Related Posts
Anyone got premium bagpack?
Community Builder
And another one bites the dust
Additional Posts in Tech
Tinder vs Linkedin
Considering offer as a Manager in Protiviti technology consulting practice. Considering moving into consulting after over a decade in industry. Can anyone share their perspective on what what it’s like working in protiviti technology consulting as a manager now? (I.e pros and cons). Appreciate any insight!
When is a 3 page resume acceptable?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
No. That is stupid. This whole “eat the rich” socialism campaign is complete lunacy.
Yeah let’s eat this guy first
Yes. Of course. Legality doesn’t matter. There’s lots of things that are legal that are only legal due to corruption. Billionaires do not earn their wealth. Their employees whom they exploit do.
Nobody was exploited. Everyone got paid for their work. You are not poor just because someone else is rich.
No. If I come up with an idea or product that there is enough demand for to make me a trillionaire, so be it. I wouldn't keep more than I actually need, and children's charities would be really well off, but that would be my choice,
So you essentially would be granting more freedom to those who own less wealth. Wealthy people hold all the power so eventually that would fall apart. They would find a way look at organized crime. That's how a lot of people make money in socialist countries through crime. It's a nice idea but human nature doesn't work that way.
What would that be? How much would that be? who would decide the amount? What else do you want to limit of what people work on? Should you limit how much weight someone gains? How about limit the number of miles someone drives? Or how about limit the size of the house they purchase? Or limit the amount of land they own?
No one should limit what you earn but it wouldn't kill anyone to help others with some of that money. People are dying from lack of healthcare, children do not have food, some can't afford housing. Other countries (not US) give to these needs and the entire country benefits from it. Its rooted in caring and helping other humans. What we are seeing now are oligarchs pushing their initiatives and paying off our government while they pay zero taxes. Its quite disgusting.
Define "legally" -- that criteria has significantly changed since January 20 2025. But even before then, not a single person in the Epstein class has earned their money legitimately. Being subsidized by the government -- although technically legal -- is not ethical or moral.
Not at all. If there was a limit, then people wouldn't strive for more and innovation would slow. Innovation is slowing now due to large corporations buying up all of these small businesses and then killing the product because it was a competitor. Google is very good at doing that.
If you don't like this, wait until he owns Mars
Yes. We aren't that keen on ethics in the US. We are a "might makes right" empire.
What an idiotic question. How would you feel if you earned Mo ey through an invention and production of that invention and someone told you that YOU should not have your wealth or should be forced to share it?
I so not subscribe to the Robin Hood mentality. If you earn it, you keep it.
I believe this post is simply rage bait and hope that you do not truly feel like the rich should be forced to give to the rest of society.
This is America. If you want it, go earn it.
Wealth has nothing to do with “earning off the backs of others”. The United States has laws for fair wages. It’s not like the wealthy are earning their millions by paying people mere pennies.
No.
Well how much of that wealth is actually liquid. Real physical cash. If the Rich paid their fair share in taxes I would be fine with it. But we all know they will not do that.
I don't know if there is a "line" but there is definitely a wealth range beyond which the accumulation of wealth, either by a single person or body, becomes detrimental to society. Take private equity firms buying up real estate, for example. Driving the cost of housing up for everyone is bad for the entire economy. It doesn't liberate the wealthy.
And really, most of the infrastructure of this country was created during a period when the top tax brackets were paying 75% or more of the income in taxes. Shifting that tax burden to the right is only smart. If I'm a struggling family making 40K or less, a $500 dollar tax break is going to be a hell of a lot meaning for me than a guy who made a million last year paying $50,000. Grow up, America, infinite growth is not a thing.
Who should be the person to decide what is that amount. It speaks volumes to the ignorance involved when you realize that the vast majority of Americans are obscenely wealthy compared to the rest of the world. This whole agenda is your typical socialist greed and envy.
The guard rails need to be on how that wealth is spent, rather than having a wealth cap. Huge wealth unrestrained buys off the govt, and becomes an oligarchy.
Give some money to charity or those in need.
Most charities would not exist if not for the incentive of tax credits.
On paper if someone can afford unnecessary luxuries while someone is unable to afford food or needed medical care, that can be argued as un-ethical. In reality there is a lot more noise and fuzz in the system.
At present I firmly believe billionaires should not exist (yes I know worth vs liquid cash), When someone's net worth exceeds $999,999,999,99 they have to return shares to everyone employed at that business or if it is liquid it is taxed.
I'd also have loans taken out against collateral being used for personal things (ie the income tax dodge the wealthy all do) taxed as income, same bands.
Think about the Church of Notre-Dame de Paris in Paris and let me know your thoughts.
Is there a limit to how much land someone should be able to own? Houses? Power? Of course there should be limits, money is no different. Being wealthy or rich isn't bad in isolation, just like owning some houses isn't. Yet if you owned 50,000 houses? That's kind of a problem, even if you did "earn it".
Absolutely not - we live in a democratic country right? I’m all for paying share, don’t get me wrong - but there is a spending problem within our government vs a revenue problem - this explains why spending has gone from 17 to 24% of GDP since 2000.
No. Stop being mad at Elon for elevating 4,400 people to millionaire status.