a NEED to take the money away from them - I did.

Hunger
Poverty
Aids
Death

Once again - it is immoral for someone with that kind of wealth in this kind of world not to share MOST of it.

It is immoral of the rest of us not to insist they do.

Please - property rights over hunger, poverty and health? When we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars? People should be allowed to die who could otherwise be kept alive, so that these people can keep money they could not possibly have a need for?

As to "the ball's in my court" and I have to show a NEED to take the money away from them - I did.

Hunger
Poverty
Aids
Death

Once again - it is immoral for someone with that kind of wealth in this kind of world not to share MOST of it.

It is immoral of the rest of us not to insist they do.
agreed. well said :)

Originally posted by Very Angry Rabbits
Please - property rights over hunger, poverty and health? When we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars? People should be allowed to die who could otherwise be kept alive, so that these people can keep money they could not possibly have a need for?

As to "the ball's in my court" and I have to show a NEED to take the money away from them - I did.

Hunger
Poverty
Aids
Death

Once again - it is immoral for someone with that kind of wealth in this kind of world not to share MOST of it.

It is immoral of the rest of us not to insist they do.

What do you want this world to be, some kind of communist paradise.
Rich people are rich because the worked hard and took risks, it's not their fault. Most rich people donate millions to charity each year, I'd say Bill Gates has given at least a billion to charity in his lifetime.

What do you want this world to be, some kind of communist paradise.
Rich people are rich because the worked hard and took risks, it's not their fault. Most rich people donate millions to charity each year, I'd say Bill Gates has given at least a billion to charity in his lifetime.Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Did the scrub brush hurt you as they washed your brain?

If Bill Gates gave a billion to charity, and still has 46.5 billion, then hes' at least 45 billion behind in his philanthopic duties as a human being.

If there were no hunger, no poverty, no orphans living in the streets, no Aids, etc., then it would be fine for these people to keep everything their greedly little grubby little hands can snatch from the world.

But there is hunger to the point of starvation. There is poverty to the point of destitution. There are orphaned little children forced to sell themselves in order to eat. There are people dying of Aids because the cure, temporary as it is, is too expensive. And this is just the short list.

No - it is immoral to have that kind of wealth in this kind of world and not share MOST of it.

-----------------------------
apologizes slightly for the size of the "ha ha ha"s. too big, meant to be sarcastic, but not insulting. size reduced

Originally posted by Very Angry Rabbits
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Did the scrub brush hurt you as they washed your brain?

If Bill Gates gave a billion to charity, and still has 46.5 billion, then hes' at least 45 billion behind in his philanthopic duties as a human being.

If there were no hunger, no poverty, no orphans living in the streets, no Aids, etc., then it would be fine for these people to keep everything their greedly little grubby little hands can snatch from the world.

But there is hunger to the point of starvation. There is poverty to the point of destitution. There are orphaned little children forced to sell themselves in order to eat. There are people dying of Aids because the cure, temporary as it is, is too expensive. And this is just the short list.

No - it is immoral to have that kind of wealth in this kind of world and not share MOST of it

It is not Bill Gates respnsibilty to solve world hunger nor is it any other American billioniare. These poor Asian countries need to eventually feed themselves and stop relying on foreign aid. Gates undoubtedly worked hard for his billions and deserves to keep the money he rightfully earned. I'm not saying we shouldn't help the poor, we should, we should donate generously, but Gates' money will not alone cure the world's ailments.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Did the scrub brush hurt you as they washed your brain?

If Bill Gates gave a billion to charity, and still has 46.5 billion, then hes' at least 45 billion behind in his philanthopic duties as a human being.

If there were no hunger, no poverty, no orphans living in the streets, no Aids, etc., then it would be fine for these people to keep everything their greedly little grubby little hands can snatch from the world.

But there is hunger to the point of starvation. There is poverty to the point of destitution. There are orphaned little children forced to sell themselves in order to eat. There are people dying of Aids because the cure, temporary as it is, is too expensive. And this is just the short list.

No - it is immoral to have that kind of wealth in this kind of world and not share MOST of it.

-----------------------------
apologizes slightly for the size of the "ha ha ha"s. too big, meant to be sarcastic, but not insulting. size reduced


Gates gives at least 1 billion per year to charity.

How much do you give?

Originally posted by Johnny Wadd
Gates gives at least 1 billion per year to charity.

How much do you give?

I give what I can, I am not rich by any means.
I give my no longer used possesions to Goodwill and the Salvation Army, (I also donate to them). I also used to tudor poorer, underprivliged children.
It's not much but it's more than most people can say.
(i know this question wasn't aimed at me but i couldn't help but answer)

if i've done my maths right, Gates gives a little over 2% of his wealth to charity. i don't know how much is the 'ususal amout' for ordinary people, but that is not very much considering what he has and how much happiness he could bring by giving just a few percent more (compared to most of the rest of us who, if we gave 10% more of our wealth to charity, wouldn't make a blind bit of difference)

i'd settle for 5 million, myself
How can you live like that? Me, I am going to be the first lawyer to successfully sue McDonalds, BK, and KFC jointly for making people fat on behalf of all fat people on the planet. I will instantly become the world's first Trillionaire.

At the moment I'd be happy with 20k, but then again, I'm a college student...
Shit, I'd settle for $500, and spend it on beer.

Originally posted by Soviet Narco State
How can you live like that? Me, I am going to be the first lawyer to successfully sue McDonalds, BK, and KFC jointly for making people fat on behalf of all fat people on the planet. I will instantly become the world's first Trillionaire.

Those three huge corporations will probably throw about 200 lawyers each on you and somehow produce a million court documents and "eye" witnesses helping their cause, but i have faith in u. ;)

Those three huge corporations will probably throw about 200 lawyers each on you and somehow produce a million court documents and "eye" witnesses helping their cause, but i have faith in u. ;)
Eat up man and you can share in the rewards. The fatter your ass, the greater the cash.

How can you live like that?
either that was sarcasm, or...

how can i live like that? simple: what do i need any more for? that would provide me with enough to live off, live well, provide for my (future) family and not have to worry about work, bills, mortgage, etc...
why would you need any more?

Originally posted by Soviet Narco State
Eat up man and you can share in the rewards. The fatter your ass, the greater the cash.

Yes, an excuse to eat them delicious stomped chickens they serve at KFC, yum.

Yes, an excuse to eat them delicious stomped chickens they serve at KFC, yum.
Make sure to leave the skin on. Don't be one of those sissies who skimps out on the gravy either.

The Formula One is leisure.

The gambling is from smoking which he passively encourages via sponsorship.
yea, but he doesnt profit from the advertising on the cars...

as a side note, the FIA is banning tobacco advertising on cars and tracks from (i think) 2006 onwards, and hes the commercial director of F1, so i imagine he has a bit of say in that

Originally posted by Soviet Narco State
Make sure to leave the skin on. Don't be one of those sissies who skimps out on the gravy either.

Screw gravy, throw on some deep-fried lard instead.

Rich people are rich because the worked hard and took risks, it's not their fault.
Not neccessarily. Most big money people inherit their riches. If they choose too, they never need to work in their life except mayb for the tedious task of hiring a finacial manager. In a certain dimension of wealth even this isnt needed any more, because even taking the money to any bank and letting it sit there at a measly 1% interest is gaining them more money each year than is normally possible to spend.

At least Bill Gates earnt his money honestly (and he plans to give 90-95% of his wealth in charity, plus thanks to his philantropic projects researchers are nearing to an effective vaccine for malaria).
Look at people like Berlusconi (don't remember the place but he's got $12 billion) who made their money by screwing the countries they live in...
I'd tax that SOB to death, criminals shouldn't be rich at all.
With power should come responsibility too, it's something we often forget.
Since money is power why not using it to improve your surroundings?

Screw gravy, throw on some deep-fried lard instead.
Goddamit, I'm hungry now!

what is your economic basis of this arguement? i don't get it - a limit on the amount you earn would simply be like a 100% tax above a certain bracket. how would this cause an economy to collapse (apart from the evident loss of motivation and incentive)?

There is a reason why Sweden has high rates of suicide, and why lots of doctors flee to other nations.

Simple. Make it $25,000. Why on *earth* would I work more than an hour or two a day?

By the same token, these guys (whom control big swatches of the economy) would have no reason to, either.

Originally posted by Jester III
Not neccessarily. Most big money people inherit their riches. If they choose too, they never need to work in their life except mayb for the tedious task of hiring a finacial manager. In a certain dimension of wealth even this isnt needed any more, because even taking the money to any bank and letting it sit there at a measly 1% interest is gaining them more money each year than is normally possible to spend.

Yes, but they got that money from the ancestors hard work, and they should just consider themselves extremely lucky that one of their ancestors took the initiative to earn that money.
(I envy those bastards.)

I give what I can afford. It turns out to be about 2.5% of what I earn annually. Taking into account that while I have a fairly comfortable life, it is the inexpensive comfort of a civil servant, with simple tastes. And who has a mortgage (and only one house), four children - all of whom are in college at the same time, at some expense to Dad.

That isn't the point. We shouldn't expect the same percent of earnings to be donated charitably by everyone - we should expect a higher percent from those who have more, and a lower percent from those who have less. How can you possibly compare the ABILITY to give of someone who has billions of dollars with the ABILITY to give of someone who has several thousand dollars?

We must expect more from those who can give more, and we must give more to those who need more.

Most of us have the second part down. For some reason we have difficulty with that first part.

Originally posted by HadesRulesMuch
Goddamit, I'm hungry now!

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.................. deep-fried lard *drooling on chin and neck*

Who was it that washed your brain? ;)

Call me crazy, I work on Madison Avenue in NYC.


Who cares if there is a limit set on the economy? The guys who are really scraping around in dumps and garbage cans around the world for empty cans of Alpo? The little kids dying of Aids in poverty in the 3rd world? People in some of the supposedly richest countries in the world living in cardboard boxes?

Er, we all should. Lest is all go up in flames.
More wealth has been created in the past 50 years than in the past 50 generations, and by and large, it's shared. Sure, there are some very rich and some very poor, but on average, your great great grandparents were farmers and lower class. (With me, it's closer. My parents were farmers.)

The point is that it is wrong to take anything away from any individual.


They might not care if the economy took a little dip in exchange for a decent meal, or place to stay, or their health.

To have that kind of wealth in this kind of world without sharing MOST of it is immoral.

And how, pray, will that work out? The economy has been in a little dip for 5 years now, and all I hear in the forums are compaints. :D

Yes. And that's on their heads.

Very Angry Rabbits got buuuuuurrrned *sizzle*

Call me crazy, I work on Madison Avenue in NYC.



Er, we all should. Lest is all go up in flames.
More wealth has been created in the past 50 years than in the past 50 generations, and by and large, it's shared. Sure, there are some very rich and some very poor, but on average, your great great grandparents were farmers and lower class. (With me, it's closer. My parents were farmers.)

The point is that it is wrong to take anything away from any individual.



And how, pray, will that work out? The economy has been in a little dip for 5 years now, and all I hear in the forums are compaints. :D

Yes. And that's on their heads.Ummm...B-S. The "wealth" you're talking about is ever-increasingly shared in larger and larger percentages by an ever-decreasing percent of the population. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. The middle class, once growing in the US, is shrinking.

It is immoral to have that much wealth in a world like this and not share MOST of it.

It is NOT wrong to take anything away from any individual. Or, to use what isn’t a word, it is WRONGER to let an individual keep wealth way beyond what they could reasonably expect to need while others live (and die) in hunger and poverty around the world as well as here in the US.

what is your economic basis of this arguement?
Ok, here is the bitter, bitter truth. Billy Boy Gates doesnt have 46.5 Billion in cash lying around in his safe. :eek:
Most of that money is bound in investments, Microsoft coming to mind, Corbis being another. If Gates sells 80% of his shares, the price per share drops into the abyss, bet on that. Thus lets suppose what now is regarded as 40 billion is now worth 8. Investment brokers who stocked on MS shares sell as fast as they can, completely disregarding that Microsoft is doing business as usual and selling its products like its hot stuff, dropping the price per share even faster. In the whole process "imaginary" money is burned in large piles, considering that Intel will suffer as well and the whole computer/hightech sector is taking a hit. Too bad that those investment brokers do not only work for the evil, rich people but retirement fonds as well. Expect a lot of average joe senior citizens to suffer.
This was just one thing that would happen if you take the money out of the economy and cash it in for good deeds. There are more but i will go out drinking now and cant be bothered to further elaborate.
I dont like the concept of people being obscenely rich either, but it isnt a clear-cut easy thing to just take it away for good deeds.

Does anyone else think this is a little screwy?
Is it not sick that when you die an you split your money between 4 people it is still enough money to put them ALL on the richest person in the world list

Silly :)

Ummm...B-S. The "wealth" you're talking about is ever-increasingly shared in larger and larger percentages by an ever-decreasing percent of the population. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. The middle class, once growing in the US, is shrinking.

It is immoral to have that much wealth in a world like this and not share MOST of it.

It is NOT wrong to take anything away from any individual. Or, to use what isn’t a word, it is WRONGER to let an individual keep wealth way beyond what they could reasonably expect to need while others live (and die) in hunger and poverty around the world as well as here in the US.

WTF?

It is not wrong to take anything away from an individual?

Ok, let's compare.
USA - Hugely capitalist. Richest nation on Earth. Science and research through the roof.
Europe - Highly capitalist, with socialist leanings. Very rich, very good science and technology.
Soviet Russia - Communist. Destitute. People starving to death. (See also: China.) People dying at the state's whim or ineptitude.
Communist China. Communist. Need I say 'Great Leap Forward'? If so, 50,000,000 dead. Because Communism. Doesn't. Work. And to say "It is NOT wrong to take anything away from any individual." is to condone, nay encourage theft. So please, tell me where you live. You've got some stuff I want, I'm sure, and by your own admission it is NOT wrong to take anything away any individual.

There is no soviet russia anymore, just a mafia and corrupted bordello lead by Putin.
Welcome to 2005 :D

Ummm...B-S. The "wealth" you're talking about is ever-increasingly shared in larger and larger percentages by an ever-decreasing percent of the population. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. The middle class, once growing in the US, is shrinking.

It is immoral to have that much wealth in a world like this and not share MOST of it.

It is NOT wrong to take anything away from any individual. Or, to use what isn’t a word, it is WRONGER to let an individual keep wealth way beyond what they could reasonably expect to need while others live (and die) in hunger and poverty around the world as well as here in the US.

Yes it is wrong... lmao.

Do you approve of theft?

do you believe in personal responsibility?

Do you believe that some --who are mentally and physically able to support themselves--should be able to depend on others?

do you think government should have a right to STEAL from some and distribute their money to others?

I am sorry... i wholeheartedly disagree with you. You CANNOT raise up the poor by bringing down the rich.

think of it logically. Here are the repercussions of FORCING people to give their money to others (or otherwise... reasons why it's wrong):

1)Most of these people are highly intelligent and great at investing, starting businesses, etc... activities which generally CREATE JOBS FOR PEOPLE. Take money away from them and they have less to spend/invest... and fewer jobs to create.

2)You take money away from people who use it productively and give it to those who waste it and productivity goes down.

3)It is just plain WRONG to steal. Propriety must be respected, lest YOU be robbed.

4)Sending the "don't worry about working... you can have part of Rich Person A's check..." message is dangerous... it will lead to increased unemployment and dependence of people on the government.... and increased stealing of the gov't from rich people (and middle class, and upper-middle class).

5)The guile of it gets me. Here you are, you've worked your entire life starting businesses and creating jobs for those less fortunate than you, and the government PUNISHES you for it. Yeah, nice message: "Come here! We'll tax the hell out of you and throw your money to the dogs if you become successful!" Keep THAT up and watch the economy go.. down.. hill. Success should be emulated and respected, not punished.

6)People should be able to decide what to do with their money. There is a need for some taxes to pay for things that individuals cannot easily provide for themselves (and, okay, welfare for those who CAN'T work)... but by and large, government needs to keep its paws off our money. That means EVERYONE's money. What you earn is yours.

7)As for inheritance, if you deny it to kids/kin you are telling the benefactor "No, you can't decide what to do with your money! We're taking it! So WHAT if you spent your entire life working to provide for your children?!"... this sickens me. I hope that if I die with money that my government will allow me to give it to my kids. I sure as hell won't be working for anyone else.

8)The nerve. .The NERVE of some of these people who DEMAND money from others... as if they have a right to others' money... is really upsetting. Here's a tip: GO GET A JOB AND MAKE YOUR OWN WAY!

well that's enough anti-socialism from me.

Free enterprise to all, and to all a free enterprise!

The "wealth" you're talking about is ever-increasingly shared in larger and larger percentages by an ever-decreasing percent of the population. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. The middle class, once growing in the US, is shrinking.

I'm not going to enter into this "right" vs. "wrong," "morality/immorality of wealth" thing, but I would like to underline these Angry Rabbit statements.

These claims are very, very true, and this is a very, very big problem. We've got greater wealth consolidation than at any point in the nation's history; we've got record-breaking levels of personal debt; and we've got record-low levels of personal savings.

This is bad fucking news.

The total for these 20 people is 433.8 billion US dollars.

$433,800,000,000.00

Assuming for a minute that there is some valid reason why a person would need a billion dollars in their life, suppose each of these people was let keep a billions dollars (that's $1,000,000,000.00), and the collective "us" (the rest of the world) took the rest to defray the cost of hunger, poverty, Aids, u-name-it.

Imagine what could be done with $413,800,000,000.00 to solve some major world problems. And that's only from the top 20 richest people in the world.

Now - can anyone out there truly defend a need for more than a billion dollars for one person in one lifetime?

If you were to win the power ball lotto would you still have that opinion?

Ok, here is the bitter, bitter truth. Billy Boy Gates doesnt have 46.5 Billion in cash lying around in his safe. :eek:
Most of that money is bound in investments, Microsoft coming to mind, Corbis being another. If Gates sells 80% of his shares, the price per share drops into the abyss, bet on that. Thus lets suppose what now is regarded as 40 billion is now worth 8. Investment brokers who stocked on MS shares sell as fast as they can, completely disregarding that Microsoft is doing business as usual and selling its products like its hot stuff, dropping the price per share even faster. In the whole process "imaginary" money is burned in large piles, considering that Intel will suffer as well and the whole computer/hightech sector is taking a hit. Too bad that those investment brokers do not only work for the evil, rich people but retirement fonds as well. Expect a lot of average joe senior citizens to suffer.
This was just one thing that would happen if you take the money out of the economy and cash it in for good deeds. There are more but i will go out drinking now and cant be bothered to further elaborate.
I dont like the concept of people being obscenely rich either, but it isnt a clear-cut easy thing to just take it away for good deeds.
There is a reason why Sweden has high rates of suicide, and why lots of doctors flee to other nations.

Simple. Make it $25,000. Why on *earth* would I work more than an hour or two a day?

By the same token, these guys (whom control big swatches of the economy) would have no reason to, either.
both good arguements, and both true (i studied economics for 5 years :) )
sorry, i was just being devil's advocate :)

just as a note, i believe it would be possible to take the vast amounts of money from the (ridiculously) rich, but very very slowly

Yes it is wrong... lmao.

Do you approve of theft?

do you believe in personal responsibility?

Do you believe that some --who are mentally and physically able to support themselves--should be able to depend on others?

do you think government should have a right to STEAL from some and distribute their money to others?

I am sorry... i wholeheartedly disagree with you. You CANNOT raise up the poor by bringing down the rich.

think of it logically. Here are the repercussions of FORCING people to give their money to others (or otherwise... reasons why it's wrong):

1)Most of these people are highly intelligent and great at investing, starting businesses, etc... activities which generally CREATE JOBS FOR PEOPLE. Take money away from them and they have less to spend/invest... and fewer jobs to create.

2)You take money away from people who use it productively and give it to those who waste it and productivity goes down.

3)It is just plain WRONG to steal. Propriety must be respected, lest YOU be robbed.

4)Sending the "don't worry about working... you can have part of Rich Person A's check..." message is dangerous... it will lead to increased unemployment and dependence of people on the government.... and increased stealing of the gov't from rich people (and middle class, and upper-middle class).

5)The guile of it gets me. Here you are, you've worked your entire life starting businesses and creating jobs for those less fortunate than you, and the government PUNISHES you for it. Yeah, nice message: "Come here! We'll tax the hell out of you and throw your money to the dogs if you become successful!" Keep THAT up and watch the economy go.. down.. hill. Success should be emulated and respected, not punished.

6)People should be able to decide what to do with their money. There is a need for some taxes to pay for things that individuals cannot easily provide for themselves (and, okay, welfare for those who CAN'T work)... but by and large, government needs to keep its paws off our money. That means EVERYONE's money. What you earn is yours.

7)As for inheritance, if you deny it to kids/kin you are telling the benefactor "No, you can't decide what to do with your money! We're taking it! So WHAT if you spent your entire life working to provide for your children?!"... this sickens me. I hope that if I die with money that my government will allow me to give it to my kids. I sure as hell won't be working for anyone else.

8)The nerve. .The NERVE of some of these people who DEMAND money from others... as if they have a right to others' money... is really upsetting. Here's a tip: GO GET A JOB AND MAKE YOUR OWN WAY!

well that's enough anti-socialism from me.

Free enterprise to all, and to all a free enterprise!
this is like the arguement between Nozick and Rawls...

on the one hand you have Nozick, whose arguements you are putting forward - 'as long as property is aquired legitimatley nobody may lay claim to it but its owner', ie the state should not take from the rich to give to the poor (it is a violation of rights, and tax=forced labour). pretty much what you're arguing.

Rawls argues that life is a lottery. When we are born, it is (genetic) luck as to whether we are going to be intelligent, talented, handicapped, etc... just as it is not fair/not just to discriminate negatively against handicapped people (most people will agree this), it is unjust to positively discriminate for talented people. he uses a tool called the 'veil of ignorance': imagine that the people in a society gathered together to design that society, but they are unaware of their own social status, economic background, their own talents or their own inablilities - they don't know if they come from a priviliged and stable family, whether they're brilliantly talented at something, whether they're mentally handicapped or not. to be fair - to be just - they will design the society so that everything is equal - one can neither disbenefit from ones inabilities, nor disbenefit anyone else by benefiting from your talents. think about it for a minute - if you didn't know whether you were going to be smart or not, would you not want a system which protected those that are not intelligent? it is not the fault of those with inabilities that they are less likely or are less pre-disposed to becoming rich, just as it is not the fault of people who come from poorer backgrounds and who are unable to afford good education (and may indeed come from backgrounds which do not favour education at all) that they are in this situation. life is a lottery - you never know what you're going to get. as such, society should be arranged in such a way that everyone benefits from those with natural talent/intelligence, not just those people themselves.

i'm sure i could have explained that better but i'm getting tired... :(

Ummm...B-S. The "wealth" you're talking about is ever-increasingly shared in larger and larger percentages by an ever-decreasing percent of the population. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. The middle class, once growing in the US, is shrinking.

Um, no. First, http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html will show that old Kerry point as being short term and (as anything political on EITHER side is) biased. (Note: I am a Connecticut Independent. I have no great love for either party.)

Now, that said:
in 2003:
44.9% of the population made more than $25000
26.1% of the population made more than $75000.
____
71% of the population is middle class or better. Could you please tell me when it's been higher?

Currently 70% of all Americans own their own home. That's an all-time record. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeownership/

Also:
Approximate number of millionaires in the U.S., 1978-1988

Year Millionaires
1978 450,000
1980 574,000
1981 638,000
1985 832,000
1987 1,239,000
1988 1,500,000

...so in ten years, the number of millionaires TRIPLED.
How about in 2004? 2.3 million!
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/15/pf/millionaires/

Fewer? Doesn't appear so to me... 2.3 million... that's nearly 1 in 125 Americans!


It is immoral to have that much wealth in a world like this and not share MOST of it.

And I agree with you. Still.
And that's STILL on their heads.
You or I have no place telling anybody else what they can or cannot own in America. I saw life like that in Czechoslovakia in 1983, Poland in 1984. Let me tell you, life is a lot better there now than then.


It is NOT wrong to take anything away from any individual.

In that case, you have no problem with losing the entire Bill of Rights!
Wow, I don't want to live in your world. :(


Or, to use what isn’t a word, it is WRONGER to let an individual keep wealth way beyond what they could reasonably expect to need while others live (and die) in hunger and poverty around the world as well as here in the US.

Ok, fine then. Give up all of your worldly possessions and wealth to charity. You're living *way* beyond the $1 a day that a third of the planet lives on.

No? I didn't think so.

Fact: There have always been rich, there have always been poor. The only society (and I mean the ONLY society!) that ever overcame this were the Spartans, as they rejected currency. No other culture ever achieved a techological soceity (read: cities, specialists like smiths and teachers) without money coming along.

Please - property rights over hunger, poverty and health? When we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars? People should be allowed to die who could otherwise be kept alive, so that these people can keep money they could not possibly have a need for?

As to "the ball's in my court" and I have to show a NEED to take the money away from them - I did.

Hunger
Poverty
Aids
Death

Once again - it is immoral for someone with that kind of wealth in this kind of world not to share MOST of it.

It is immoral of the rest of us not to insist they do.

You know, you're right. It's also immoral for someone like you to eat as well as you do when some people go starving. I hope you donate MOST of your food.

By the way, I assume you insist any government spending - say on defense, or transportation - is also immoral. I hope to see you arguing against those things.

It's also immoral for someone like you to own a computer, have access to functional plumbing and shelter.... I hope you rent out your house and your stuff, free, since it would be immoral of you to have something that someone else doesn't. Those things could be doing more good in the world. Your computer could be used by the Red Cross to help organize the logistics of fighting poverty. Are you using it for something other than that? Immoral!

Fat people. Fat people are immoral and we as a society should incourage them not to eat so much food - food that could otherwise be useful in a world with so much starvation. Obesity is immoral. Maybe there should be a fat quota; anything extra, gets mandatory liposuction to feed the hungry.

....

Or here, how about this. How about, it's their money, they made it, they are allowed to keep it even if you think that's immoral.

I said let each keep a billion dollars. $1,000,000,000.00

If a person had a billion dollars, and spent ten million a year, it would take a hundred years to spend it all - assuming they just let it sit around and grow mold.

For those who think it fine that someone has over a billion dollars, while someone else eats garbage, that's your sad opinion and you're entitle to it.

And I'm entitled to believe it's immoral to let someone die of hunger while hoarding that kind of wealth.

What caused the French Revolution? What caused the Russian Revolution? Etc?

Take your pick, a famine, the American revolution and the debt that came with it. Lots of reasons. No one thing caused the Revolution.


[quote]What caused the Russian Revolution? Etc?

Which one?

Down with the evil Gates!

Evil? He's leaving most of his fortune to charity numbskull.

I think your wrong. I heard about one saultin guy who has over $230,000,000,000. He lives in like asia or around the middle east.

WTF?

It is not wrong to take anything away from an individual?

Ok, let's compare.
USA - Hugely capitalist. Richest nation on Earth. Science and research through the roof.
Europe - Highly capitalist, with socialist leanings. Very rich, very good science and technology.
Soviet Russia - Communist. Destitute. People starving to death. (See also: China.) People dying at the state's whim or ineptitude.
Communist China. Communist. Need I say 'Great Leap Forward'? If so, 50,000,000 dead. Because Communism. Doesn't. Work. And to say "It is NOT wrong to take anything away from any individual." is to condone, nay encourage theft. So please, tell me where you live. You've got some stuff I want, I'm sure, and by your own admission it is NOT wrong to take anything away any individual.Please continue to enjoy quoting me out of context. It's easier to try to make your point that way, so go ahead.

Ever heard of Income Tax? Property Tax? Any kind of tax you care to name? That is society taking away from an individual what they own. How about the concept of Immenent Domain? That is also society taking away from an individual what they own.

It is a clearly established precedent that when society (read "governement" if you prefer) determines it is more pressing to see to the needs of many (society itself, usually) than the needs of one or a few (those from whom society takes), then society does take something that belongs to an individual for, in society's opinion, the betterment of society. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (I happen to like Star Trek)

What I'm suggesting is not a new thing - just an expansion of something we all already live with.

Can you say "socialism"?

if i've done my maths right, Gates gives a little over 2% of his wealth to charity. i don't know how much is the 'ususal amout' for ordinary people, but that is not very much considering what he has and how much happiness he could bring by giving just a few percent more (compared to most of the rest of us who, if we gave 10% more of our wealth to charity, wouldn't make a blind bit of difference)


How exactly would he go about doing that? The vast bulk of his wealth is in the form of Microsoft STOCK. Should he give up control over the company he founded so that he can donate money? What would happen to the stock price if he sold 10% of his holdings every year? What would happen to those people whom microsoft stock accounts for a chunk of their retirement investment. Should they suffer because you have decided what is and is not an appropriate amount of wealth for a person to have? What gives you the right to decide for someone else?

I said let each keep a billion dollars. $1,000,000,000.00

If a person had a billion dollars, and spent ten million a year, it would take a hundred years to spend it all - assuming they just let it sit around and grow mold.

And who are you to set the limit? Do you keep taking from them whenever they get more than $1b? What if they come up low due to a bad turn in the economy? Do they get some back to make it up? :rolleyes:


For those who think it fine that someone has over a billion dollars, while someone else eats garbage, that's your sad opinion and you're entitle to it.


Fine. Your limit is now $10. That's TEN TIMES more than a third of the planet.


And I'm entitled to believe it's immoral to let someone die of hunger while hoarding that kind of wealth.

AND THAT IS STILL ON THEIR HEADS. Sheesh.


What caused the French Revolution? What caused the Russian Revolution? Etc?

The French and Russian Revolutions were directly caused by the governments taking away from the nascent middle classes and overtaxing the nobility. You're looking to start it all over again.

Please continue to enjoy quoting me out of context. It's easier to try to make your point that way, so go ahead.

Ever heard of Income Tax? Property Tax? Any kind of tax you care to name? That is society taking away from an individual what they own. How about the concept of Immenent Domain? That is also society taking away from an individual what they own.

It is a clearly established precedent that when society (read "governement" if you prefer) determines it is more pressing to see to the needs of many (society itself, usually) than the needs of one or a few (those from whom society takes), then society does take something that belongs to an individual for, in society's opinion, the betterment of society. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (I happen to like Star Trek)

What I'm suggesting is not a new thing - just an expansion of something we all already live with.

Can you say "socialism"?

And income tax, property tax, and sales tax etc. are all theft. The governmant should really be providing two things; defense against foreign powers, and policing. Personally I have no objections to a nationalised healthcare and education system either, but that's up in the air. Point is, taxes are theft, and they should be much lower. "The needs of the many" is a fallacy, created by an anachronistic sense of tribalism. In the modern world, with our intense communications, we've got friends from all over the place, and more and more people are becoming more and more internationalized. This means I owe far more allegiance to America than Britain, personally, just as there are Americans who feel they owe more to Britain than America, along with a thousand other examples. So, until we achieve a global government (And one can only hope this is forthcoming soon, but with all the reactionary anti-imperialism around today, that's not likely.), it's unfair yet again - people are paying taxes to support people they don't even identify with, let alone people they share culture and morality with.

Eminent domain is a barbaric kind of theft. Land should be acquirable by the state only through the same legal purchases that the people it governs must make. That is all there is to it.

Thank God that Stalin and Mao showed most of us that communism doesn't work, or we'd have to worry about your immoral views coming into power. Hopefully though, the Libertarian party will rise rather sooner than the Communist party.

And would you care to explain how I quoted you out of context? You made points, and I responded. I note, there was no response at all the my suggestion that I take from you. I'm needy. I don't have a HDTV or even a GameCube. Socialism = theft, and it was founded on entirely flawed principles anyway (The idea that something has been 'stolen' from the working man, when in actuality it's just the natural march of technology changing industry.).

I said let each keep a billion dollars. $1,000,000,000.00

If a person had a billion dollars, and spent ten million a year, it would take a hundred years to spend it all - assuming they just let it sit around and grow mold.


...which is what these people do NOT do. They invest and use their money. What do they invest in? Well, hopefully, America.

You realize that taxes or not, that money would never go to feeding starving people in some third world country. If government gets into the habit of limiting how much money people can make and stealing anything above that arbitrary limit, well it's also the sort of government that's not going around fulfilling your moralistic fantasies. Actually, it would probably just use the money to increase defense spending and government's own power...

For those who think it fine that someone has over a billion dollars, while someone else eats garbage, that's your sad opinion and you're entitle to it.

Well. You have money you don't need too. People are eating garbage within walking distance of you, and you could be helping them but aren't. Isn't that immoral? Can I call your hypocritical opinion sad?

And I'm entitled to believe it's immoral to let someone die of hunger while hoarding that kind of wealth.

Ditto, it's surely immoral to let people die of exposure while you're hoarding your house/bedrooms/shelter. And you are. Therefore you are just as immoral.

Ha.

Buffett gaining on ol' Bill. Wonder if he has trouble sleeping at night. :p
For a while the guy who owned Ikea was #1 because the american dollar went down.

I congratulate all of these people for their hard work. I especially congratulate Warren Buffet, whose financial savvy is making him poised to surpass Bill Gates.

Those of you defending "property rights" over decent meals, health care, lodging, etc. - enjoy living with your conscience.

I know I'm right, and you're entitled to your wrong opinion.

Done with this dicussion now.

ta!

I congratulate all of these people for their hard work.

How does being born and coming of age equate to hard work? (As in the cases of some of the Waltons)

Those of you defending "property rights" over decent meals, health care, lodging, etc. - enjoy living with your conscience.

I know I'm right, and you're entitled to your wrong opinion.

Done with this dicussion now.

ta!


Honestly, you are just a jealous ass. What you consider to be an "OK" living is considered wildly extravagent by most of the world. Yet you dont believe you should sacrifice anything, you think that only people with more than you have should give up something.

I live in India now, the middle class barely get to own cars, (as in 1 used beat up one). Ur middle class in the US, why dont you donate 1 family car towards the better living in India?

Your kids education is going to cost you a pretty penny, why dont you force them to study hard so that they get scholorships so that you can donate that money to poor Indians seeking higher education?

Or do you believe that the only people who have any social responsibility are those who have made a fortune by providing jobs for others.

Whose life have you improved? Gates and Buffet and all the small mom and pop businessmen have helped many, what the fuck have you done other than live off the public tit?

Did you take a risk and start a hardware store? or a small restaurant? or maybe a small copy shop operation? Seriously, what risk have taken and what employment have you provided that lets you sleep at night given your ridiculous statements?

Those of you defending "property rights" over decent meals, health care, lodging, etc. - enjoy living with your conscience.

I know I'm right, and you're entitled to your wrong opinion.

Done with this dicussion now.

ta!

I do enjoy living with my concious. Humans owe nothing at all to Humanity. That's all there is to it. I note also that you had nothing whatsoever to actually say except hypocries, which Isanyonehome ably pointed out. You're done with the discussion because you're wrong and have nothing to say except "You're wrong, evil people! I'm right! Why? Who cares? I'm right! Evil people!".

Most of you do realise that most of their money is likely in Property, estates, businesses and others rather than just plain cash right? Like Bill Gates money is in stocks.

Plus, their so rich, that they can just sit around and do nothing and still earn money.

And if they do so happen to give it all away, by seling all their assets into cash and distributing it to poor people, hundreds & thousands of people would lose their jobs.

I could find some uses for 40 billion. Think of the impact you could make on the world. Think of the neat stuff you could own.
That kind of money is just beyond our comprehension. I would seriously donate half of my money to charity if I were that rich.

If I were that rich...

I would spend alot giving people jobs by creating business especially in poorer nations.

Give a beggar a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

And in turn from the business that I created to give people jobs, I become richer. Do I sound greedy?

How does being born and coming of age equate to hard work? (As in the cases of some of the Waltons)
Their father worked very hard for the family. Nothing should be wrong with providing for them, and no one had any right to steal money that Sam Walton intended for his family.

If I earned my $1 by my work/brain (or that of my parent) and without cheating anyone, then who has the right/audacity to claim that it's not fair for me to have it?

Take all the top 20's money and spread it out per capita to the world's population...does anyone really think that it would significantly and permanently change any one individual person's condition in life? Nope.

But, take away the possibility to earn (and then to transfer by inheritance to your kids) a large amount of money..... we've already seen the social and industrial debacle created by communism.

Is there a system "better" than capitalism --- I don't know. Is our system always "fair"...not if you're the own getting screwed by manipulators and cheaters.

Bill Gate and Sam Walton may very well have employed aggressive/arrogant business practices, but my life has been better off for them having been around.