Bloomberg staff get iPhone11 + MacBook Pro + 3 meals on FIRST day

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

30 minutes ago, Florin said:

 

Hate against the system is the same thing as hate against billionaires and probably millionaires.

Look. I dont know what he does behind close doors, but on paper I think people want billionaires to act like he acts / he says he acts / others say he acts. If he wins and will show his tax returns, we will know more.

Other important thing. He is self made. His father didnt make more than $6000 a year.

The greed kindness talk is just hate talk, in my opinion. We dont like when billionaires dont pay their taxes, dont donate money? They are greed. But we dont like them even when they do these things? Well bloomberg. Stop donating your money. Keep it for yourself. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Philanthropies

Bottom line. Even in communist China, there are billionaires. They like them. Every country has them. When they stop being a thing in US or anywhere, that's bad news and every measure taken to stop their existence just because some people or politicians dont like billionaires is bad news for the economy. 

No. It is absolutely possible to hate a system without hating or even blaming the individuals who exist in it... Like, I hate racism, but it doesnt mean I hate every single person who lives in a racist society  

I don't care if he is self made, I don't care that he donates to charities. My opposition to Michael Bloomberg as an individual has to do mostly with his shitty political and governing records as well as his political opinions and policy proposals,  not the fact that he is a billionaire. That being said, I don't hate billionaires as individuals, sans the ones who are explicitly and openly malicious or who have been exposed as such, the Koch brothers (rip 1), Sackler family, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. and that's because they are anti-democratic, bigoted, etc. and they use their money in a way that hurts society at large.

If billionaires want to be perceived as not greedy, and as virtuous, selfless, etc. then why do they oppose paying an insignificant amount of money towards a wealth tax that would make universal childcare free, help pay for universal health care coverage, and plenty of other programs that would help millions and even hundreds of millions of people?  I think its a fair question to ask, do you disagree? Like, if I gave a thousand pennies to 1000 charities, 1 penny per, does that make me an honest, virtuous and selfless person who should never be criticized because at least I gave something?

~~~

My belief is simple, don't get it twisted: I don't think its right in theory that 1 person or even a few people should be able to  decide "You make enough to barely live, and you live in excess" - I believe that everyone should be able to live with at least a semblance of basic economic security regardless of their background, and that the success they are able to make for themselves after that point is of their own volition and drive. You have a great idea for a business? Awesome. I think you shouldn't at least be disincentivized from doing so by factors that are either entirely or mostly beyond your personal control such as the income of your parents, your race, gender, and our political structure.  

28 minutes ago, UnlikelyStan said:

Start a business that sells good things for a good cause with good people. Change the world. Don’t complain about it, that’s all I’m saying

"Changing the world" can't happen without people saying it needs to be changed in the first place. That's all I'm saying. 

[Bt1 5,213]

7 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

No. It is absolutely possible to hate a system without hating or even blaming the individuals who exist in it... Like, I hate racism, but it doesnt mean I hate every single person who lives in a racist society  

I don't care if he is self made, I don't care that he donates to charities. My opposition to Michael Bloomberg as an individual has to do mostly with his shitty political and governing records as well as his political opinions and policy proposals,  not the fact that he is a billionaire. That being said, I don't hate billionaires as individuals, sans the ones who are explicitly and openly malicious or who have been exposed as such, the Koch brothers (rip 1), Sackler family, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. and that's because they are anti-democratic, bigoted, etc. and they use their money in a way that hurts society at large.

If billionaires want to be perceived as not greedy, and as virtuous, selfless, etc. then why do they oppose paying an insignificant amount of money towards a wealth tax that would make universal childcare free, help pay for universal health care coverage, and plenty of other programs that would help millions and even hundreds of millions of people?  I think its a fair question to ask, do you disagree? Like, if I gave a thousand pennies to 1000 charities, 1 penny per, does that make me an honest, virtuous and selfless person who should never be criticized because at least I gave something?

~~~

My belief is simple, don't get it twisted: I don't think its right in theory that 1 person or even a few people should be able to  decide "You make enough to barely live, and you live in excess" - I believe that everyone should be able to live with at least a semblance of basic economic security regardless of their background, and that the success they are able to make for themselves after that point is of their own volition and drive. You have a great idea for a business? Awesome. I think you shouldn't at least be disincentivized from doing so by factors that are either entirely or mostly beyond your personal control such as the income of your parents, your race, gender, and our political structure.  

"Changing the world" can't happen without people saying it needs to be changed in the first place. That's all I'm saying. 

I was trying to say that this article comes from this growing hate against billionaires millionaires, because they are perceived as being bad people, that dont pay their taxes, keep all money to themself, even when they pay you good, they are "buying you" and so on.

And Bloomberg, at least on paper, doesnt seem that guy. I think that is a good thing. Also a good thing is that no one can buy his way into his office with this self funding campaign.

The fact that you dont agree with his policies is another discussion. I personally think that he does a better job explaining them than most moderates. 

I personally dont think that millionaires and billionaires should pay more than ordinary people. If 10% it is, 10% is for everybody. No more. No less.

 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

39 minutes ago, Economy said:

To be fair it's never that simple for a CEO. A CEO is not the sole exclusive owner of a Corporation (there's thousands of shareholders he has to answer to) not to mention other executive board members as well

 

If a CEO tried to be too generous he'd get fired. 

 

That means even CEOs that have a heart and wanna be more generous in essence they just aren't allowed to be

 

In this case he doesn't have to answer to other ppl and can choose what to compensate. It's not the same situation

I was making a general statement about the way that these priorities are de-aligned with people's best interests. But you're right, the problem is more fundamental and structural than the individual actions, beliefs, or choices of individual billionaires, CEOS, or even proportionally small groups of people such as shareholders, executive boards, etc

 

[Whispering 18,865]

So...Bloomberg pays well and the benefits of working for him are good. No one is forcing anyone to take a job working for his campaign. Even if someone works for him, they don’t have to vote for him. 

 

[Uniquecorn 309]

I bet the macbook and iphone are bugged. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

7 minutes ago, Florin said:

I was trying to say that this article comes from this growing hate against billionaires millionaires, because they are perceived as being bad people, that dont pay their taxes, keep all money to themself, even when they pay you good, they are "buying you" and so on.

And Bloomberg, at least on paper, doesnt seem that guy. I think that is a good thing. Also a good thing is that no one can buy his way into his office with this self funding campaign.

The fact that you dont agree with his policies is another discussion. I personally think that he does a better job explaining them than most moderates. 

I personally dont think that millionaires and billionaires should pay more than ordinary people. If 10% it is, 10% is for everybody. No more. No less.

 

 

Well...

Call me a radical, I actually don't care much at all about the so-called villainization of Billionaires  Let's ask ourselves,  how does it affect the like 2,500 billionaires in the world if they are becoming increasingly perceived as greedy, mean, evil, accused of not paying their taxes, etc? I would imagine it may hurt their feelings, but we know from the numbers that it doesn't negatively impact their business or ability to make money in any significant way, nor impede their ability to live lives of luxury or demureness (the point is that they can choose)

I say this because there are public records of all the billionaires in the world that are pretty readily available thanks to the internet + some laws, so we actually can know and judge the morality and the fairness of their business acumen without knowing them as people. Journalists also help.

Like, let's say a billionaire spends tens and hundreds of millions lobbying against environmental regulations and funds propaganda against climate change, BUT they donate $5 million to charity annually. Are they "a good person"? I don't know, I avoid making strong, declarative statements about people's individual character without knowing them. What I do know is that the former act (trying to encourage climate change denial in order to continue to make money)  is somewhat immoral, in my view of morality. I would say that its somewhat "greedy" to put the well being of your financial earnings over the continued existence of a planet that billions of people live on. And, actually *most* billionaires do things like this. Even the Bill & Melinda Gates' of the world do things like this, and I do think they, especially Melinda, are good people  And to me, that's emblematic of a system, not the individuals.

Also, in America, in 2019, the top 1% was projected to owe 3.2% of their wealth, while the bottom 99% was projected to owe 7.2%. Regressive tax structures hurt the poorest and worse off people of an economy, and incentivize abuse by those at the top. Like, maybe its just a values difference, but if you make like $50,000 a year, I don't think you should have to pay more of what you are worth than someone who makes $1,000,000,000. I  just don't,I  think it should be the other way around. And I believe this because I know that taking 10% of my wealth would drastically make my life less liveable, make life harder for me, push me closer to poverty and homelessness, reduce my ability to save, and reduce my ability to actually be free (because money is freedom)... Meanwhile,  taking 10% of someone who is of that wealth will NOT impact their day to day life and standard of living.

[Bt1 5,213]

40 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Well...

Call me a radical, I actually don't care much at all about the so-called villainization of Billionaires  Let's ask ourselves,  how does it affect the like 2,500 billionaires in the world if they are becoming increasingly perceived as greedy, mean, evil, accused of not paying their taxes, etc? I would imagine it may hurt their feelings, but we know from the numbers that it doesn't negatively impact their business or ability to make money in any significant way, nor impede their ability to live lives of luxury or demureness (the point is that they can choose)

I say this because there are public records of all the billionaires in the world that are pretty readily available thanks to the internet + some laws, so we actually can know and judge the morality and the fairness of their business acumen without knowing them as people. Journalists also help.

Like, let's say a billionaire spends tens and hundreds of millions lobbying against environmental regulations and funds propaganda against climate change, BUT they donate $5 million to charity annually. Are they "a good person"? I don't know, I avoid making strong, declarative statements about people's individual character without knowing them. What I do know is that the former act (trying to encourage climate change denial in order to continue to make money)  is somewhat immoral, in my view of morality. I would say that its somewhat "greedy" to put the well being of your financial earnings over the continued existence of a planet that billions of people live on. And, actually *most* billionaires do things like this. Even the Bill & Melinda Gates' of the world do things like this, and I do think they, especially Melinda, are good people  And to me, that's emblematic of a system, not the individuals.

Also, in America, in 2019, the top 1% was projected to owe 3.2% of their wealth, while the bottom 99% was projected to owe 7.2%. Regressive tax structures hurt the poorest and worse off people of an economy, and incentivize abuse by those at the top. Like, maybe its just a values difference, but if you make like $50,000 a year, I don't think you should have to pay more of what you are worth than someone who makes $1,000,000,000. I  just don't,I  think it should be the other way around. And I believe this because I know that taking 10% of my wealth would drastically make my life less liveable, make life harder for me, push me closer to poverty and homelessness, reduce my ability to save, and reduce my ability to actually be free (because money is freedom)... Meanwhile,  taking 10% of someone who is of that wealth will NOT impact their day to day life and standard of living.

What you say goes behind a universal 10% tax. 

Should money get out of politics? Yes. 

Are money out of politics? No. So let's not hold it against him that Bloomberg can self fund is campaign.

I dont think it is healthy for a society to go after 2500 people just  because they have the money and they should just learn to take the hate. If it's something wrong with those 2500 billionaires, each state should do something about it. If not, let's ignore them, if you dont want to celebrate their succes.

For me, a universal 10% tax is just a starting point. A government should have programs to help different groups, segments, but my take is that should happen outside that universal 10% tax. 

Beyond theory, maybe 2500 people paying 11% instead of 10% is something reasonable. But measures like this should be taken after a government has implemented the theoretical 10% tax for anyone and made sure that the loopholes aren't  there. But again, until that happens, cant hold it against Bloomberg that he donates a lot of money for good things. 

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

Yep gonna go for classes on how to coningway a presidency for bloomingberg 

See y'all 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

23 minutes ago, Florin said:

What you say goes behind a universal 10% tax. 

Should money get out of politics? Yes. 

Are money out of politics? No. So let's not hold it against him that Bloomberg can self fund is campaign.

I dont think it is healthy for a society to go after 2500 people just  because they have the money and they should just learn to take the hate. If it's something wrong with those 2500 billionaires, each state should do something about it. If not, let's ignore them, if you dont want to celebrate their succes.

For me, a universal 10% tax is just a starting point. A government should have programs to help different groups, segments, but my take is that should happen outside that universal 10% tax. 

Beyond theory, maybe 2500 people paying 11% instead of 10% is something reasonable. But measures like this should be taken after a government has implemented the theoretical 10% tax for anyone and made sure that the loopholes aren't  there. But again, until that happens, cant hold it against Bloomberg that he donates a lot of money for good things. 

I don't think you're getting my point re: systems vs individuals.

I don't hold it against Bloomberg as an individual, I think the system that allows the kind of behavior is not only wrong, it actually undermines Democracy itself as a concept to have power concentrated in the hands of few people  In fact, it is actually unsustainable for our governance, and some would argue economically as well. A wealth tax is just one way to help this problem. 

This in a nutshell:

Billionaires: "I love people! I want to help the poor, help women, help communities of color and will donate plenty to charity! Whoo!

Progressives: "How about we just tax you so that you can actually uplift the entirety of American society? That would actually be the best thing to empower women, people of color, the poor, etc."

Billionaires: ... oh I meant like how about I just give $10 million to an Art Museum for black women? (Also, please put our name on the building!)

Progressives: "but half a million people are homeless right now, and we want to house them and feed them and they are generally people of color, women, LGBT+ etc? Why won't you... help us solve these problems you claim to care about?"

Billionaires: "Look, stop villainizing me for my success! I can do more by giving money to individual charities than the government can do with taxes!"

Progressives: "But taxes are the only reason you even became a billionaire, and the reason we have public education, school, and pretty much everything that holds up our society... clearly Government has more power here. When did Billionaires create a system like Free Public Education by donating to charity?"

~~

Moderates: "Can you believe they gave money to that art museum for black women? Billionaires really do help all of society flourish!"

Progressives:  

[Bt1 5,213]

20 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't think you're getting my point re: systems vs individuals.

I don't hold it against Bloomberg as an individual, I think the system that allows the kind of behavior is not only wrong, it actually undermines Democracy itself as a concept to have power concentrated in the hands of few people  In fact, it is actually unsustainable for our governance, and some would argue economically as well. A wealth tax is just one way to help this problem. 

This in a nutshell:

Billionaires: "I love people! I want to help the poor, help women, help communities of color and will donate plenty to charity! Whoo!

Progressives: "How about we just tax you so that you can actually uplift the entirety of American society? That would actually be the best thing to empower women, people of color, the poor, etc."

Billionaires: ... oh I meant like how about I just give $10 million to an Art Museum for black women? (Also, please put our name on the building!)

Progressives: "but half a million people are homeless right now, and we want to house them and feed them and they are generally people of color, women, LGBT+ etc? Why won't you... help us solve these problems you claim to care about?"

Billionaires: "Look, stop villainizing me for my success! I can do more by giving money to individual charities than the government can do with taxes!"

Progressives: "But taxes are the only reason you even became a billionaire, and the reason we have public education, school, and pretty much everything that holds up our society... clearly Government has more power here. When did Billionaires create a system like Free Public Education by donating to charity?"

~~

Moderates: "Can you believe they gave money to that art museum for black women? Billionaires really do help all of society flourish!"

Progressives:  

Good selfmade billionaires : I pay my taxes and I give to a lot of money to charities because I want to help people, if I can.

Progressives : no. We dont want you to have money for donations. We want to tax you more.

Good selfmade billionaires: if u tax me, u have money today, but the effects may affect my business and hurt the economy of next year. Solve these problems first, like loopholes. 

Progressives : no. Why are u so selfish? U have enough money. 

An actual employee of a billionaire : this may take my job. I may work for china tomorrow?

Progressives : taxes taxes taxes

A bad billionaire : lets move to Singapore. Less taxes . 

Another billionaire : ok china. Buy me. 

Another bad billionaire: ok. Let's keep the money in Costa Rica in some 100% legal way. Also, let's buy that good selfmade billionaire business. What? We need to let go 1000 people. Do it.

Charities : we need help.

Good billionaires : talk to your government. 

One year later 

The state : where are you my billionaires ? Give me money. 

The former good billionaire : take my million. That's all I've got for you this year. 

We can imagine these things in a lot of ways. Us economy is dependent of other economies and top companies have some liberties that go beyond what US can force them to do. 

That's why I've said earlier to look at China, a communist country, who has a lot of billionaires. It is more complicated that you imagine in your dialogue. 

The reasons why US doesnt have universal healthcare and free education have more to do with political stuff than only the billionaire class. Of course that US cant implement overnight these stuff, when they must spend billions and trillions in other sectors because that's how was done in the last century. 

This has become probably one of my longest comments ever, so I will stop here. 

[Maleficent 6]

the woman who turned it down is pretty dumb imo. if she had gotten over herself she could’ve been debt free 

[Economy 52,932]

7 hours ago, Florin said:

What you say goes behind a universal 10% tax. 

Should money get out of politics? Yes. 

Are money out of politics? No. So let's not hold it against him that Bloomberg can self fund is campaign.

I dont think it is healthy for a society to go after 2500 people just  because they have the money and they should just learn to take the hate. If it's something wrong with those 2500 billionaires, each state should do something about it. If not, let's ignore them, if you dont want to celebrate their succes.

For me, a universal 10% tax is just a starting point. A government should have programs to help different groups, segments, but my take is that should happen outside that universal 10% tax. 

Beyond theory, maybe 2500 people paying 11% instead of 10% is something reasonable. But measures like this should be taken after a government has implemented the theoretical 10% tax for anyone and made sure that the loopholes aren't  there. But again, until that happens, cant hold it against Bloomberg that he donates a lot of money for good things. 

 

7 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't think you're getting my point re: systems vs individuals.

I don't hold it against Bloomberg as an individual, I think the system that allows the kind of behavior is not only wrong, it actually undermines Democracy itself as a concept to have power concentrated in the hands of few people  In fact, it is actually unsustainable for our governance, and some would argue economically as well. A wealth tax is just one way to help this problem. 

This in a nutshell:

Billionaires: "I love people! I want to help the poor, help women, help communities of color and will donate plenty to charity! Whoo!

Progressives: "How about we just tax you so that you can actually uplift the entirety of American society? That would actually be the best thing to empower women, people of color, the poor, etc."

Billionaires: ... oh I meant like how about I just give $10 million to an Art Museum for black women? (Also, please put our name on the building!)

Progressives: "but half a million people are homeless right now, and we want to house them and feed them and they are generally people of color, women, LGBT+ etc? Why won't you... help us solve these problems you claim to care about?"

Billionaires: "Look, stop villainizing me for my success! I can do more by giving money to individual charities than the government can do with taxes!"

Progressives: "But taxes are the only reason you even became a billionaire, and the reason we have public education, school, and pretty much everything that holds up our society... clearly Government has more power here. When did Billionaires create a system like Free Public Education by donating to charity?"

~~

Moderates: "Can you believe they gave money to that art museum for black women? Billionaires really do help all of society flourish!"

Progressives:  

On the tax aspect I'm sort of in between you guys

 

It's not 1950 anymore the way the modern economy works now, the direct relationship between GDP growth and middle class growth has diminished and the wealthy keep most of the benefits of productivity gains now. Workers still get the same or less (depending on country) as in the 1970s when adjusting for inflation

 

There's also modern issues that are holding back opportunity taking like skills mismatch because of how technical our world is getting. The US has more job openings than unemployed right now (some of them high paying jobs) yet many people cannot take them because they aren't qualified. You fix this with education and trainings programs to close skills gap not with low taxes. Business investment isn't the issue at hand if more jobs are available than workers. But those jobs help no one that can't actually take advantage of them

 

Taxes are also weird. They are progressive in income taxes but regressive with things like investment or capital gains taxes which is how the wealthy make the majority of their wealth anyway

 

What happens right now is that the upper middle class in most Nations (doctors, lawyers, engineers, successful small-medium business owners etc) that make 6 figure salaries are the ones that have to pay the most tax... Their income is taxed high but they still do not make most of their wealth with capital gains the way Billionaires do

 

So @Florin taxes are not just flat... They are actually regressive when it comes to the very wealthy when u factor in where their wealth compounds from and considering they have more loop holes at their disposal usually as well

 

I do think in the modern economy we need redistribution because like I said, trickle down economics are failing. They may have worked a little better in simpler times but they don't work now. Without taxing the rich more to get some of that money back in the hands of people, the rich keep everything

 

That being said, everything within reason. I do not support extremely high taxes like the 70% Ocasio Cortez proposed (which with State taxes would go over 80% in most States)...

 

I also think high Corporate taxes are a terrible idea because they don't necessarily target wealthy individuals specifically they end up taxing everyone and hurting competitiveness. I do think they should pay their fair share like everyone (not a system that allows Amazon to pay nothing at all)... But at the same time it's not the best thing to go after for redistribution

 

I think a partial reversal of Trump's exagerated Corporate tax cuts (but not to the level of what Bernie proposes), a marginal increase in income taxes for top bracket (but not Ocasio style), and a big increase in Capital gains tax would be the answer... You'd get some needed redistribution going without crossing a threshold that would choke private sector or making competing internationally impossible. 

 

I also think the idea of left wing redistribution can miserably fail if not handled properly. The Government has to invest it efficiently in services and investments like education and useful infrastructure to help productivity... If higher taxes are poorly managed then you take capital out of private sector with little benefit to show for it and it ends up being a net negative to the economy

 

And again, I'd focus more on wealthy individuals themselves not business or Corporations that have many share holders (including everyday people in their pension funds), and that need to compete internationally and that also could pass costs of big tax hikes onto consumers anyway... For businesses I'd focus more just on ending tax evasion or making sure they pay fair taxes like everyone else but I wouldn't target Corporations as the main source of redistribution

 

I do think Bernie's idea of taxing extra on Corporations that pay CEO more than 50X regular employee pay tho is a good idea... Discouraging exagerated compensation among executives may not leave as much money for investment and workers as some people might be imagining but every bit still helps

[Shaney 5,515]

8 hours ago, hankhatesyouall said:

This doesn't make any sense. Of course, you can get ritzy stuff if you are qualified  enough to be on his team. They don't hand out iPhones to just anyone, which what socialists believe should be the case. 

Considering campaign staff is temporary, many of them are hired on to do mundane and easy things. 

The socialists you say are begging for free iPhones only want healthcare, a healthy environment, and to be rid of the burden of student/medical debt, which can be easily paid for.

Then we have the elite saying that this will destroy the economy while we out here spending trillions on war.  

[LibraLove 1,281]

I'm going to hold most of what I think, because I have several friends working for the Bloomberg Tennessee arm of the campaign, but they know what I think and how I feel.

 

I'll just say what I told them. It's ridiculous, I don't believe that a billionaire should be able to buy their way to the Presidency, I don't think the Democrats should even think about nominating a billionaire to run against Trump after spending three+ years talking trash about a billionaire taking over a party and the office and only caring for and enriching himself and his friends, and Bloomberg could offer me $100K/year (which is less than my friends are making in their positions in leadership on the Tennessee team and double what I'm currently making) and I would still turn him down, because I have standards, morals, and he's not my candidate that I believe in.

 

Edit: But yes, this is all true from what I've seen and been told.

[LibraLove 1,281]

8 hours ago, Florin said:

Bloomberg donates a lot of money, billions to a lot of causes, political or not. He was one of the top donors who helped democrats take back the House in 2018. He also pledged that even if he doesnt win, he will spend one billion to make the future democratic nominee president, no matter who is it. 

He is also proud to pay his taxes and says that the correct way is to make all top companies pay their share of the taxes. He plans to release his tax returns if he will get the nominee.

So I only see this story as hate against a billionaire because he is a billionaire, which is very bad. 

He also donated to several republicans in 2018 and could easily "help" without running for President. The only reason he said he would ever run for President is if he saw the likelihood of a Bernie Sanders nomination coming into fruition. Now, here we are. He's also literally making Sanders' point and taking votes from the moderate/Republicans like Biden and Buttigieg.