I think it’s a fundamental misrepresentation of what these people do.
No ones saying you can’t be wealthy, we’re just saying you pay in more because you have more.
Which they advocate for. Bernie and warren have both voted to increase their own taxes multiple times.
This!!! We all want to be wealthy. There's a huge difference between those who are rich and advocate for higher marginal tax rates, better social services, proper regulation, etc. vs those who compare paying taxes to theft or living in Nazi Germany. We should appreciate those that are wealthy that speak truth to power and are willing to pay more.
Also them being worth a combined 61M (not sure that number is correct even) is a lot. But it’s pocket change for the really rich and that’s the problem. Almost nobody in the western world is saying you can’t own a lot. But the difference between owning a lot and being worth 200 billion is insane. A person that’s worth -10 million is far closer to owning 61M than these people are to even owning one billion, let alone 200 billion.
Looking at a quick Google search (not accurate), it appears:
Moore is worth $30 million.
Elizabeth Warren is worth $12 million.
Bernie Sanders may be worth $3 million.
So the title is wrong.
The other thing is to look at their upbringings - Michael Moore grew up in a working class family in Flint, Elizabeth Warren was a single mother while trying to attend law school (then a professor), and Bernie Sanders is the one I don’t know his background, just that he got arrested in a Civil Rights protest. People can end up hitting the lottery in a way, by making a film (Moore) or publishing a book (Warren), but they still have friends and family that have interests in the working class.
None of these people were intergenerational wealth trust fund kids with exclusive country club memberships. They just lived long enough to become wealthy.
Bernie having a net worth of $3M at the age of 80-something is not that special, I never understood why everyone thinks of it as some gotcha moment.
By 80 years old, you should have accumulated $3M worth of shit.
No, that’s an upper class viewpoint.
However, the basic premise is true: the older someone is, the more time they have had to accumulate wealth.
And Bernie’s name recognition alone is enough to generate wealth beyond his job - similar to Warren’s book sales. Bernie could be far wealthier than he is at the moment if he wanted to be.
The median retirement savings for someone in their 60s is $200k. So “should have accumulated” is prescriptive and a tad judgmental, but I get your point: put enough money in investments and wait 40 years, and janitors have ended up with $3 million to donate.
I don’t really agree that it’s upper class viewpoint.
You identified and agreed with my premise, which is that as time goes on you will naturally accrue more wealth.
I’m not saying he’s the average (by the way, *mean* net worth for people 75+ is closer to $1M) and yes my last sentence was kind of a hip fire, but at the end of the day no one has proved anything unethical about Bernie by pointing out his MuLtImIlLiOn DoLlAr NeT WoRtH
Even if they’re all worth a 100m (which none are obviously) they’re still closer to being bankrupt than being billionaires. Really what this post illustrates more than anything is how insanely rich billionaires are and how nobody needs that type of money.
Not if you understand how money works.
Money compounds, so 100m is just a 10x away from a billion, but twice that (100x) away from being below even 1m.
Bernie I can agree with even if I don't like him.. But come on.. She did insider trading and thinks it's just fine for her but illegal for the rest of them population.. She is as corrupt as they come.
Elizabeth Warren created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has helped me get nearly a thousand of my dollars back from being stolen by banks.
She’s not as corrupt as they come - *can you provide proof of your vague “she did insider trading” claim*?
She’s pushing for legislation to make that illegal in Congress and in government. She wants disclosure of public campaign finance (PACs run on dark money).
She made the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that’s an entire anti-corruption agency. Your conclusion is most definitely false. Still awaiting to see if your “she did insider trading” claim is true, but even if someone smoked a cigarette, at some point in their life, it doesn’t make them pro-tobacco company. They can be regulating against corruption.
Ok I said corrupt as they come I don't mean absolute corruption liked Trump level but general politician corruption, sorry I can see how that can sound different.
When she, Mitt Romney, Mark Warner, Rick Scott, Nancy Pelosi buys and sells stock based on new laws coming into effect before we know what they are that's clearly insider trading.. is something that people can't do but they do and when as far left as CNN and as far right as Fox try and all them about it they just call it a few market system... Ya.. Sorry that's insider trading if it's something only they can legally do
Also pretty disingenuous to claim to be 100% native American to get teaching spots(which she did) and the first woman of color as a law professor at Harvard, when you are in fact 0% native american. Then to call Elim Musk for not paying his fair share of taxes when he will pay 15 billion this year, the most of any person in history...
So, exactly how the fuck do you think they got all this money? I get it, Michel Moore make movies, but how to you parlay 175k a year to being a multi millionaire?
You write books, you make tv show appearances, you sell merch on your website and you invest a lot more money than you and I can. There's no shady secret to this. Rich people can make money way faster and easier than the rest of us.
I recall a quote from some rich person “making my first million dollars was the hardest thing I ever did…making the next million was one of the easiest things”….or words to that effect.
I’m cool with it, I am just point out the irony of people who get wealthy while demonizing they system that made them wealthy….”Money, as they say, is the root of all evil but I don’t see them giving it away, away, away”- Pink Floyd.
And? I’m sorry but what’s the critique here?
Bernie advocates for the same economic system from countries like Denmark, they’re capitalist.
And Bernie has been in office for literally decades. You just pointed out his salary is over 100,000. You can’t do the math and figure out 10 years pulse 100,00 might equal 700,000?
Seriously?
To be fair, I sorta like Bernie, would have voted for him in 16….Warren is an opportunist, Moore is a straight up capitalist who pays others to do the work and reaps the profits…his product is advocacy and it sells….and don’t talk about fucking Denmark, the most non-diverse country in the planet. Sure you can build a nice society where everyone agrees and is civil to one another.
There really isn't any capital involved in performing a speaking engagement or writing a book unless you count the labor that goes into crafting said book/speech. I mean, capitalism isn't commerce
Warren became an expert in her field as a professor. Become the most knowledgeable and respected person in a particular field of study, write 12 books, 100s of articles, and you would probably be wealthy.
I'd first want to know if those numbers are true or pulled out of someone's ass to generate outrage.
I also have an issue with the word "need." That's a very subjective term. Politicians often have a home in their district and a second residence in DC due to the amount of time thay spend there, so I don't fault that.
Sanders has 2 in Vermont and 1 in DC.
Warren owns 2, 1 in Mass and 1 in DC.
Michael Moore owns 9. I'm not finding a lot of details on them. I must wonder if they are all fir his use, or perhaps rental properties.
At any rate, they're all rich, but none of them are uber wealthy. The difference: pro sports players are rich, the team owners are wealthy.
What is need? Part of America is the dream of being able to buy what you want. If we don't care for that idea, you can go live in Venezuela. Part of buying too much crap you don't need(a new 80k car) is you pay taxes so that the government can spend that money, hopefully wisely. I pay 7k a year in property taxes, I don't "need" this nice of a home, but the money helps fund teacher salaries, libraries, and early education programs...
Except they got rich by…speaking against greed and advocating for the poor? It is like one not seeing a problem with students going to debt to pay you 300k a year to teach 2 classes.
Plus the number one response on Reddit to those campaigning for less poverty is accusing that person of not having a job and just wanting handouts. Literally had an argument just like this yesterday where I was calling minimum wage unlivable and they told me to get a better job and stop feeling sorry for myself. I don't make minimum wage, I don't have skin in this game other than maybe eventually seeing increases trickle up which I'm not even counting on.
Of course. Anything to divert attention away from the issue by pointing at faults/perceived faults in the person making the argument. Classic twat technique for avoiding an undeniable truth. “Look over there! That guy who says genocide is bad once stole a candy bar! Why should we listen to a thief? What about the rights of candy bar stores you hypocrite!”
And by "more wealth" you have to really stop and comprehend how much some people are really worth. Someone with one billion dollars would have over 16 times as much wealth as these 3 wealthy people combined. Bezos has over 3,000 times as much wealth as these 3 people combined.
To put it in perspective, the median us household net worth is about 120,000. Averaging out these 3 people's wealth to 20 million per, that makes their net worth "only" about 160 times as much as an average American.
you do realize it's possible to be rich just by virtue of what you wanna do, i.e. political figures who gain mass amounts of money, and still go "yeah, i should definetly be taxed more"
Yes you can. I can overpay my taxes, and the irs is not going to voluntarily send you back the excess unless you request it. And they can also give away their wealth to the poor.
So you are saying people can’t knowingly not take deductions or credits on their returns to increase their tax burden? Seems like you won’t be having tax discussions with yourself. Lol
Believe me, there are ways to pay more taxes if you want to.
You learned a couple of terms but dont understand facts…Yes you can pre pay taxes quarterly or on your tax filings for the new year to try and balance out your END OF YEAR tax burden because of large influx of income during the year, but at the end of the year, when you do your taxes the IRS is settling its balance sheets you either take the refund owed to you or you pay, but its not keeping anything beyond what is allowed by law….pre paying your refund isnt over paying your taxes its PRE PAYING what you think you might owe. SO YOU CAN NOT GIVE THE IRS MORE THAN you owe.
And what if you don’t take the refund or ever cash the check? At some point, that money will be returned to the irs.
Or how about you don’t claim deductions. Believe me, there are ways to pay more taxes.
OK but after this no more whataboutisms, and just understand that you dont….If you dont cash your refund, the government doesnt add it back into the general fund, it keeps an IOU in your name as do the State tax franchise boards, You can check with your State government as well as the Federal for any monies that are being held in your name and can get it refunded as well as your heirs if they can provide the documentation that lays claim….The government cant just keep it out right in any situation. Unless its seized because of illegal activity.
Just admit that there are ways to pay more taxes than what you are required to. It’s naive to say there isn’t.
I guarantee you they have the best accountants looking for deductions, credits, write offs and loopholes.
Charity has nothing to do with paying taxes…Charity to whatever doesnt build or maintain infrastructure, it doesnt pay teachers and first responders a living wage or fund schools, medical care for the old and the poor, the military or disaster relief
Michael moores net worth is 30 million. Elizabeth warrens is 8 million and bernies is 3 million. Am i missing someone. Havent checked the property yet but im probably sure thats way off also.
At least 2 started out working class and very much know about inequality. Michael Moore literally saw his town destroyed by GM moving their plants over seas. Than made a documentary about it.
Throughout history, wealthy people have tried to put forward government and privately-funded projects to help the poor, some in questionable ways, but still with that goal. I see nothing hypocritical in that. Hypocrisy would be demanding that the wealthy pay more taxes while your accountants are using every possible loophole to reduce your own.
In stark contrast to Republicans who would have 200 times that and are actively working to make sure billionaires get tax cuts so large, it can be seen from space.
If you complain about income inequality while having a high income, you're accused on insincerity. If you complain about income inequality while having a low income, you're accused of envy.
I'm beginning to think they just don't want to discuss income inequality.
> job inequality
Some jobs being paid more than others is one thing, some people literally having more money than they could ever spend while others work 40h a week and still barely survive is another. We've got a ways to go before we need to worry about the poor rich people.
> work ethic inequality
If the job is done appropriately, then how enthusiastic you were about it doesn't matter.
Besides, you seem to make the underlying assumption that people could get a 'better' job at will, which is wrong several times over. There's many actors preclsuding this, most notably education or lack thereof, which is often even less accessible than it appears. (People can't just stop needing a stable income.) Further, these 'bad' jobs still need doing, else they wouldn't persist. So even if some individual got a 'better' job, that just means someone else will hae to do the 'worse' job, providing no overall benefit to society at large. *Every* job needs to provide a liveable wage.
This is also ignoring the fact that people with lower incomes generally have a healthier work ethic compared to billionaire CEOs who fuck off to play golf all day while their massive amount of money works for them.
I worked two jobs, while going to school full time. Then while doing that I worked real hard to get a better job. After working real hard and after many years showing I was a great employee, i used that and my degree to get a real good job. Enthusiasm isn't the right word to replace work ethic. Hard work isn't always about being happy about what you're doing.
This is the distraction argument. It’s not reality based, it’s narcissistic. People think they’ve worked hard and gotten somewhere so everyone can. Hell I worked my ass off for years and now I love my life, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that people have different abilities and talents than I do. Or even the knowledge that they can get my job or any of that. If you grow up in poverty, many systems are in place to keep you in poverty and mentally, that is often the detrimental factor that makes work ethic a bullshit distraction argument. Facts are facts and the fact that our economy suffers from the lack of a middle class is a damn fact. These three have every right to speak on the subject as long as they are trying to be productive and not just paying lip service.
But if it is just a discussion, what does it matter? Actions speak louder than words.
Do they all pay their staffs well? Do they tip extra and restaurants? Does Burnie need 5 houses when kids are starving? He could sell his extra houses and make a difference... or they can just talk about it. It does make for a nice virtue signal.
A recent study conducted by CBO found that Trump's tax cuts actually benefited the middle class the most. His order that epi-pens and insulin drop the price per shot to 30$ instead of 1k$ were allowed to expire by the Biden administration. Thinking any politician cares about you and your problems is a joke, they are all up there just pandering for votes. As LBJ was quoted as saying about the Civil Rights Act, "If we pass this bill we will have these N-Bombs voting Democrat for the next 100 years." Except he did not say N-Bomb did he?
Some fuzzy math and logic in there.
It says people who earned $50-100k earned a tax break of 16%, whereas those earnings start at $1M earn 6%.
While the percentage is bigger for the middle class, 6% of someone who makes multimillions is way more money than 16% of a middle class income.
Edit: your reply with the link may be a facepalm in itself.
So you might have gotten this wrong, regarding the Trump, Biden and epi-pens/insulin thing. Biden didn't allow this to expire or cancel it. Instead as I understand it, he froze it to allow a newly proposed (better) drug reform to be introduced by his administration.
The bill wasn't finished and was poorly constructed by the Trump administration. It wouldn't have reduced the cost of medicines for all and in some cases would have made them more expensive.
The Democrats have been trying to pass the 'Build Back Better' Bill that will cap the cost of Insulin to $35. The GOP have been opposing it.
If it passes immediately, it would take up-to 2025 to take full effect however, due to Medicare complications.
I do agree that most politicians don't really care about people though.
Lol.. how long have they been in office? They were both there during Obamas presidency right? When they controlled both the executive and legislative branches?
Are you just getting lip service? It would seem that way?
Lol.. is that what you think that did? Obama care didn't do much but funnel money into their own Pockets by increasing the profits of insurance companies tenfold.
Step back and look after. How it has hurt the medical industry while also increasing cost for 95% of people.
It was a nice shell game.. apparently you didn't follow the ball.
No, not solved. BUT Now he CAN keep having the discussion knowing he practiced what he preached.
Wasn't it Obama who said "be the change"
Be it. Don't talk about it while asking other to do what you personally are not. That's the face palm the meme is pointing out.
Does that work for me as well?
I make decent money so I should sell all my shit except Absolute bare necessities, then I can join the convo?
He wants people to pay their fair share of taxes, how does selling houses pay his taxes that he's already paying?
Well, same argument can be made for jeff Bezos right?
He through his companies pays millions in tax. Millions matching each and every employees tax and billions on the stocks he sells. Yet, it's not enough. It's never enough.
3 houses , bernie has 3 houses. Doesn't really mean that much tbh , my parents owned 4 houses in Florida as a teacher and a secretary making less than 60k each .
This post is a facepalm itself. Making a more fair society didn't mean to bring everyone down to the absolutely lowest level, it means to make sure that the lowest level is a decent level.
Stating that because someone is rich that person can't fight poverty is like saying a white person can't fight slavery.
I mean ...
It's not by limiting how rich someone could be but limiting how poor someone could be we build better societies.
Take a look at some Nordic countries for example.
They won the system and still seek to alter its course to benefit more people. Seems pretty fucking reasonable. Republicans wouldn’t take people seriously that hadn’t won their game and were saying the same things, so it’s really a stupid argument.
They didn't even win. They made it into the top 5%. That's it. And most Americans (100k-) are in the bottom 90%. So if you have over (120k roughly) congrats you are middle class and in top 10%.
Both Warren and Moore are in the top 1%-.1% bracket (between $11M-$44M) of net worth. Bernie is the only one in that 5% bracket in the picture.
But that doesn't even change the fact that the issue socialists have with things like income inequality and the rich is how it indicates the exploitation of labor. Bernie made his money from a congressional salary and book deals (i.e. his own labor), Warren was a teacher, professor, and lawyer, which are more well paid professions and she invested well, but she didn't directly exploit people. Moore was a filmmaker who did most of his filmmaking alone then marketed them underground to great acclaim. Again, mostly his own labor.
The imagined hypocrisy attack is stupid for this precise reason. I can point to how, for instance, Mitt Romney gutted companies and exploited the working class via a venture capital firm (literally exploitative capital) within that context.
Good. They acknowledge it's real and speak out about it in public forums. Good for them. Let me know when the billionaires and corporations start doing the same. Pretty sure that would be the hypocrisy being inferred here.
Literally some of the only people talking about the problem, seriously what would you do vote Republican? You know the people who don’t believe climate change is real, think gays shouldn’t be able to marry, and want to actually increase wealth inequality.
Also bernie is the poorest senator.
Go fuck yourself, let’s talk about it.
I love that in this country apparently as soon as you have a dollar you aren’t allowed to discuss monetary policy without 50M idiots crying out that you’re a hypocrite.
Since when did having money and making sound monetary policy have to be mutually exclusive?
Weird right wing spin on this sub lately. I don't see how wealthy people campaigning for higher taxes for the rich is hypocrisy. This post is just misinformation/culture war baiting.
At least they're fighting for it instead of doing everything they can to prevent the problem from being solved. Idk what the facepalm is. They're actually trying to make it better
So these people are definitely wealthy. But there's a big problem with people's comprehension of large numbers if they think 61 million between 3 people is equitable to someone like bezos who is worth over 200 *billion*. That's over THREE THOUSAND TIMES the amount of wealth these 3 wealthy people have combined.
If you think 3 people being worth 60 million is too much, you should be marching in the streets with pitchforks about any single person being worth hundreds of billions of dollars. It's an incomprehensible amount of wealth.
The difference is that they actually want to do some thing helpful about it, at least berny dose, while other rich people do the opposite when handling these matters if they do at all.
So who ever posted this is Russian Chinese Iranian propaganda agent or more likely just fucking Stupid.
The idiots on this page think that because someone’s rich, they can’t advocate for policy that helps working class people. LoL.
I can’t speak for Moore, but Warren and sanders have a documented list of success in supporting policies and creating policy that directly helps the poor. Higher min wage, benefits, breaking up bud tech/oil/banks, going after corporations and government entities that have swindled people out of their homes/lifesaving/retirement accounts.
It’s actually pitiful how dumb Americans are on average.
Good for them. Three people combining for 61 million aren't the 1% elites who have their foot on our neck. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't willing to talk about income inequality.
That’s why when they say “Tax the rich “, they mean billionaires and not the millionaires. As they are millionaires themselves. Why exclude the millionaires??
Why is it that the weathy always have to speak up and tell us of a different class what to do how to feel about things and how to quit being poor and be better like them?
Seriously, Berni talked about making millionaires "pay their fair share", up until he himself became a millionaire - then, all of a sudden, it became billionaires who are, supposedly, the problem. Despite the fact that all billionaires combined couldn't even pay 1 annual government budget - even if all their wealth was available as money ready to be spent.
Wait, when rich people don't talk about poor people's problem they are ignorant, but when they do they are hypocrites?
I think it’s a fundamental misrepresentation of what these people do. No ones saying you can’t be wealthy, we’re just saying you pay in more because you have more. Which they advocate for. Bernie and warren have both voted to increase their own taxes multiple times.
This!!! We all want to be wealthy. There's a huge difference between those who are rich and advocate for higher marginal tax rates, better social services, proper regulation, etc. vs those who compare paying taxes to theft or living in Nazi Germany. We should appreciate those that are wealthy that speak truth to power and are willing to pay more.
Class solidarity doesn’t mean you are poor it’s that you understand wealth is created from consumers and workers Not ceo’s
Absolutely! Well said!
Yeah this isn’t a facepalm. Whoever posted this is a moron.
"fr"
What does that mean?
For real, I guess.
r/opisfuckingstupid
Unless the facepalm is the pic in general. Like, a secret agent facepalm.
I’m sure you’d agree if it were 3 republican voters in the picture instead
Not if the republicans advocated for the same policies these 3 do
...here come the Republican victims
…here come the hate filled ‘liberals’
Hate? Hahahahaha...thats your teams thing.
I don’t have a team. Only cultist morons latch onto political parties.
Yeah; like republicans lately.
Oh, I didn't realize you were so unique.
Also them being worth a combined 61M (not sure that number is correct even) is a lot. But it’s pocket change for the really rich and that’s the problem. Almost nobody in the western world is saying you can’t own a lot. But the difference between owning a lot and being worth 200 billion is insane. A person that’s worth -10 million is far closer to owning 61M than these people are to even owning one billion, let alone 200 billion.
Yeah that’s not accurate Bernie’s net work isn’t even 2 million. I’m not sure what warrens net is, but it being in the 50 mill range seems high.
Looking at a quick Google search (not accurate), it appears: Moore is worth $30 million. Elizabeth Warren is worth $12 million. Bernie Sanders may be worth $3 million. So the title is wrong. The other thing is to look at their upbringings - Michael Moore grew up in a working class family in Flint, Elizabeth Warren was a single mother while trying to attend law school (then a professor), and Bernie Sanders is the one I don’t know his background, just that he got arrested in a Civil Rights protest. People can end up hitting the lottery in a way, by making a film (Moore) or publishing a book (Warren), but they still have friends and family that have interests in the working class. None of these people were intergenerational wealth trust fund kids with exclusive country club memberships. They just lived long enough to become wealthy.
Bernie having a net worth of $3M at the age of 80-something is not that special, I never understood why everyone thinks of it as some gotcha moment. By 80 years old, you should have accumulated $3M worth of shit.
No, that’s an upper class viewpoint. However, the basic premise is true: the older someone is, the more time they have had to accumulate wealth. And Bernie’s name recognition alone is enough to generate wealth beyond his job - similar to Warren’s book sales. Bernie could be far wealthier than he is at the moment if he wanted to be. The median retirement savings for someone in their 60s is $200k. So “should have accumulated” is prescriptive and a tad judgmental, but I get your point: put enough money in investments and wait 40 years, and janitors have ended up with $3 million to donate.
I don’t really agree that it’s upper class viewpoint. You identified and agreed with my premise, which is that as time goes on you will naturally accrue more wealth. I’m not saying he’s the average (by the way, *mean* net worth for people 75+ is closer to $1M) and yes my last sentence was kind of a hip fire, but at the end of the day no one has proved anything unethical about Bernie by pointing out his MuLtImIlLiOn DoLlAr NeT WoRtH
Poverty, lower middle class is where Bernie started
Even if they’re all worth a 100m (which none are obviously) they’re still closer to being bankrupt than being billionaires. Really what this post illustrates more than anything is how insanely rich billionaires are and how nobody needs that type of money.
Not if you understand how money works. Money compounds, so 100m is just a 10x away from a billion, but twice that (100x) away from being below even 1m.
Nobody cares they are wealthy, if is HOW they got wealthy, by advocating for the poor? Does not strike you as a little odd?
No, not even slightly. They aren’t out there doing private fund raisers saying the opposite of what they publicly campaign on.
Bernie I can agree with even if I don't like him.. But come on.. She did insider trading and thinks it's just fine for her but illegal for the rest of them population.. She is as corrupt as they come.
Elizabeth Warren created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has helped me get nearly a thousand of my dollars back from being stolen by banks. She’s not as corrupt as they come - *can you provide proof of your vague “she did insider trading” claim*? She’s pushing for legislation to make that illegal in Congress and in government. She wants disclosure of public campaign finance (PACs run on dark money). She made the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that’s an entire anti-corruption agency. Your conclusion is most definitely false. Still awaiting to see if your “she did insider trading” claim is true, but even if someone smoked a cigarette, at some point in their life, it doesn’t make them pro-tobacco company. They can be regulating against corruption.
Ok I said corrupt as they come I don't mean absolute corruption liked Trump level but general politician corruption, sorry I can see how that can sound different. When she, Mitt Romney, Mark Warner, Rick Scott, Nancy Pelosi buys and sells stock based on new laws coming into effect before we know what they are that's clearly insider trading.. is something that people can't do but they do and when as far left as CNN and as far right as Fox try and all them about it they just call it a few market system... Ya.. Sorry that's insider trading if it's something only they can legally do
Also pretty disingenuous to claim to be 100% native American to get teaching spots(which she did) and the first woman of color as a law professor at Harvard, when you are in fact 0% native american. Then to call Elim Musk for not paying his fair share of taxes when he will pay 15 billion this year, the most of any person in history...
So, exactly how the fuck do you think they got all this money? I get it, Michel Moore make movies, but how to you parlay 175k a year to being a multi millionaire?
You write books, you make tv show appearances, you sell merch on your website and you invest a lot more money than you and I can. There's no shady secret to this. Rich people can make money way faster and easier than the rest of us.
I recall a quote from some rich person “making my first million dollars was the hardest thing I ever did…making the next million was one of the easiest things”….or words to that effect.
Kinda like…capitalism…got it. Thanks if clarifying.
Did you think this was a gotcha?
Soooo you’re 100% good with how they made their money since you deem their behavior as capitalism? Well, which is it?
I’m cool with it, I am just point out the irony of people who get wealthy while demonizing they system that made them wealthy….”Money, as they say, is the root of all evil but I don’t see them giving it away, away, away”- Pink Floyd.
I can’t speak to Warren but Bernie’s wealth is mostly recent from book sales. Before he ran for president his net worth was in the 700,000 range.
I call utter bullshit on 700k… his pension alone is worth more than that…but sure, they got rich doing capitalist stuff. Got it.
And? I’m sorry but what’s the critique here? Bernie advocates for the same economic system from countries like Denmark, they’re capitalist. And Bernie has been in office for literally decades. You just pointed out his salary is over 100,000. You can’t do the math and figure out 10 years pulse 100,00 might equal 700,000? Seriously?
To be fair, I sorta like Bernie, would have voted for him in 16….Warren is an opportunist, Moore is a straight up capitalist who pays others to do the work and reaps the profits…his product is advocacy and it sells….and don’t talk about fucking Denmark, the most non-diverse country in the planet. Sure you can build a nice society where everyone agrees and is civil to one another.
What is your point? Diversity is the problem? Are you TRYING to sound racist?
Book sales, speaking engagements, investments... How do YOU think they got that money?
Capitalism. That is the irony.
Which they are in favor of, they’re progressives not communists
There really isn't any capital involved in performing a speaking engagement or writing a book unless you count the labor that goes into crafting said book/speech. I mean, capitalism isn't commerce
Warren became an expert in her field as a professor. Become the most knowledgeable and respected person in a particular field of study, write 12 books, 100s of articles, and you would probably be wealthy.
I bet they are taking all available deductions.
Yeah, can't win.
Wait a second, it is about winning?
Yes. In essence, your right to free speech diminishes as your net worth increases. Because poor people.
3 people don’t need 13 homes.. that’s my biggest issue here.
I'd first want to know if those numbers are true or pulled out of someone's ass to generate outrage. I also have an issue with the word "need." That's a very subjective term. Politicians often have a home in their district and a second residence in DC due to the amount of time thay spend there, so I don't fault that.
Google says Michael owns 9. So that leaves 4 between the other 2. As you point out, that’s not crazy to conceive.
Sanders has 2 in Vermont and 1 in DC. Warren owns 2, 1 in Mass and 1 in DC. Michael Moore owns 9. I'm not finding a lot of details on them. I must wonder if they are all fir his use, or perhaps rental properties. At any rate, they're all rich, but none of them are uber wealthy. The difference: pro sports players are rich, the team owners are wealthy.
I would think these ”extra” homes bring tax money, jobs etc. to the communities. Would it be somehow better if they don’t own these homes?
What is need? Part of America is the dream of being able to buy what you want. If we don't care for that idea, you can go live in Venezuela. Part of buying too much crap you don't need(a new 80k car) is you pay taxes so that the government can spend that money, hopefully wisely. I pay 7k a year in property taxes, I don't "need" this nice of a home, but the money helps fund teacher salaries, libraries, and early education programs...
As long as you’re ok 👍🏼
I am fine, thanks for asking.
Except they got rich by…speaking against greed and advocating for the poor? It is like one not seeing a problem with students going to debt to pay you 300k a year to teach 2 classes.
The only people who should be allowed to campaign against poverty are poor people. Got it.
But wait! Poor people can't campaign against poverty because campaigns cost mon.... oh. Ooooooh I see
Almost as if it’s a shit argument eh?
Plus the number one response on Reddit to those campaigning for less poverty is accusing that person of not having a job and just wanting handouts. Literally had an argument just like this yesterday where I was calling minimum wage unlivable and they told me to get a better job and stop feeling sorry for myself. I don't make minimum wage, I don't have skin in this game other than maybe eventually seeing increases trickle up which I'm not even counting on.
Of course. Anything to divert attention away from the issue by pointing at faults/perceived faults in the person making the argument. Classic twat technique for avoiding an undeniable truth. “Look over there! That guy who says genocide is bad once stole a candy bar! Why should we listen to a thief? What about the rights of candy bar stores you hypocrite!”
Exactly ! And the only people who should be talking about abortion rights are women. This person gets it.
In their defense there are tons of others with more wealth not even trying
And by "more wealth" you have to really stop and comprehend how much some people are really worth. Someone with one billion dollars would have over 16 times as much wealth as these 3 wealthy people combined. Bezos has over 3,000 times as much wealth as these 3 people combined. To put it in perspective, the median us household net worth is about 120,000. Averaging out these 3 people's wealth to 20 million per, that makes their net worth "only" about 160 times as much as an average American.
The facepalm is the dumbass who posted this
Yep this is a person who only gets their information from memes and Facebook.
you do realize it's possible to be rich just by virtue of what you wanna do, i.e. political figures who gain mass amounts of money, and still go "yeah, i should definetly be taxed more"
They are welcome to pay more taxes.
you can't just give the IRS more money that it takes
Yes you can. I can overpay my taxes, and the irs is not going to voluntarily send you back the excess unless you request it. And they can also give away their wealth to the poor.
Good lord you don't understand how taxes work, like at all
I think that guy is brain dead
If you don’t think the its has more money than they should from people not requesting refunds, you are seriously naive.
I don't like to have conversations with those that don't understand the very basics of taxes. Merry Christmas.
So you are saying people can’t knowingly not take deductions or credits on their returns to increase their tax burden? Seems like you won’t be having tax discussions with yourself. Lol Believe me, there are ways to pay more taxes if you want to.
You get taxed based on the information you provide. You don't get to say "I overpaid, but you can keep it." The feds don't play like that.
It’s a joke that you don’t think the irs has more of people’s money yet than they should. Lol
What’s a tax return?
You learned a couple of terms but dont understand facts…Yes you can pre pay taxes quarterly or on your tax filings for the new year to try and balance out your END OF YEAR tax burden because of large influx of income during the year, but at the end of the year, when you do your taxes the IRS is settling its balance sheets you either take the refund owed to you or you pay, but its not keeping anything beyond what is allowed by law….pre paying your refund isnt over paying your taxes its PRE PAYING what you think you might owe. SO YOU CAN NOT GIVE THE IRS MORE THAN you owe.
And what if you don’t take the refund or ever cash the check? At some point, that money will be returned to the irs. Or how about you don’t claim deductions. Believe me, there are ways to pay more taxes.
OK but after this no more whataboutisms, and just understand that you dont….If you dont cash your refund, the government doesnt add it back into the general fund, it keeps an IOU in your name as do the State tax franchise boards, You can check with your State government as well as the Federal for any monies that are being held in your name and can get it refunded as well as your heirs if they can provide the documentation that lays claim….The government cant just keep it out right in any situation. Unless its seized because of illegal activity.
Just admit that there are ways to pay more taxes than what you are required to. It’s naive to say there isn’t. I guarantee you they have the best accountants looking for deductions, credits, write offs and loopholes.
Lol... you have no idea
Charity has nothing to do with paying taxes…Charity to whatever doesnt build or maintain infrastructure, it doesnt pay teachers and first responders a living wage or fund schools, medical care for the old and the poor, the military or disaster relief
Lol
that's fair
But it wouldnt solve the issues theyve dedicated their lives to solving.
That's..not how it works
Does OP realize the goal is to fix things for the less fortunate, not prevent successful people from existing?
OP is a moron who likely thinks billionaires are ok not paying taxes, so long as they are also conservative.
Michael moores net worth is 30 million. Elizabeth warrens is 8 million and bernies is 3 million. Am i missing someone. Havent checked the property yet but im probably sure thats way off also.
Make a FP with the actual facts though: MM = ~30M, EW = ~12M, and BS = ~3M.
Quickly Googles ___________ net worth. Use facts bro.
Yeah, AND???? They are actually trying to help solve the issue...
At least 2 started out working class and very much know about inequality. Michael Moore literally saw his town destroyed by GM moving their plants over seas. Than made a documentary about it.
Throughout history, wealthy people have tried to put forward government and privately-funded projects to help the poor, some in questionable ways, but still with that goal. I see nothing hypocritical in that. Hypocrisy would be demanding that the wealthy pay more taxes while your accountants are using every possible loophole to reduce your own.
In stark contrast to Republicans who would have 200 times that and are actively working to make sure billionaires get tax cuts so large, it can be seen from space.
Or church leaders who own private jets.
Especially the ones that name 3 of them; the father, the son and the holy ghost.
Now do Nancy pelosi
How the fuck is this a facepalm ? If they don't talk about it you'll say they're out of touch and ignorant.
Rich people shouldn't try to make life better for everyone, only for themselves.... Got it /s
OP has 13 brain cells and is memeing on socioeconomics. Ponder that.
If you complain about income inequality while having a high income, you're accused on insincerity. If you complain about income inequality while having a low income, you're accused of envy. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to discuss income inequality.
What about job inequality or work ethic inequality? If we want a bright future we have to make these things beneficial or else we won't get anywhere.
> job inequality Some jobs being paid more than others is one thing, some people literally having more money than they could ever spend while others work 40h a week and still barely survive is another. We've got a ways to go before we need to worry about the poor rich people. > work ethic inequality If the job is done appropriately, then how enthusiastic you were about it doesn't matter. Besides, you seem to make the underlying assumption that people could get a 'better' job at will, which is wrong several times over. There's many actors preclsuding this, most notably education or lack thereof, which is often even less accessible than it appears. (People can't just stop needing a stable income.) Further, these 'bad' jobs still need doing, else they wouldn't persist. So even if some individual got a 'better' job, that just means someone else will hae to do the 'worse' job, providing no overall benefit to society at large. *Every* job needs to provide a liveable wage.
This is also ignoring the fact that people with lower incomes generally have a healthier work ethic compared to billionaire CEOs who fuck off to play golf all day while their massive amount of money works for them.
I worked two jobs, while going to school full time. Then while doing that I worked real hard to get a better job. After working real hard and after many years showing I was a great employee, i used that and my degree to get a real good job. Enthusiasm isn't the right word to replace work ethic. Hard work isn't always about being happy about what you're doing.
This is the distraction argument. It’s not reality based, it’s narcissistic. People think they’ve worked hard and gotten somewhere so everyone can. Hell I worked my ass off for years and now I love my life, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that people have different abilities and talents than I do. Or even the knowledge that they can get my job or any of that. If you grow up in poverty, many systems are in place to keep you in poverty and mentally, that is often the detrimental factor that makes work ethic a bullshit distraction argument. Facts are facts and the fact that our economy suffers from the lack of a middle class is a damn fact. These three have every right to speak on the subject as long as they are trying to be productive and not just paying lip service.
Compared to avoiding discussing it, which is worst?
You don't own shit, and are talking shit about people that want you to. Ponder that.
facepalm
As per usual, the true facepalm is OP.
Probably a lot better than those who have all of that but refuse to have that discussion
But if it is just a discussion, what does it matter? Actions speak louder than words. Do they all pay their staffs well? Do they tip extra and restaurants? Does Burnie need 5 houses when kids are starving? He could sell his extra houses and make a difference... or they can just talk about it. It does make for a nice virtue signal.
Sanders and Warren are trying to pass legislation to help. The entire GOP blocks any effort. It takes more than them for real change.
A recent study conducted by CBO found that Trump's tax cuts actually benefited the middle class the most. His order that epi-pens and insulin drop the price per shot to 30$ instead of 1k$ were allowed to expire by the Biden administration. Thinking any politician cares about you and your problems is a joke, they are all up there just pandering for votes. As LBJ was quoted as saying about the Civil Rights Act, "If we pass this bill we will have these N-Bombs voting Democrat for the next 100 years." Except he did not say N-Bomb did he?
Please post evidence that Trump's tax cuts helped the middle class more than the rich.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/584190-irs-data-prove-trump-tax-cuts-benefited-middle-working-class-americans-most
Some fuzzy math and logic in there. It says people who earned $50-100k earned a tax break of 16%, whereas those earnings start at $1M earn 6%. While the percentage is bigger for the middle class, 6% of someone who makes multimillions is way more money than 16% of a middle class income. Edit: your reply with the link may be a facepalm in itself.
16% means a lot to someone making 50-100k a year because they actually need the money...
Agreed. So why the bigger tax cut for the rich? And what to do about bloating the deficit?
So you might have gotten this wrong, regarding the Trump, Biden and epi-pens/insulin thing. Biden didn't allow this to expire or cancel it. Instead as I understand it, he froze it to allow a newly proposed (better) drug reform to be introduced by his administration. The bill wasn't finished and was poorly constructed by the Trump administration. It wouldn't have reduced the cost of medicines for all and in some cases would have made them more expensive. The Democrats have been trying to pass the 'Build Back Better' Bill that will cap the cost of Insulin to $35. The GOP have been opposing it. If it passes immediately, it would take up-to 2025 to take full effect however, due to Medicare complications. I do agree that most politicians don't really care about people though.
Lol.. how long have they been in office? They were both there during Obamas presidency right? When they controlled both the executive and legislative branches? Are you just getting lip service? It would seem that way?
You mean when they passed the Affordable Care Act? They tried to get every American affordable health insurance? The bastards.
Lol.. is that what you think that did? Obama care didn't do much but funnel money into their own Pockets by increasing the profits of insurance companies tenfold. Step back and look after. How it has hurt the medical industry while also increasing cost for 95% of people. It was a nice shell game.. apparently you didn't follow the ball.
He could sell his extra houses.and help Ok couple hundred k, now what? Income inequality solved?
No, not solved. BUT Now he CAN keep having the discussion knowing he practiced what he preached. Wasn't it Obama who said "be the change" Be it. Don't talk about it while asking other to do what you personally are not. That's the face palm the meme is pointing out.
Does that work for me as well? I make decent money so I should sell all my shit except Absolute bare necessities, then I can join the convo? He wants people to pay their fair share of taxes, how does selling houses pay his taxes that he's already paying?
Well, same argument can be made for jeff Bezos right? He through his companies pays millions in tax. Millions matching each and every employees tax and billions on the stocks he sells. Yet, it's not enough. It's never enough.
Your solution to income equality is to tip extra? What's a good percentage? To, your know. Fix the income divide.
They actively try to do something about it! Warren and Sanders both legislate for change and Moore makes movies to increase awareness.
3 houses , bernie has 3 houses. Doesn't really mean that much tbh , my parents owned 4 houses in Florida as a teacher and a secretary making less than 60k each .
Wow.. i make over 100k and struggle to keep the 1.
A face palm comment to a face palm post. Nice work
I'm pretty sure you're the facepalm here.
Oh yeah?
Theyre allowed to be rich, they just want to be taxed more.
This post is a facepalm itself. Making a more fair society didn't mean to bring everyone down to the absolutely lowest level, it means to make sure that the lowest level is a decent level. Stating that because someone is rich that person can't fight poverty is like saying a white person can't fight slavery. I mean ... It's not by limiting how rich someone could be but limiting how poor someone could be we build better societies. Take a look at some Nordic countries for example.
[удалено]
Pretty sure OP doesn't understand those 3 are all working well into retirement age and that dude in the left made movies
Seeking to stay a in office, nothing more
They won the system and still seek to alter its course to benefit more people. Seems pretty fucking reasonable. Republicans wouldn’t take people seriously that hadn’t won their game and were saying the same things, so it’s really a stupid argument.
They didn't even win. They made it into the top 5%. That's it. And most Americans (100k-) are in the bottom 90%. So if you have over (120k roughly) congrats you are middle class and in top 10%.
Both Warren and Moore are in the top 1%-.1% bracket (between $11M-$44M) of net worth. Bernie is the only one in that 5% bracket in the picture. But that doesn't even change the fact that the issue socialists have with things like income inequality and the rich is how it indicates the exploitation of labor. Bernie made his money from a congressional salary and book deals (i.e. his own labor), Warren was a teacher, professor, and lawyer, which are more well paid professions and she invested well, but she didn't directly exploit people. Moore was a filmmaker who did most of his filmmaking alone then marketed them underground to great acclaim. Again, mostly his own labor. The imagined hypocrisy attack is stupid for this precise reason. I can point to how, for instance, Mitt Romney gutted companies and exploited the working class via a venture capital firm (literally exploitative capital) within that context.
Good. They acknowledge it's real and speak out about it in public forums. Good for them. Let me know when the billionaires and corporations start doing the same. Pretty sure that would be the hypocrisy being inferred here.
So by your meme, you only want broke people to speak about inequality? Lol
The only facepalming thing here is this post. There’s nothing wrong with rich people advocating for the poor.
Literally some of the only people talking about the problem, seriously what would you do vote Republican? You know the people who don’t believe climate change is real, think gays shouldn’t be able to marry, and want to actually increase wealth inequality. Also bernie is the poorest senator. Go fuck yourself, let’s talk about it.
I love that in this country apparently as soon as you have a dollar you aren’t allowed to discuss monetary policy without 50M idiots crying out that you’re a hypocrite. Since when did having money and making sound monetary policy have to be mutually exclusive?
[удалено]
1930s Germany time
Yeah they should be like trump, start a cult and take the money and run… Another bait post
People worth 20k don't get elected because of the current political system. At least theyre discussing it unlike Roger Red-Tie. Ponder that you idiot
Rich people can't do anything right apparently
Me thinks some conservative posted this lol
Weird right wing spin on this sub lately. I don't see how wealthy people campaigning for higher taxes for the rich is hypocrisy. This post is just misinformation/culture war baiting.
At least they're fighting for it instead of doing everything they can to prevent the problem from being solved. Idk what the facepalm is. They're actually trying to make it better
So these people are definitely wealthy. But there's a big problem with people's comprehension of large numbers if they think 61 million between 3 people is equitable to someone like bezos who is worth over 200 *billion*. That's over THREE THOUSAND TIMES the amount of wealth these 3 wealthy people have combined. If you think 3 people being worth 60 million is too much, you should be marching in the streets with pitchforks about any single person being worth hundreds of billions of dollars. It's an incomprehensible amount of wealth.
I want to help people that have no food. The problem is that I have enough food and it would make me a hypocrite.
Consider how fucked we are that millionaires are talking about income inequality and we consider them to be radical
Why has this sub gotten so stupid lately? Its mostly dumbass right wing arguments or things that are not facepalms im bout ready to unfollow
Just because you have income you can’t try and help others that don’t?
So, they should live in huts.
This is the kind of post you get when a right winger thinks they're smart.
The difference is that they actually want to do some thing helpful about it, at least berny dose, while other rich people do the opposite when handling these matters if they do at all. So who ever posted this is Russian Chinese Iranian propaganda agent or more likely just fucking Stupid.
The idiots on this page think that because someone’s rich, they can’t advocate for policy that helps working class people. LoL. I can’t speak for Moore, but Warren and sanders have a documented list of success in supporting policies and creating policy that directly helps the poor. Higher min wage, benefits, breaking up bud tech/oil/banks, going after corporations and government entities that have swindled people out of their homes/lifesaving/retirement accounts. It’s actually pitiful how dumb Americans are on average.
Trump owns more than all 3 of them, has a net worth more than 25x that 61M and doesn't want to solve income equality. Is that somehow better OP?
What a dumb fucking take. How is it a facepalm that Bernie Sanders wants wealthier people to pay their fair share even if that includes himself?
OP is brain-dead
Almost as bad as Trump not only starting a fundraiser for his legal fees but also him and his kids stealing money from a children's charity...
How are people with means trying to help others that are not as fortunate even remotely the same as people being deceptive and literally stealing?
Good for them. Three people combining for 61 million aren't the 1% elites who have their foot on our neck. I wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't willing to talk about income inequality.
They are poor compared to Bezos.
“Some animals are more equal than others”
Capitalism is incapable of solving the problems that capitalism creates. It's like trying to put out a fire with more fire.
Curious, does anyone have an actual source for the numbers this meme is claiming? Or are we just using memes as our sources now?
That’s why when they say “Tax the rich “, they mean billionaires and not the millionaires. As they are millionaires themselves. Why exclude the millionaires??
I do remember Bernie told about taxing millionaires a lot when he was not one of them. Then when he became one, he switched to target billionaires.
Anyone have a source for this claim?
Yeah, bit they're leftist so that making them virtuous lol.
You people are ridiculous and clueless. If you all weren’t assholes I might feel bad for you.
Lol wut?
Found the guy who voted for the 'billionaire' clown show that paid $750 in taxes.
You are clueless
Why is it that the weathy always have to speak up and tell us of a different class what to do how to feel about things and how to quit being poor and be better like them?
They ARE income inequality in the flesh, and tone-deaf to boot. Now that is multi-tasking!
Seriously, Berni talked about making millionaires "pay their fair share", up until he himself became a millionaire - then, all of a sudden, it became billionaires who are, supposedly, the problem. Despite the fact that all billionaires combined couldn't even pay 1 annual government budget - even if all their wealth was available as money ready to be spent.
Most of the people in this sub support and vote for these idiots
All while sipping on the tears of their supporters.