Assuming that his family came to that money legitimately, which is highly doubtful.
The richest 400 people in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world. Think about that. 400 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion.
While there have always been both very rich and very poor people, the middle class in most developed countries are getting totally screwed. They haven't received a raise in real terms in 30 years. Since the middle class is the bedrock of most societies, this can't keep up. In capitalist societies, most people are willing to accept that there are going to be rich people, either by their own personal successes (CEOs, movie stars, rock stars, athletes) or by coming from rich families. But they're not willing to accept that an ever-increasing number of people are becoming rich because the system and the laws are biased in favor of the rich. And with so many people still suffering in most societies, someone who so blatantly displays such waste of wealth (like the $5000 trash can) or expresses disregard for the non-rich ("Only little people pay taxes") is going to be roundly criticized, legitimately, IMO.
But wealth is not income. Wealth is what one manages to save and accumulate over the years or inherit. If you compare annual income, the bottom 50% have an average income of about $4000 a year. That's comes to an annual income of $14,000,000,000,000 ($14T) for the 3.5B people that makes up the bottom 50% of the World. The richest 400 people in the World do not even come close to that.
The thing is that the top 400 riches people in the World makes way more than they need to spend on their lifestyles, whereas the bottom 50% don't make enough to live on. Therefore, wealth for the top 400 is always increasing, while there is no wealth increase for the bottom 50% because they must spend every dollar they make to just survive. The wealth on the top 400 is also passed on from generation to generation. Thus making it easier for the next generation to accumulate more wealth. The bottom 50% only owns about 5% of the World's wealth. Very little is passed to the next generation, thus every next generation will never ever accumulate any real wealth. And if they do accumulate any real wealth, they are no longer counted in the bottom 50%.
You can't say that the middle class are getting screwed just by looking at the average income over the years. The average income that puts some one in the middle class may not have changed much over the years, but the people in that income level changes every year. Some one that was middle class one year might be upper middle class a few years later and maybe make to rich status. Where as on the other end, some one that was poor one year might make it to lower middle class the next after finding a better job or graduating from college. People are always moving in and out of middle class. With most going up the income ladder. The reason why the middle class average income stays the same over the years is because all the new people moving into the lower middle class, from being poor the year before, lowers the average income. Nearly every young person entering the work force starts off in the poor class and most will move up with education, finding a better job and promotions. And once middle class people makes to rich status, their income are no longer part of the average middle class income. Plus when older middle class people retires they bring down the average income when they start collecting SS (or a pension) and living off their savings. If you want to see the average income of the middle class rise, you must keep the poor from becoming middle class and prevent any middle class person from becoming rich or retiring. Then you will see the average income going up. But as long as poor people are making it into the middle class and middle class people are becoming part of the rich, the average middle class income will not change much.
Plus the rich spending money is never a waste of wealth. It doesn't matter if its $28,000 for two gold Apple watches (for a dog) or a $1,000,000 for a Picasso to hang on a wall. Many people benefits when the rich "waste" their money by spending it. Maybe it's not the people you want to see benefiting from it, but most people's jobs depends on people spending money. Plus sales tax is collected. (Maybe even a luxury tax.) A waste of wealth is when it sits idle in a bank collecting 2% interest or it gets taxed away and wasted on government spending.
This is total b.s. since most of the tax money taken from anyone goes to the military (54% of discretionary spending in the 2010 budget), not to another income group. The next highest figure was 6.4% for health and human services.
And the highest marginal rates paid by the rich have substantially dropped over the years (aside from a recent increase in capital gains rates). So if anything, you could say in recent decades that the U.S. Government is taking money away from the people with lesser income and giving it to people with more income. And that's aside from corporate welfare, since most of the Fortune 500 companies pay little or no Federal income tax in recent decades.
During the Eisenhower administration, the highest marginal rate was 93%.
During the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the highest marginal rate was 70%
By the 2nd Reagan administration, it dropped to 50%.
Clinton dropped it to 39.6%.
Bush II lowered it to 35% where it remained during the 1st Obama administration (it was supposed to be temporary).
It's now back to 39.6%.
So who is taking money from who and giving it to who?
And in every instance that they lowered the highest marginal tax rate, the government took in MORE tax money from the rich. The government today takes in more money from the rich than they ever did when the tax rate was 93%. I don't know how your math works, but if you're taking more money from the rich, even if its from lowering the tax rate, the rich are still paying more taxes than those with lower incomes.
Only in the liberal World is the concept of the government letting you keep more of your income, equates to the government taking away money from the poor and giving it to the rich. And income inequity exist because the government is letting the rich keep too much of their income, by not taxing them enough.
BTW- It was JFK that wanted to lowered the top tax bracket from 91% to 65%. Congress settled for 70% after his death.
I think you just illustrated my point precisely. This isn't just a case of wasteful spending.
The caption:
"I have new watches! I'm supposed to have four watches since I have four long legs," the caption reads, as translated by Shanghaiist. "But that seems too tuhao so I kept it down to two, which totally fits my status. Do you have one?"
But the ideologues on this forum MUST defend the accumulation of wealth, even when the owner is using it to taunt and insult the vast majority of the population. What's your "status"? A wise bourgeoisie would distance itself from such an ugly sentiment.
So, your whole problem is that you feel insulted? 'Cause his "ugly sentiment." Did not bother me at all, didn't even see the way you are seeing it.
...I am now going online with my artwork which I individually presented to many technology leaders from Tim Cook to Jack Dorsey (you may guess who and what orgs I also contacted in between them and you will be right!). But sadly, it seems that their declared respect and love to Steve Jobs doesn't extend as much as for 30k, as this being the price of the portrait! I was inspired to do this painting after Sheikh al Waleed bin Talal's "three apples that changed the world" and continuous talks about who is going to be the new Steve Jobs....!
Comments
Assuming that his family came to that money legitimately, which is highly doubtful.
The richest 400 people in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world. Think about that. 400 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion.
While there have always been both very rich and very poor people, the middle class in most developed countries are getting totally screwed. They haven't received a raise in real terms in 30 years. Since the middle class is the bedrock of most societies, this can't keep up. In capitalist societies, most people are willing to accept that there are going to be rich people, either by their own personal successes (CEOs, movie stars, rock stars, athletes) or by coming from rich families. But they're not willing to accept that an ever-increasing number of people are becoming rich because the system and the laws are biased in favor of the rich. And with so many people still suffering in most societies, someone who so blatantly displays such waste of wealth (like the $5000 trash can) or expresses disregard for the non-rich ("Only little people pay taxes") is going to be roundly criticized, legitimately, IMO.
But wealth is not income. Wealth is what one manages to save and accumulate over the years or inherit. If you compare annual income, the bottom 50% have an average income of about $4000 a year. That's comes to an annual income of $14,000,000,000,000 ($14T) for the 3.5B people that makes up the bottom 50% of the World. The richest 400 people in the World do not even come close to that.
The thing is that the top 400 riches people in the World makes way more than they need to spend on their lifestyles, whereas the bottom 50% don't make enough to live on. Therefore, wealth for the top 400 is always increasing, while there is no wealth increase for the bottom 50% because they must spend every dollar they make to just survive. The wealth on the top 400 is also passed on from generation to generation. Thus making it easier for the next generation to accumulate more wealth. The bottom 50% only owns about 5% of the World's wealth. Very little is passed to the next generation, thus every next generation will never ever accumulate any real wealth. And if they do accumulate any real wealth, they are no longer counted in the bottom 50%.
You can't say that the middle class are getting screwed just by looking at the average income over the years. The average income that puts some one in the middle class may not have changed much over the years, but the people in that income level changes every year. Some one that was middle class one year might be upper middle class a few years later and maybe make to rich status. Where as on the other end, some one that was poor one year might make it to lower middle class the next after finding a better job or graduating from college. People are always moving in and out of middle class. With most going up the income ladder. The reason why the middle class average income stays the same over the years is because all the new people moving into the lower middle class, from being poor the year before, lowers the average income. Nearly every young person entering the work force starts off in the poor class and most will move up with education, finding a better job and promotions. And once middle class people makes to rich status, their income are no longer part of the average middle class income. Plus when older middle class people retires they bring down the average income when they start collecting SS (or a pension) and living off their savings. If you want to see the average income of the middle class rise, you must keep the poor from becoming middle class and prevent any middle class person from becoming rich or retiring. Then you will see the average income going up. But as long as poor people are making it into the middle class and middle class people are becoming part of the rich, the average middle class income will not change much.
Plus the rich spending money is never a waste of wealth. It doesn't matter if its $28,000 for two gold Apple watches (for a dog) or a $1,000,000 for a Picasso to hang on a wall. Many people benefits when the rich "waste" their money by spending it. Maybe it's not the people you want to see benefiting from it, but most people's jobs depends on people spending money. Plus sales tax is collected. (Maybe even a luxury tax.) A waste of wealth is when it sits idle in a bank collecting 2% interest or it gets taxed away and wasted on government spending.
For having a moral compass? Proud of it.
I am sure you can imagine our despair when we cower in the shadow of your awesomeness.
This is total b.s. since most of the tax money taken from anyone goes to the military (54% of discretionary spending in the 2010 budget), not to another income group. The next highest figure was 6.4% for health and human services.
And the highest marginal rates paid by the rich have substantially dropped over the years (aside from a recent increase in capital gains rates). So if anything, you could say in recent decades that the U.S. Government is taking money away from the people with lesser income and giving it to people with more income. And that's aside from corporate welfare, since most of the Fortune 500 companies pay little or no Federal income tax in recent decades.
During the Eisenhower administration, the highest marginal rate was 93%.
During the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the highest marginal rate was 70%
By the 2nd Reagan administration, it dropped to 50%.
Clinton dropped it to 39.6%.
Bush II lowered it to 35% where it remained during the 1st Obama administration (it was supposed to be temporary).
It's now back to 39.6%.
So who is taking money from who and giving it to who?
And in every instance that they lowered the highest marginal tax rate, the government took in MORE tax money from the rich. The government today takes in more money from the rich than they ever did when the tax rate was 93%. I don't know how your math works, but if you're taking more money from the rich, even if its from lowering the tax rate, the rich are still paying more taxes than those with lower incomes.
Only in the liberal World is the concept of the government letting you keep more of your income, equates to the government taking away money from the poor and giving it to the rich. And income inequity exist because the government is letting the rich keep too much of their income, by not taxing them enough.
BTW- It was JFK that wanted to lowered the top tax bracket from 91% to 65%. Congress settled for 70% after his death.
Stories that'll generate tons of page views and feedback, yet still completely rot your brain...
I am sure you can imagine our despair when we cower in the shadow of your awesomeness.
LOL! I guess that's what happens when you have low expectations but are capable of great hyperbole.
A "disgusting excuse for a human being"? The fact that accuse him of such with zero information tells us much more about you, than anything else.
- you have no clue if those are actually for his dog (probably not)
- you have no clue if he paid for one, both, or neither
- you have no clue how much he donates to charity or other causes
I think the despicable human being is the self
Righteous one who is quick to judge and condemn.
Unfortunately, this supports my original instincts:
http://www.cultofmac.com/323926/worlds-most-spoiled-dog-scores-two-apple-watch-editions/
So, your whole problem is that you feel insulted? 'Cause his "ugly sentiment." Did not bother me at all, didn't even see the way you are seeing it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2p3kz3/this_may_be_the_best_email_ive_ever_received/
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2p3kz3/this_may_be_the_best_email_ive_ever_received/