Billionaires like this guy make me wonder what our country needs more of: ranches with golf courses designed by PGA players & fireplaces “imported from European castles” – or universal childcare & a Green New Deal? #UltraMillionaireTax https://t.co/w4rm9gRlRv
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 28, 2019
January 29, 2019
Either/or?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
130 comments:
Under the Warren regime, only government officials will have homes like this.
Let’s start by confiscating Harvard’s $35 billion endowment and Warren’s millions.
Perhaps Ms. Warren is unable to grasp the difference between private and public funds. Which makes her even scarier than the average Leftist.
This is like Obama’s idiocy of have too much.
Obama has five houses and lives like a Sultan.
Warren is in the top 1%.
Instead of pointing Ginger’s andnlectuting they should give aaay all their wealth.
They are such hypocrites.
Which makes her even scarier than the average Leftist.
Actually, it makes her more truthful.
What the hell? "Let's stir up envy and of specific people!" No. Don't be evil.
Universal Health Care? NO!
Billionaires like this guy
She's not against all billionaires, just the wrong kind.
The right kind of billionaires will always have a place on her team.
Q1: Is Warren insinuating that somehow Kravis obtained this wealth by illegal means?
General Rule: If you earn $$ lawfully, even a lot, nobody cares or worries about it.
Q2: Does Warren apply this distaste for billionaires to left-wing billionaires, like Tom Steyer or Jeff Bezos?
Two weekends ago I spent a weekend at The Cloisters on the Platte. It is the Silent Retreat facility built by Nebraska billionaire Joe Ricketts. He spent more than Henry on the real estate and improvements. It is a huge asset to the Nation. And it is FREE.
Golf greens and fireplaces are very much not green. So that one is close to an either/or.
Billionaire shaming. The new frontier for universal leftists.
Noted: Bernie's Millionaires and Billionaires* ***updated to just Billionaires. Why? Bernie and Warren are both government paid millionaires.
btw- I prefer people who make their money in the private sector.
Exactly - when does the Tom Steyer wealth shame party start?
Well, Senator Warren, what the country surely does not need is more fraudulent research such as yours that completely misrepresents causes of bankruptcy.
Greg Norman designed the four holes.
Norman is good buddies with Bill Clinton. Warren pulling her punches by not naming the Shark.
Given Norman’s epic meltdown in the final round of the 1996 Masters, Kravis is going to have to lower his asking price.
America does not need a GREEN NEW Deal.
The rest of the world does.
My layer pal is traveling to Indonesia now. They told her to bring a mask because the pollution is so bad.
if we Have To Choose; More Ranches Please!
[Jews] like this guy make me wonder what our country needs more of: [war reparations and a weak Germany pushed around by her neighbors living in "European castles" -- or a resurgence of the German people and a thousand-year reich?] #Kristallnacht
Shorter leftist: We must screw over Americans to pay for the world's sins, as we, glorious pious insider government whores, rake in the $$$.
Kevin: She's not against all billionaires, just the wrong kind.
The right kind of billionaires will always have a place on her team.
That's my working assumption. I guess Kravis isn't a billionaire donor to the right people.
“Universal childcare” is just lefty speak for getting control of their minds earlier.
I have no particular love for the ultra-rich. I'm especially not fond of people who made their millions & billions in the finance industries.
But, I have not just dislike but visceral fear of government officials playing on the politics of class envy. The ultra-rich lives their cushy lives, ultimately die like the rest of us, & by the grandkids the fortune is dispersed. But, the when the government uses wealth envy as a tool to manipulate the electorate, all too often it ends with "The Kulaks must be liquidated as a class!", which is a lot more evil than a spread in Aspen.
Not to mention that she will introduce a bill making it illegal to criticize anybody for Affirmative Action fraud.
She's not against all billionaires, just the wrong kind.
What does she think of Soros?
Are we going to dismantle Harvard University? Where does she think her former employer's endowment came from?
I know a handful of really rich folks. Yes, some are assholes, but, hey, that's life.
Yes, Private Equity guys (the money changers!) are perhaps the least impressive of the billionaire class.
But, the handful of really rich folks I know have one thing in common: they built something, earned a lot of $$ from it, sold it for a lot, and, in the process, created a lotta wealth and jobs for OTHER folks in the process.
Think of how many millionaires Bill Gates created by helping to bring the desk-top computer to hundreds of millions of people. And I don't even like Bill Gates.
Warren is a leftwing demagogue.
Warren makes me wonder what America needs more of: white women gaming the system or actual Native Americans teaching at elite schools?
For some reason, Warren brings to mind Mencken's definition of Puritanism: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
"Universal Healthcare" (whatever she takes that to mean) is a desirable goal only insofar as it provides a means of preventing billionaires from having nice things. Marxism, in all its forms--economic, cultural, is secular Puritanism.
Let's ask the listing agent what she (or he) thinks about the sale.
Our country needs fewer Lefties.
We've exceeded the sustainable amount.
And Green is Red.
More control for the Ctrl-Left.
Smelly hippies I can live this. Aging hippies who want to tell me how to live, that's hell.
@MM,
Let's ask the listing agent what she (or he) thinks about the sale.
I remember reading an article some years ago about selling real estate in Beverly Hills. In the article, a realtor said that the general rule of thumb was that it was a month on the market per million, e.g. a $4 million house took 4 months to sell.
In the case of a $46 million spread in the White River Valley, I imagine it'll take at least two or three years to find a buyer.
The listing agent probably knows s/he has got a long wait ahead before any money rolls in.
I read this as saying: Don't support those money grubbing capitalists- support us money grubbing government leaders!
I do truly wonder what percentage of the population is attracted to this kind of message. I no longer think it's a fringe element; so maybe 20%? My fear is that it's a cohort that's growing with each new graduating class of "gender studies" students.
When you can close your university by appealing to the president because it's cold, well that's empowering!
You people keep saying that socialism doesn’t work even though people have been using it all over the world to seize power and becoming unimaginably wealthy. In Cuba, exactly one rich family, deca-billionaires, while trained doctors sell hot dogs and blow jobs on the beach to tourists. But that’s not “income inequality” because reasons.
That real estate is mostly unoccupied land, more than 4,000 acres of it. Isn't that a good thing, holding that land for the plants and the wildlife?
The so-called "Green New Deal" is based on the availability of renewable, unreliable drivers, and a faith in non-renewable, unsustainable, grey converters. Despite catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, social justice adventures and refugee crises, and, perhaps, because of Planned Parenthood (i.e. selective-child, recycled-child), we already have universal childcare. What we don't have is affordable medical care without shared responsibility (i.e. redistributive change) and available care without rationing to accommodate mass immigration reform.
Billionaires like this guy make me wonder what our country needs more of: ranches with golf courses designed by PGA players & fireplaces “imported from European castles” – or universal childcare & a Green New Deal?
It makes me wonder how America elected someone who casually asserts other people's wealth is theirs to confiscate as long as we use it for something we value more than they used it for.
Also revealing is how universal childcare penalizes certain life choices (single earner) to support the two income trap. You'd think having written about the outcomes she would be more circumspect about advocating this framework. But political power overrides sober evaluation.
What the world needs more of is a tax code & society in which the median disposable income increases faster than that of the billionaires.
So if his income is going up by 1% a year, the median income should be going up by 2%.
Getting the median income to go up is socially quite hard -- but is unlikely to happen without more political discussion and focus on it as a good goal.
The USA should be implementing a national, slightly progressive, land value tax, of about 1% per year, with a deduction of 10 times the prior year's median income (about $50k, so all can deduct $500k in real estate land value before the tax).
It’s also extremely important to keep importing third world peasants into the US of A in order to keep our income inequality high, Democratics need them.
How about The Original Deal of leave everyone the fuck alone. That deal is Evergreen
A lot of contractors, electricians, plumbers, landscapers, architects, engineers, lawyers, maids, chefs, pavers, etc all made money and continue to make money building and maintaining that property. Meanwhile, it is a beautiful oasis harming no one.
Getting the median income to go up is socially quite hard --
^^^^ Says Tom. Spoken as someone who probably has never run a business or employed other people.
Not to mention that it is economically impossible as an artificial construct to increase income without increasing all other factors. As the median income goes up, so do the associated costs of PAYING that increased income. (FICA, Insurance etc) As those costs go UP the price of goods and services sold will also go up.
When both of those things (wages and cost of goods) go up, there is no real net gain for anyone. In fact, it is a proven that when you increase wages artificially, employment goes down. People are fired or their hours cut resulting in an actual Net Loss for those you are supposedly trying to help.
Math is haaaard. Economics is difficult. Social engineering is ALWAYS a failure in the long run. Obamacare should be an illustrative example of this.
It's all temporary, Liz. That man won't always own the ranch HE EARNED FAIR AND SQUARE and when he dies your beloved government can reach in and tax 50% or more of his assets, you ghoulish Skank. Then all the people employed by him to shop for, build , install, maintain and oversee his ranch and its amenities can be unemployed, the ultimate goal of all your "I don't like what he buys with his own money" type arguments. And when you stand before your Maker you can explain why your personal greed and envy was so overwhelming you tried to code those pathologies into law. Asshole.
That real estate is mostly unoccupied land, more than 4,000 acres of it. Isn't that a good thing, holding that land for the plants and the wildlife?
It's the house to which they object.
Elizabeth Warren the grease-coifed snaggly-toothed elder banging her invisible drum in the face of Today's Youth trying to insure they'll never be able to afford to play golf or buy a V8 powered motorcycle, which is what I think We the People need more of.
Not much of a course. I know a couple of farmers in WI that put in a couple of greens a few hundred yards apart that allows them to play a little without having to go to a regulation course. They pay a couple of kids to mow the fairway and greens. Job creation!
All money belongs to the government, which graciously allows us to keep a fraction.
You guys and gals are excellent.
I want to ask these folks what they think has caused the increase in inequality in the US. Hint: it's not because billionaires don't pay enough taxes. No doubt there are a variety of factors at work, but the list should start with the flood of illegal immigrants competing for low wage employment. Then we should talk about globalization allowing China to conquer American manufacturing. Seems like Trump is working on both of those. Beyond that there is the destruction of the traditional family and the educational establishment failing to actually educate kids. So yeah, we could have a productive conversation about inequality if people like Warren would be honest about its real causes.
"universal childcare"?
You mean moms staying home and taking care of their kids?
Sounds good! Let's do it!
Teh Democrats want a pretty female version of Maduro, or Hugo or the Castro family dictators for life.
All the potential Dem candidates are signalling that billionairs are bad and need to be punished since Bernie and AOC have stolen so much of the spotlight in recent years. The kids to day believe that being a billionair is immoral which means these potential candidates have to let them all know that the for sure agree. Of course it's not like they'll refuse donations from billionairs.
Warren is worth 8.5 million dollars. Doesn't that seem excessive given the median income of $58,000 per american household?
I mean, when presented with the soak the rich drivel isn't that the immediate question that comes to mind to most normal people? Let's tax her narrow ass at 70%. On all her assets.
The politics of envy is drive in the fucking gutter.
Here's the Democrats' economic plan:
1) Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour
2) Import millions of unskilled, uneducated, colored foreigners
3) When those colored foreigners are unemployed at $15, blame Republican racism
4) Register those immigrants to vote
5) Beginning a month before an election, visit their homes with absentee ballots and harass them to vote against racist Republicans.
Warren is a horrible person.
"The biggest gift by Kravis and his wife is the $100 million they gave to the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center recently."
Question: how did people like Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton become so fabulously wealthy without ever producing anything of value?
Correction to my comment at 12:55 PM
I inadvertently used the expression colored foreigners.
I meant to write Foreigners of Color.
Please make the mental correction.
"So if his income is going up by 1% a year, the median income should be going up by 2%."
Income ≠ wealth. Jeff Bezos makes $81k a year.
Warren doesn't mind his money, she minds his political party. Let me know when she goes after rich Democrats.
And here I am over here just wishing I had as much money as Elizabeth Warren.
"universal childcare"?
You mean moms staying home and taking care of their kids?
That is the question that the Libs never seem to be able to answer ....or don't want to answer.
Just WHO is going to be doing the actual child care? Childless women or men only? Old people who have grown adult children? Poor immigrant women who have children but need the work anyway?*** Who is taking care of THEIR children.
Who is going to pay for this child care? People who have chosen to not have children are now responsible for the "git" of those who want to pawn off their responsibilities to other people.
*** Ding ding ding if you guessed the poor immigrant underclass women who have children of their own who then have their children taken care of by other poor immigrant women whose children are being taken care of by........ An endless loop of universal childcare.
Now. Let's talk about universal lawn care! I want to have someone take care of my yard and be paid by everyone else.
Tank:
Ricketts employed a number of sculptors, eight architecture firms, at least two general contractors and hundreds of tradesmen in the two or so years that he spent building Cloisters.
Check it out on the web. And come to Nebraska to visit. You won't believe it. And you don't have to be Catholic but it would help.
Pants:
Warren was knocking down $500k at Harvard. She took a pay cut in becoming a Senator.
Warren taught bankruptcy law. I'm totally shocked she has yet proposed that student loans become dischargeable in BK.
Several years ago, I think it was Instapundit that linked to a video showing exactly how much of an effect confiscating all of the wealth of the "rich" and all of the revenue (not profits) of the big corporations would have on the federal budget. It would just about cover the deficit for one year, and then the next year starts afresh with the same deficit, but no more "wealth" to tap.
Jeff Bezos makes $81k a year.
No he doesn't. His W2 may show 81k but his income includes the increase in the value of his Amazon shares. In 2018 that was $332.50 / share and a quick internet search shows he owns 78.9 million shares (it's a public company so this is public information).
So he made over 26 billion in 2018 just from that activity.
Did he get $350K for teaching ONE class, many times???
Actually, what this country needs is fewer people in positions of power deciding what this country needs. And more people with the freedom and ability to decide what they themselves need.
Rick:"So he made over 26 billion in 2018 just from that activity." Only if he sold all those shares on December 31. (I assume such action by Bezos would've been reported as having some significance for the investing public.) Even the IRS has not yet defined passive holding of shares as "activity" generating taxable income. Subject, of course, to election of White-Woman-Speaks-WIth-Forked-Tongue.
You could make the whole planet into a golf course for less than what that green new deal would cost.
There are only two kinds of people who suggest big government solutions to economics. Stupid or corrupt, and both is possible.
His [Bezos] W2 may show 81k but his income includes the increase in the value of his Amazon shares. In 2018 that was $332.50 / share and a quick internet search shows he owns 78.9 million shares (it's a public company so this is public information).
Income only occurs if he actually sells the stocks. Then it is captial gains income which is taxed differently than earned income.
Increase in asset value is not income.
Income only occurs if he actually sells the stocks.
Incorrect. Income is only taxable if he sells the stocks. The income exists regardless of a sale.
If you give me a $1 billion, I'll promise not to build anything like that on that on my new ranch. I'll also promise not to play golf, buy a private airplane, or run for President.
"Warren was knocking down $500k at Harvard. She took a pay cut in becoming a Senator."
So, is she stupid, has enough of everything but power, or does she know that the real money in politics is not in your paycheck?
Oh yea, it was probably "for the people."
What this country needs more of is fewer people telling other people what to do. How about that, you fraudulent skank?
Rick, I don't understand your comment. Stocks are assets. If the value of the asset increases, it increases ones net worth, but it's still not income.
"Increase in asset value is not income."
What you are talking about is the realization doctrine. But is that constitutional or statutory? Since an increase in value is income when distributed in kind from an IRA or 401k plan, I'd suggest that is only statutory, and the definition of income in the income tax statutes can be changed.
If the value of the asset increases, it increases ones net worth, but it's still not income.
I suspect you have adopted the tax definition universally. This is common since most people only calculate income for tax reasons. But it is not true that increases in asset value are not income. In fact income includes gains:
Legal Definition of income: a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor
Is Elizabeth Warren mad because she hasn't yet been invited to this house for a fundraiser?
Don't worry, Ms. Warren, if you get the nomination, hedge-fund billionaires, movie producers, Silicon-Valley titans, and even European aristocrats will be falling all over themselves to invite you to their palatial estates. If you don't already, you'll know Martha's Vineyard and Beverly Hills like the back of your hand.
Warren is turning into the Comrade Kapugina of the Senate.
"I'd suggest that is only statutory, and the definition of income in the income tax statutes can be changed.”
if you are a slumlord and your properties drop in value, you get tax advantages! What could go wrong?
And when the whole economy falls apart and we go fascist the way Chicoms and the Soviets have, it will have been due to “wreckers.”
Trump has a lot of empty ambassadorships because he didn’t rely on rich donors. Hillary had her complete list ready day one, it was probably written on the receipts for the donations.
This is what is scaring the crap out of Warren & ilk. Some of the wealth might go to the "wrong" causes.
These 14 billionaires just promised to give away more than half of their money like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett
It's interesting how so little of this thread is people talking about or criticizing Warren. As candidates go she's a John Kasich.
I suspect soon she can say whatever she wants because nobody is listening.
Rick- thanks; yes my perception is strongly influenced by IRS rules!
Rick said...
Income only occurs if he actually sells the stocks.
Incorrect. Income is only taxable if he sells the stocks. The income exists regardless of a sale.
Wrong, Rick. "Income" is money that I can spend on something. Until I sell an asset, the theoretical price that someone might pay me for the asset is not "income", it's fake money.
Until I sell an asset, the theoretical price that someone might pay me for the asset is not "income", it's fake money.
RIght. It could be gone tomorrow. Remember Enron? Remember when everybody was so mad that those employees were unable to dump their worthless stock on unsuspecting investors before it crashed? I think RCA’s highest stock price was in the 1930s. You could own a large tract of timber and an endangered species could be discovered there and suddenly the primary value of the land is gone.
It’s like taxing people on their share of the winnings on lottery tickets they own before the drawing takes place. Yes, the tickets, right up until the wave function collapse, I mean the drawing, have an economic value. The guy who finally cashes a ticket is the one you should tax.
This changing of envy and greed into things that are moral as long as they're for the 'correct' reasons is deeply corrosive to a society. As an examination of history would show.
But history involves dead old men a lot of them white and it happened like a hundred years ago so forget that.
A quick look and I found Kravis and his wife are deep into the arts and give away millions each year, mainly in New York, he sponsors Internships for Teachers of Color has financed the construction of facilities for Middlesex school, The Eagle rook school, Deerfield Academy, Chaffee School. He’s a benefactor for New York’s public television, he donated 15 million to establish the center for cardiovascular health at Mount Sinai and that’s just the tip. These billionaires don’t just sit on their money like the hag would have you believe. He does more good with his money than any government program ever could.
No Rick. Tax consequences apart, none but a fool would say that hypothetical increase in market value of an asset is "income."
For example, dumping all of Bezos' stock on December 31 would clearly NOT result in him selling at the closing exchange price you calculate--that price would be enormously affected, downward.
Conversely, even if Bezos sold all of his stock and it was entirely treated under tax law as capital gain, common parlance would say that the gain was "income." Especially in any common sense understanding of the word, income has to mean hard cash in hand paid in a real transaction, not some paper value of an unsold asset.
Every time I hear Warren, I think of the Hayek quote: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
That's French Revolution style propaganda. Warren is dangerous.
Rick says The income exists regardless of a sale.
Not at all. Unrealized gain is not income. Distributions from an IRA is income because the amount you received has not been taxed and the gains (or no gains) are included in the realized amounts.
An increase in the value of an asset: stocks, your house, the cattle in the field, your grandmothers jewelry are not classified as income.....until you sell the asset.
Stock options may be classified as deferred income (deferred for several years) But they are not ACTUAL usable, spendable, receivable income until the options are exercised. (This doesn't address the tax consequences of the deferred income though. That is a different issue entirely)
Do not argue with me on this, Rick. This was my job for 25 years. I got paid good money (income) to advise people on these very issues.
:-D
"He does more good with his money than any government program ever could."
Right, but irrelevant. He's rich, and he's not the government. Ergo, he must be taken down.
With Kamala or Lizzie or Corey, the rich will discover soon enough that the protection money they paid doesn't buy them any actual protection. Progs don't stay bought. Their motto is: never enough.
It's listed for $46 million. Likely it will be had in the $30s. Does Liz really believe she can have universal child care and her Green New Deal for $30 something million?
Four Pinocchios for Liawatha's latest whopper. Either that or she's an economic illiterate. Either/Or? indeed...
Left Bank Since an increase in value is income when distributed in kind from an IRA or 401k plan, I'd suggest that is only statutory, and the definition of income in the income tax statutes can be changed.
Statutory, yes, in that the tax treatment of various types of incomeis set by tax law. Income= the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, such as rents or investments; revenue; receipts If you want the definition changed to include unrealized appreciation of an asset....are you prepared to file a tax return every year based an a new yearly appraisal of your house, car, jewelry etc?
In a traditional IRA or 401K the money put into the plan was deferred from income in the first place. You excluded that money from your gross income in the year of contribution. Before tax contributions. Which is why only EARNED income (see IRS definitions re; IRA contributions) can be deposited into a traditional IRA.
Roth IRAs distributions are tax free because you already received and paid taxes on the contributions. The cool thing is that the gains are not taxed either.
There are no capital gains taxes in withdrawing from a traditional IRA either, which is also cool.....assuming you actually have gains :-( You pay taxes at whatever your marginal rate is when you are retired/withdrawing. Instead of presumably a higher marginal rate when you were working.
Also in the fact check department: There are only four golf holes. While there's no standard number of holes for a golf course it's rare to see one with only four holes.
Rate: Technically true but a lie: Two Pinocchios.
Perhaps we should have government committees to determine what people are allowed to do with their own money.
We could call them soviets.
Also also fact check: The course was designed by neighbor Greg Norman who is a presently a player on the PGA Champions Tour.
Three Pinocchios for Spreading Bull's latest lie.
The problem is that you can make up new definitions for things, you can change tax laws, etc. But will the resulting system actually work? That’s really the question. Abandoning the system of incentives that drives the economic engine that is the United States because you don’t like a couple of the outcomes it produces is extremely dangerous. Just look at Venezuela.
Greg Norman's property nearby lacks a golf course but is a nicer property. He's been trying to sell off and on since at least 2011.
These trophy properties are a bit of a waste. Most of these folks who have the means want to create their own thing and not pay up for someone else's toy.
Conclusion: Liz Warren is a compulsive liar who can't be trusted, much less be considered competent for any elected office outside of US Senator from Massachusetts, for which there are no standards.
Even Macron ditched the French wealth tax as one of his first moves because he said it was making France moribund economically.
Do not argue with me on this, Rick.
You're still referring to tax law as you admit here:
If you want the definition changed to include unrealized appreciation of an asset....are you prepared to file a tax return every year based an a new yearly appraisal of your house, car, jewelry etc?
If you want the definition changed to include unrealized appreciation of an asset....are you prepared to file a tax return every year based an a new yearly appraisal of your house, car, jewelry etc?
Well? Are you?
tim maguire said...
Under the Warren regime, only government officials will have homes like this.
They will refer to them as their dacha.
Well? Are you?
No, Rick is ready for other people to do that. This is only for the “rich” which to Democrats is anybody who makes a decent living. Look for California and New York to scream bloody murder if there is no exemption that includes the expensive homes there.
How much is Senator Warren chipping in? She's running for president, and you have to have a lot of wampum to do that. Is she paying HER "fair share"?
Warren is so out of the loop that she doesn’t realize that the hyper-wealthy are almost exclusively Democrats, for the very purpose of cutting off candidacies like hers before they have a chance to take root. It’s a top-bottom vs the middle coalition and she doesn’t get it. You don’t attack your own supporters to give money to other of your supporters.
Income taxes hit the middle the hardest. Keeps ‘em from getting rich! That’s the stuff!
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Well? Are you?
Why do you think the definition of income is controlled by tax treatment? There are many kinds of income which are not taxable every one of which proves this linkage false.
Rick is one of the three types of people in the world. I don't usually link to my own (defunct) blog because it is just rude.... but here you go Guess which one.
"There are basically three types of people that you will meet as an advisor (and in all of your life as well)
The first is People You Can't Help. You want to help them. They want to be helped. They know they need help. But, they don't have the means or ability to achieve what they want or what you would like to do for them. Instead of wasting a great deal your time on them, give them what advice you can and refer them to another agency to get help. Do what you can and sadly.....move on.
The second is People You Can Help: This is the bread and butter of your practice (and in your life). These people also want to be helped. They know you can help them and you can work with them. They have the means. They have the desire. They will take your advice and give you useful feedback. They will know that the path forward is not a straight one and will have some potholes and bumps. The People You Can Help are a joy to work with and the feeling of pride and satisfaction in spending your time and energy to achieve their goals is immeasurable. Spend your time with these people and your business will thrive and you, as the advisor, will have a wonderful life.
The third category isPeople Too Stupid to Help: Here is where an advisor can go wrong, ruin their practice and develop ulcers. These people are just too stupid to help. Don't be fooled or sucked in because often they have a lot of means (money) and it is tempting to try to court them as clients. They won't listen to you. Refuse to take your advice and when things go wrong will blame you. They will suck up all of your time asking you to explain over and over and over the most simple concepts. And still won't listen. They expect to be treated special if they are the ones with the deep pockets. These people just cannot be helped because they are TOO STUPID TO HELP. Run away from these folks. Refer them to someone else. Refuse to take them as clients and if you have taken them on as clients before you recognized that they are the third category.....nicely fire them and refer them to some other advisor. "
I'm not sure why you're so idiotically thin skinned you can't have a conversation but I'll note it.
Lectures by historian Stephen Kotkin on his biography of Stalin emphasize a shocking fact: that Stalin murdered millions of people because he was a committed communist who was determined to eliminate at any cost the private capitalist market system. "When you read the notes of Stalin's private conversations with his comrades, all they talked about was implementing communism!"
When characters like Sen. Warren say these stupid and retrogressive things, it's because they believe the same things that Stalin and his fellow travelers believed. We can only hope that Warren and gang don't have the same capabilities as Uncle Joe.
Why isn't Warren being compared to Huey Long and his silly class envy from the 1930's? At least he had the tailwinds of the depression to drive his nonsense. What drives Warren's class envy? The need to have an issue set her apart from the other pack? And does anyone believe she means any of this horseshit? What part of her tribe is she ever willing to upset if she never goes after Tom Steyer and his ilk?
It has nothing to do with envy.
It has to do with which should be the bigger priority for government: working for the "needs" of this guy or to make sure ordinary Americans aren't being bankrupted or killed by poor health insurance coverage.
Theoretically it could be both. But the latter don't have the lobbying power donations/funds to have their problems resolved the way the former do.
Anyone blabbering on about "envy" is just revealing that they don't care about their fellow Americans half as much as they do adulating and worshipping any one America simply for being rich - as if that in itself proves how wonderful and magical their character is.
We never need what politicians dream up for their personal benefit.
Leftists think of money as a chemical element, forged in a nearby supernova eons ago. Each year only so much of the stuff drifts down to Earth where "the system" "distributes" it. The "rigged" system has distributed billions to this Republican, who is ipso facto a bad person, unlike say Steyer, Ellison, Page, Brin, Zuckerburg, Gates, Allen, Buffett, Bezos, and most of the rest of the Fortune 400. He has taken 48 million of these ill-gotten dollars and selfishly spent it on himself; which, to "spend" money in the leftist mind is to destroy it, like the splitting of an atom. That's what's unfair. The precious dollars could have been spent on the betterment of us all, through "universal" and "free" this or that good thing.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Mr. Kravis' work generates new wealth--new dollars--only a fraction of which return to him as a reward (the rest circulate through the economy in the form of paychecks and valuable goods and services--increased productivity and opportunity). When he spends his own money, say on a nice house, that too circulates and grows in the economy. His economic footprint is large, involving directly tens of thousands at least and more widely millions and serves as a large tax base for the federal and state governments. Taxed at reasonable and predictable rates this base will reliably generate public revenue and continue to grow year after year. Ms. Warren in her leftist idiocy would kill it. She cannot be brought to understand that, because she is playing God and it's just too much fun. Leftism is a Manichaean worldview. They are the light, the good, perfecting the world. They aren't interested in the reality of it. It's bad and needs to change. And EVERYONE needs to be on board. If you're not, you're evil. It really is that simple with them.
Jordan Riley said...
"Leftists think of money as a chemical element, "
Leftists belief all economics is a zero sum game. Warren is illustrating what Rusty likes to call, "The peasant economic fallacy" Peasants believe that there are only so many goods in the world and if you have more you must have stolen it from someone else. lftists believe that if you are wealthy you stole your wealth from others.
The left cannot grasp, "Rusty's theory of wealth" There is a nearly infinite amount of wealth. There are only so many dollars.
Which leads us to what Rusty likes to call,"The Scrooge McDuck fallacy of wealth." Nearly all leftists believe, if only instinctually, that if you are a billionaire that there is a room in your house just filled with piles of c-notes and Krugerands. That billionaires compete with each other for the size of their vault and how deep the pile is.
This is the economic acumen that the usual suspects display here every day. It's why they must never again run the country.
Anyone blabbering on about "envy" is just revealing that they don't care about their fellow Americans
Right. You tell us about how flooding the unskilled labor market is good for your fellow Americans who are unskilled laborers, or are you more worried about how your fellow Americans will get their estates beautifully manicured at a reasonable cost in labor?
She is entitled to the fruits of your hard work, and property.
The reason working Joe's like and support Trump and find Warren entirely counterfeit is because a gazillionaire who's comfortable with his wealth and has spent a good portion of his life sharing his knowledge and ideas of how to obtain and keep wealth with others (e.g., all those books his name is on) is a sight more attractive than a gazillionaire who peddles the politics of envy and pretends she's not one of the group she's pointing at and ginning up enmity against.
Warren is an insufferable cunt.
Hearing and reading the manifestos of Warren, AOC and the rest reminds me of some of the speeches Lenin used to make during the Russian civil war.
This makes me wonder what the country needs more of: shoes for poor children, or college professors who retire on 6 figure incomes while they are still young and healthy enough to work.
Lizzie's net worth estimated at $8M. I don't think she needs all that. If we're going to be giving financial haircuts I think the advocates should be first in line. I wouldn't be too draconian. Let her keep $500K or so.
Her $7.5M would fund the operation of the federal government (at the approximate current level of $4T per year) for almost a whole minute. Then all we need to do is confiscate the wealth form another 500,000+ folks and we've paid for a whole year. Then next year we can go find another half-million to confiscate $7.5M from. There's pretty much an unlimited supply of those, right?
Lizzie's net worth estimated at $8M, well within the evil, hated 2%. I don't think she needs all that. If we're going to be giving financial haircuts I think the advocates should be first in line. I wouldn't be too draconian. Let her keep $500K or so.
Her $7.5M would fund the operation of the federal government (at the approximate current level of $4T per year) for almost a whole minute. Then all we need to do is confiscate the wealth from another 500,000+ of those rich folks and we've paid for a whole year. Then next year we can go find another half-million to confiscate $7.5M from. There's pretty much an unlimited supply of those people, right? Us peons can have all kinds of free goodies paid for by confiscated wealth of those evil fat cats. It's genius.
Kravis should contribute a couple mil to Warren's campaign just to watch her squirm.
Kravis? What kind of nancy-boy puts in a little golf course when you could use the same space for a really nice shooting range???
Post a Comment