Religion and Ethics and Health BBS

Religion and Ethics and Health BBS
[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]

Is it bad for anyone to be a Trillionaire?

Posted by Ken C on June 14, 2026, 11:48 am

Here in Los Angeles we have a shortage of affordable housing. Some people have full time jobs and still can't afford a home, so they live in old motorhomes parked on the street. I think that's bad.

Jeff Bezos has a $500 million yacht. We should raise the taxes on such useless luxuries.

Elon Musk has a Trillion dollars invested in his companies. His companies provide jobs, and his products improve some people lives. His money is in his companies, he does not waste it on giant mansions.

Car sales people are annoying and don't do anything to improve humanity. Elon Musk sells cars without using annoying pushy salespeople. That's good.

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/elon-musk-homes-15968bfb

So instead of worrying about trillionaires, I worry about the poor. I think we should raise taxes on useless luxuries and use that money to help the poor. That does not mean we should persecute successful business people who have their money invested in their companies.

Yes.

Posted by 7:77 on June 14, 2026, 1:35 pm, in reply to "Is it bad for anyone to be a Trillionaire? "

The people who like to point out that the global economy "isn't a zero sum game" might be technically correct, but that answer fails utterly in terms or practical application. Extreme wealth hoarding* invariably outpaces the creation of new wealth by literal orders of magnitude. When wealth hoarding occurs to the point where a significant portion of society lacks even basic needs, violent change almost always follows. The world is perched on this edge right now.

*Yes, yes...the irony does not escape me.

I would like to add a thing or two.

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on June 15, 2026, 4:08 pm, in reply to "Yes."

There are two kinds of rich people:

1. People whose wealth is tied up in job, product and service creating enterprises.

2. The idle rich who collect art, have multiple estates, eat bon-bons with their 4 o'clock tea, vacation all over the world and dole out pittances to the poor thru their tax-sheltered foundations.

In history, Cornelius Vanderbilt was Type 1, and his Biltmore Estate-owning grandson George Washington Vanderbilt was Type 2, more or less.

In the modern world, Sam Walton was Type 1, and his art-collecting daughter Alice is Type 2.

Now before one says "yeah, but Walmart offers only low-paying jobs", consider that they created over 2.1 million jobs that pay the same as Kroger, Publix, Albertsons, etc., and they pay their suppliers billions upon billions for the goods that they sell thru their retail stores, which creates millions more jobs.

It is debatable that Musk is "hoarding" wealth.

First, most of his wealth is on paper showing ownership of enterprises that he created, and in doing so, he directly created 160,000 high-paying jobs within his organizations, and billions of dollars of orders to suppliers who likewise hire thousands and thousands of people. His entrepreneurship has a multiplying effect of wealth throughout the nation and world. Think of it as an economic Ponzi Scheme structure that actually works for everyone in the hierarchy.

Second, his paper wealth is supported by what other shareholders are willing to pay for stock, not just the infrequent IPOs, but in ongoing trade in the stock exchanges. It's the other shareholders who have faith in his abilities that keep his wealth pumped up. If he fails to perform, and people bail on the stock in his companies, he loses billions of paper wealth.

Third, the increase in his monetary wealth seems to be applied to new ventures which creates new jobs, and more business for suppliers.

One might want to look into how much actual idle cash he has on hand, how much he pays in taxes, and how much he spends in philanthropic causes before making a judgement on how he is somehow responsible for the lack of basic needs in society.

Remember, he, like Ken, can drive only one Tesla at a time.

It then would be incumbent on one to analyze the demographics of those whose basic needs are not being addressed.

For the able-bodied slackers who just don't want to work, let them do without ... they are their own problem ... and solution.

For those who cannot help themselves, look to an otherwise do-nothing congress to apply fair taxation to cover the needs of the indigent.

However, with our congress, it may be a bit too late. With $37 trillion in debt which they ran up with little to show for it, any tax they do collect will go to interest on debt before the poor get a dime.

Ironically, the "violent change that almost always follows" will bring about the dark ages, starvation and death as the have-nots kill the rich to spite themselves.

Perhaps the robots will learn how to make and repair robots, and they shall inherit the Earth, but Himalayan Persian Cats will always be at the top of the food chain.

Julianna Anastasia & Victoria Alexandra Vishnevskaya Fuego

I rest my case.

The problem is that history has shown that attempts to "FIX" this problem

Posted by DFM on June 14, 2026, 9:36 pm, in reply to "Yes."

result in consequences far WORSE than the problem being fixed. It is a very dangerous issue.

Elon Musk spent about $290 million on the 2024 election,

Posted by Ken C on June 14, 2026, 11:39 pm, in reply to "The problem is that history has shown that attempts to "FIX" this problem"

and the guy who Musk is supported is now president and now Musk is the world's richest person.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. I'm happy with my Tesla, but it seems like Musk has too much political influence.

How much did George Soros spend?

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on June 15, 2026, 11:55 am, in reply to "Elon Musk spent about $290 million on the 2024 election,"

Please complete your research...

Citizens United decision allows rich corporations to have too much political influence.

Posted by Ken C on June 14, 2026, 11:29 pm, in reply to "The problem is that history has shown that attempts to "FIX" this problem"

So now we have too many laws and regulations benefitting rich corporations.

Heavy contender for "worst SCOTUS decision ever."

Posted by 7:77 on June 15, 2026, 6:44 am, in reply to "Citizens United decision allows rich corporations to have too much political influence. "

There are certainly other contenders (Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v United States, etc.), but Citizens United has to be in every such conversation.

You left out one ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on June 15, 2026, 5:10 pm, in reply to "Heavy contender for "worst SCOTUS decision ever.""

... Roe v Wade

Accumulated wealth not unlike the Robber Barons.

Posted by GOG on June 14, 2026, 12:06 pm, in reply to "Is it bad for anyone to be a Trillionaire? "

Recall the Federal Income Tax was instituted due to public clamor way back at the early part of the 1900’s. Basically a wealth tax upon the exceedingly rich. Look where that got us plebs. We ended up with an income tax on us. And we have few if any write offs and loop holes.. The rich do. The current federal and state tax codes are a construct by the lobbyists, and rich campaign contributors to compromised politicians. And the IRS under the last administration hired another 86,000 auditors upon us, not the rich. I’m not suggesting the rich be penalized for being rich. And much social good comes out of their philanthropic donation. I think Bezo and others have shown themselves to be greedy pigs. A $500,000,000 sailboat!!! Meanwhile small towns across this nation are crumbling due to lack of local businesses replaced by their ilk’s box stores. Just saying….

The rich have always been among us as have the poor...

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on June 14, 2026, 12:11 pm, in reply to "Accumulated wealth not unlike the Robber Barons. "

That's the way mankind has always been.

Raising taxes on the rich at the expense of the consumer?

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on June 14, 2026, 11:55 am, in reply to "Is it bad for anyone to be a Trillionaire? "

That's who will ultimately pay those higher taxes with increased costs for goods and services.

I want to raise taxes on useless luxuries, not on companies.

Posted by Ken C on June 14, 2026, 12:25 pm, in reply to "Raising taxes on the rich at the expense of the consumer?"

Not on my damn Cartier Galbee Santos!!!!!

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on June 15, 2026, 5:23 pm, in reply to "I want to raise taxes on useless luxuries, not on companies. "

JuJu will have you for lunch too!

"useless" is a subjective term.

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on June 14, 2026, 1:32 pm, in reply to "I want to raise taxes on useless luxuries, not on companies. "

Regardless, the rich still won't be paying those taxes.

That's how it works...

« Back to index

[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]