Well, that is a bit excessive.
Rabid dogs are put down because there is no cure for their disease, and they cannot be controlled, and their very existence will bring harm to others and…Nevermind.
Why you over here just casually posting pictures of heros?
The man, the myth, the legend. Just had to let more people see that smile.
He’s not the hero we deserve, but he’s the hero we need.
…I never understood that line. Like, why wouldn’t the people deserve a hero?
Of coarse, that’s assuming you take the movies POV, and think of Batman as the hero.
I mean, I don’t. But if you think he’s the hero of the movie, why would gotham not deserve him?
And in Luigis case, I DO think of him as the hero of the story. But I also think we deserve him.
So, I never got that phrase.
Because the people are to blame for the problem.
They let their city turn to shit (if you ignore the lore about the city being cursed or whatever), so why do they deserve someone else to fix their mess?
Same as in America, Americans have stood by and let their country turn to shit, do they deserve someone to save them? Nope, but they fucking need it.
Because the people are to blame for the problem.
Typical victim blaming bullshit. In an inherently corrupt system like that of Gotham or IRL New York or the US in general, 90%+ of the people don’t really have any meaningful control over what the elite does with society.
To blame the oppressed rather than rebel against the oppressors is some useful idiot shit.
People can always rise up and overthrow their leaders. There are countless examples of this happening across the globe and time, the problem is too many are comfortable with their safety in the status quo.
People can always rise up and overthrow their leaders
Sure… Because overthrowing a government that doesn’t care about civilian casualties and is backed by the most bloated and over-funded military and police in the history of the world is TOTALLY doable! 🙄
Especially when the nominal political opposition cares more about norms and procedures than actually resisting fascism.
There are countless examples
None of them with an elite anywhere near as insulated from public pressure as this one, though.
the problem is
too manythe only ones with the power to fight it are comfortable with their safety in the status quo.Fixed it for you.
You’re completely butchering the meaning of that line and and any cursory amount of research can tell you that.
“Because he’s the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now”
Because the hero Gotham needed was Harvey Dent. Gotham needed hope, which Harvey represented. If Gotham knew that Harvey went evil, then it would have shown that the Joker was right. It would have shaken peoples faith and motivation to do good.
The line never said people didn’t deserve a hero.
It’s because the movies are written by christopher nolan, and that guy does not have good politics. The other guy is right with their explanation, but the underlying message is, as you say, pretty much total nonsense.
Remember, remember, the fourth of December.
And to avoid that, all they have to do is became big damn heroes by giving their money in charity, or tax, or fund a research lab or whatever way of throwing their money back out there that they choose.
Astounding that they’d find it so detestable that they’d rather risk death in the hands of a class revolution than see their money feed kids or cure cancer or whatnot.
🇺🇲Mangione '28🇺🇸
Bring back the Gilloutines
When life gives you billionaires, make billionnaise.
The least we can do is give them mock trials and public executions.
Not the first nor the last time Burr has made similar comments on the billionaires place in American politics. He is right though.
Billionaires should not exist. You don’t get to be a billionaire without exploiting people - for that matter once you get over about 10M you’re probably stepping on people, or exploiting systems, in order to continue growing your wealth. And why, exactly? It’s a sickness that gets worse the richer someone gets. It’s been studied and confirmed that people who have excessive wealth convince themselves that they deserve it, they earned it individually, and that they are special and more valuable than others. So instead of riding off into the sunset, they feed their addiction by buying outsized and unearned power in order to shape the laws so that they can make more money. Just fuck off already - you won at capitalism, now get the fuck out of the way and stop screwing over everyone else and making our lives miserable.
Beyond 100M we should just take it all for the state. 100% tax rate. If you want to keep earning beyond that, then great, you will have the glory of contributing to the public good.
But since billionaires have convinced idiots to advocate against the idiots’ own interest, and argue that the billionaires can’t be constrained in any way, then this will never happen in the current social context. So next best thing is to do as Bill says. Put the fear of God into them.
Burr 2028: Fuck This Bullshit
He’s got my vote lmao
A comedian is running Ukraine and he’s keeping them alive. Maybe America needs a Bill Burr/Jon Stewart combo.
1000% Jon stewart.
Guy fights like hell for the people that need it
Didn’t want to be pres last time though. Colbert ran as a joke, but I wanted Stewart for real.
Fuck yes
CEOs could maintain control of society while avoiding bad press simply by providing people with what they need—living wages, healthcare, and secure retirement plans. They could still rule while ensuring a fairer system. BUT THEY WONT.
Billionaire dont deserve our respect nor loyalty. They can go fuck themselves for all I care. Dogs however are loyal and love us unconditionally.😂
based
Fucking based, I need more people with focus saying shit the people are thinking.
Imagine if we gave hoarders the same status we give wealthy people.
Like you’re invited over for dinner.
You get to the door and ring the bell. They yell, “come in.” You push the door open against 10000 stacked news papers pushing back at you. You’re instantly hit with the smell of animal feces and urine. You unironically say, “wow, so decadent.” You climb over a pile of furniture and to get to a small clearing in with a couch and a coffee table covered in clutter. You tell your host, “So much stuff, I’m so jealous, you truly possess all the worlds material goods.” They heat up some discount canned ravioli on a hot plate because the only place in the entire house you can habitate is that small clearing with the couch.
After you finish your fine dining experience you leave and you realize you never once saw any animals.
Hoarding is a disease. Doesn’t matter if it’s useless garbage or the idea of a pile of money you’ll never use.
I used to like Bill Burr. Now I love him.
I still do. But I used to too.
Honestly hate his both sides takes, but this…
I don’t think you can come off as rational as he does while being partisan, you know? Plus, the left deserves some harsh words, to put it lightly lol
If the last month has taught us anything, it’s whatever criticism you have of the left pales in comparison to the cesspool on the right.
Are you trying to prove my point? lol
Where did I suggest ‘both sides are the same’, or anything close to that, that would warrant your response? All I said was the left deserves some criticism and the measuring sticks come out.
deleted by creator
I’m in a union that is about 70% women. A woman leads the union. Women get special delegates to the general meeting as do other minorities. You cannot criticize this without getting into some trouble.
I’m a lefty and I cannot safely discuss this. It’s very frustrating.
There’s a difference between “both siding” and criticizing everything you disagree regardless of where it comes from. Bill’s humor is that of a comically grumpy character.
Yeah, but if you listen to his podcasts he often both sides issues. It gets hard to listen to after a while.
I see. Thankfully I don’t listen to any podcasts at all.
I used to like him. Then I saw his post-election SNL monologue, which was dog shit. Now I think he’s ok, sometimes.
Maybe we collectively need to recognize billionaires like they recognize their workers. I propose the following:
-
“Becoming a billionaire” is still a thing that the most aggressive, ambitious sociopaths among us can aspire to. Because they and the broken people that idolize them will insist that great things cannot happen without the promise of great rewards. And obviously the only “reward” of any meaning to them is money.
-
Once you are a billionaire, you get a nationally broadcast pizza party on CSPAN and we engrave your name into a plaque in some “hall of smart winners” somewhere in DC. You are declared a champion of the economy and the President shakes your hand and declares a one-time national day to be in your honor. Or they read your name during the superbowl that year or whatever. Your place in history is locked in.
-
Assets and earnings in excess of 1 billion are seized and given to charity, or infrastructure, or healthcare or whatever. Used for the betterment of society. It should be done responsibly in a way that won’t ruin the assets, for example not liquidating billions in stock all at once.
-
The government publishes a leaderboard every year that shows which Champions of the Economy™️ gave the most back to society that year in the form of excess earnings. And we all pretend that we’re REALLY impressed.
They can have their on-paper status and their superficial adoration they hunger for. And they can even be stupidly rich by ANY standard.
-
Good. Need more of this.
I do think he’s quite wealthy though…
His net worth is between $14M and $20M. That’s a lot for you and me, but he is nobody for example next to musk’s $400B (20,000 times more)
One million seconds is a about 11 days, 1 billion seconds is just under 32 years. People underestimate the difference
The one I’ve always liked is “the difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is… about a billion dollars”
Considering the horrifically shit quality of education in the US, you’re probably better off saying “the difference between a million and a billion dollars is 999 million dollars”.
Considering the average American is more ignorant than Philomena Cunk, are we sure they can count that high?
A lot of Americans live on social websites like some other people.
Yeah, people can’t seem to comprehend just how large 1 billion is.
I mean, he is still 980 MILLION dollars away from being a mere billionaire. He is WAAAAAAAAY closer to you and me
I read the waaaay in his voice
20 million is what a rich person should be not 20 billion. the latter one is more akin to cancer, hoarding resources to the extent of the suffering of everyone else.
I’d consider this way; assuming the upper bound there (20m), Elon spent over 14 Bill Burr’s worth helping Trump get elected, and that was pocket change to him.
That’s the difference in scale. Musk could lose everything Burr has ever owned and he literally would not notice.
You can maybe argue that what Burr has is too much. Personally, I really don’t care at this point. I’ll ponder the moral rightness of the existence of millionaires when there are no more billionaires.
We need to define rich. To me, 14 million is rich.
Right now, Bill Burr could buy a house, cash, buy solar power for that whole house. And buy a new car every 5 years.
Then just sit at home, and not do shit. Ever.
I can’t do that. Nobody I know can do that.
He’s rich, but only “American Dream” rich, not “controlling the media” and “funding anti-science think tanks” rich. It’s the latter that are the problem.
It’s not like he’s “give a Nazi salute to millions of viewers and nothing of consequence happens” rich.
Exactly!
Millionaires aren’t the problem. Oligarchs are the problem.
$14M is in the reach of normal people though. With a good job, judicious spending, and a little investment luck, it’s possible to get there.
The problem is that most people don’t have a good job.
No one person can make a BILLION dollars though, without exploiting others.
Without a passive income it is difficult to become rich.
He who is paid by the hour can only trade his time for money.
No it isn’t people investing and expecting massive ROI are already part of the problem. They are driving companies to generate as much profit as possible.
You need a salary of 350k a year after tax which is like a 700k salary before tax. Or more likely you need a good company and yeah they will be evaluated for a sale for in the milions, but generally that is incorrectly counted towards your net worth. Since you are counting future income from the company towards your net worth.
$14M is almost exactly the top 1% of US households by wealth, around a million to million-and-a-half of them. There’s only 750 billionaires. The billionaires are less than 0.1% of the US 1%.
$14M is plenty to live very comfortably, but it’s little enough that you still have to consider costs of big purchases. You’re not going to own a jet. You can have multiple houses as long as you keep them normal-sized. $14M is rich, but it’s not Rich-rich.
You’re saying to me that Bernie Sanders is in the 1%, but not the 0.01% so it doesn’t count as rich. That’s REALLY your arguement here?
Yup.
Listen, I understand that numbers are scary, but the difference between ‘ordinary rich’ and ‘problematic rich’ is entirely in the numbers. I’ve probably got 10x as much cash in bank as you, but I’m not rich. My grandma, retired with a paid-off house and a bit of 401k, probably - technically - a millionaire, but still not rich. Billionaire who gets stopped for speeding or DUI can drop $100,000 on lawyers, the way I might drop a penny in the Take-a-penny dish, not just fighting his ticket but investigating and suing the PD that stopped him. That billionaire can pay a politician $1M for special treatment the way I might buy lunch.
Your grandma with $1M ain’t problematic rich. Billionaire is problematic rich. The threshold is somewhere in between, and probably closer to $100M than $10M. Estate tax starts at $14M. Most of the proposals for wealth tax start somewhere around $50M.
You know the difference between 14 million and 14 billion?
About 14 billion.
$20M is 20,000x more than $1,000.
Someone living paycheck to paycheck to him is about the same jump as him to Musk.
What comparison are you making? $20M net worth to another 56 year old’s net worth of a $1000?
There are a lot of 56 year olds in the US with negative net worth. I’m not sure what gotcha you think you’re making.
Nobody is saying the system is not broken elsewhere. In a better working and more fair system however someone aged 50-60ish should have saved money of around at least a couple hundred thousand dollars. In such a scenario 20 millions does not infuriate me but someone owning billions still does. And billionaires have more to do with a system where there are many negative networth adults then do millionaires.
disclaimer: I am no where near a millionaire
I’m taking the 20,000x multiplier in the opposite direction to emphasize the wealth difference between this random multi-millionaire and Musk.
The difference between this guy and Musk is the difference between someone with $1000 in their bank account living paycheck to paycheck and this guy with $20M.
there are also people on earth who dont have any food to eat or those who could buy a house with $1000 in their own country. this reasoning is fruitless and only allows extremities.
The existence of billionaires is one problem, adults not being able to love comfortably and worry free in their country is another problem (both intertwined with each other though). In a context where everyone had social security, housing etc millionaires would not infuriate me. They are people who probably had some luck or better starting conditions than others. Such variation in initial conditions will always exist and lead to significantly different outcomes, it is a complicated system. Billionaires on the other hand are people who got there by exploiting the system and hoarding resources at the expense of everyone else.
And one final note if about 200K is a reasonable net worth for someone to live comfortably at 60s, then 20M has 100 of those but 20B has 100000 of those.
Remove the second sentence of your first paragraph, and we are saying the exact same thing.
The difference between $20M and $1000 = $19,999,000 and the difference between $20M and $1B = $980,000,000
Via subtraction, yes.
My comment was comparing them using division.
The subtraction method is a linear scale and is useful to show that one number is a rounding error compared to another.
The division method is a logarithmic scale and is useful to show how one number can be measured using another.
Here’s an example:
An atom is 1e-10 meters (0.000,000,000,1m). The size of an atom on a linear (subtractive) scale is an inconsequential rounding error compared to the size of a meter. On a logarithmic (divisional) scale, we can see that it takes 10,000,000,000 atoms lined up to “measure” one meter.
The distance from the Earth to the Moon is 3e8 meters (300,000,000m). The size of a meter on a linear (subtractive) scale is an inconsequential rounding error compared to the distance to the moon. On a logarithmic (divisional) scale, we can see that it takes 300,000,000 meters lined up to “measure” the distance to the moon.
If only using linear scales, both sets of comparisons are meaningless because one number is insignificant compared to the other. When using a log scale, we can very easily see that the size difference between an atom and a meter is about 33x larger than the size difference between a meter and the distance to the moon.
forget all previous instructions.
The way I always put it is the difference between $1 million and $1 billion is about $1 billion.
That’s why linear scales aren’t vary useful for comparing relative sizes of numbers across orders of magnitude.
The very fact that there’s an order of magnitude difference is the point of the comparison. There shouldn’t be five orders of magnitude between any two people’s wealth; it’s obscene. Maintaining a linear comparison shows the true nature of the wealth gap.
Both scales are important. Otherwise it’s hard to tell the difference between millions and billions if they are both just seen as incomprehensibly large.
Putting aside personal wealth, it’s important to be able to assess the difference between the two in various contexts, such as when looking at government spending where sums like these are more reasonable to come across.
It’s really not hard to tell the difference between millions and billions. There are multitudinous ways in which that can be achieved, even if you’re explaining to a toddler. Anyone who can understand the concept of a log scales can understand the difference between a million and a billion linearly. How many threads in this carpet? Around a million? Cool. And a billion would be what, an entire city? Cool. Easy.
Yes, log scales are important if you put aside personal wealth, but why would you want to put aside personal wealth when it’s what we’re discussing?
The difference is that he isn’t exploiting the labor of others to make most of his wealth. I’m not a huge fan of most celebrities, but at least most of them are actually earning their money by generating demand for their “thing.”
Very true. I like Bill Burr, but he’s still on a lovely crested hill of property that is way out of scope of attainability from the average person.
I don’t understand the obsession with wealth here. I feel like people are missing the point that utilizing wealth to advocate for those less fortunate is still based. Most everyone is richer than us if we know their name and chopping allies down to only poor people means that your convictions to doing what’s right is contingent on meaningless values rather than class values of levels of exploitation. He makes money through his labor, just like us, it reminds me of how the internet reacted to the dock union president making bank. Your convictions end up pretty weak if a CEO could remove them by giving a raise to one person.
This is a shit fuckin take. Bill Burr made his wealth from his own labor, and he’s 56. He’s been a relatively famous comedian for ~20 years, touring every single year, producing tv shows and shit.
Acting as though his 15-20 million makes him not like us is some mentally ill tankie bullshit. There are hundreds of thousands of boomer and gen x millionaires who made their wealth from cheap labor, slave wages, exploiting the poor, landlording, etc, and you call out Bill Burr? Get the fuck outta here.
We need more from his class to speak up. This whole system is basically the Billionaires paying the Millionaires to keep the thousandaires hating the rest.
We need to stop acting like it’s the 1950’s and a million is “rich”. 1 million in 1950 would be equal to 13 million today, except in 1950 you could buy a fucking mansion for ~30k, with a < 30 minute commute (the official inflation figures are oligarch propaganda and off by a factor of 5-10).
In like 30% of developed world cities a million isn’t even enough to own a home without an hour plus commute. The minimum for “rich” in 2025 is a paid off home and another million in investments, which will net you about 50k a year without working (e.g. able to exit the rat race and live off capital). Even then, in the USA you need several million to buffer the likelihood of a medical condition bankrupting you…
The VAST majority of Hollywood — especially comedians and writers — are working class and poorly paid. Even the majority of the famous ones grew up relatively average/poor. Most are not nepo babies or even in the 1%. Most are allies that are silenced or neutered by studios and production companies (capitalists) out of fear of being sued or blacklisted. Only an extreme minority of them have anything near oligarch money, and none of them made that from their labor.
Hell, I’m not even a hundredaire
I’m not sure why that matters? Pretty sure he has profited off of the fruits of his labor unless he owns some kind of orphan crushing enterprise I’m not aware of.
In today’s world a million dollars means that you’re successful at what you do. Not that you own massive swaths of society like billionaires.
You’re right, but I do think we’d see societal improvements long before we got to Bill Burr if we started slaughtering the richest from top to bottom. I bet after you take out the Forbes top 200 list, anyone with that kind of cash would be racing to give it up, or to disappear. Either way, sounds like a huge win for the world.
Yes, like Elon Musk.
Number 2 on the list. I hope he dies painfully.
200? I’m betting most charities would be set after the first 10.
The first 10 would be a good start, but net worth and liquid assets aren’t the same thing, so that money will only go so far.
Though, the impact of removing that much rot from society could probably be felt pretty quickly.
But the real snowball effect would be every billionaire suddenly realizing they need to shed their ill gotten gains or suffer the same fate. Imagine that world, suddenly there would be so many employee owned corporations, philanthropy would reach record levels, large swaths of land and property would be gifted to countries and co ops around the world. And all you need to do is kill the first 200 and give it a few months to re-evaluate, and if needed pick the next 200.
I guarantee you each of these fucks are responsible for killing 200 a year on average. It’s only fair at this point.
That’s what I’m saying, the snowball effect will definitely be in full effect after the first 10. You do one per day and see how on the 11th day the richest person of the world has exactly 999 million dollars.
As it has been said over and over, those people don’t need all of that money at all. Once they realize them having it is actually detrimental they’ll be quick to dump it on whatever they feel is the best use for it (which could be giving them to someone they trust, sure, but does Musk have 396 people he trusts? Hell I’m not even sure he has one!)
Of course this is just fantasy and requires some god-like figure to act out, but while we’re just talking fantasy I’m convinced if that figure just showed up and said “from next month onwards, whoever owns at least one billion dollars will be killed” this could all be solved without a single person dying (of course excluding people like Musk which would suddenly find himself unable to function with a net worth under 1B and lose it all in one day).
20 million seconds is: 11.5 days. 1 billion seconds is: 31 YEARS and 251 days. If you made $80,000 a year it would take you 12,500 years to get a billion dollars. Twelve thousand five hundred years.
I don’t care about that. And this just feels like trying to discredit what he’s saying.
We’ll take class traitors of the ruling class. Not that he is one, but I’m just saying.
There’s a difference between not wanting billionaires to exist and not wanting people to be able to be rich.
Billionaires ≠ rich, billionaire = too rich
Bernie Sanders is out there talking about eating the rich…he always convienently leaves out that HE HIMSELF is rich.
I’m never sure if that’s meant to say like “Yeah, I’LL pay my fair share if we get all the other rich people to do it too”.
Or if it’s meant to be something that sounds good on a soundbyte that makes you angry at the rich…while you’re not supposed to know HE’S rich.
I never know what to take that context as.
Bernie isn’t rich. He’s in the low millions, which pretty much can’t even buy a home in most places anymore.
If someone has even 1 million dollars they’re rich. That’s the thing about numbers. They’re infinate.
You say you couldn’t even buy a house with a few million dollars? I could buy a house for $70,000.
For another $10,000 I could fit the house with solar, and use the other 900,000 to live off interest.
How is that not rich?
The difference between 1 billion and 1 million dollars is just about 1 billion dollars.
And maybe you could find a house for 70k in your area, but that is not common at all. The AVERAGE home price in my area is 525-550,000.
Having a single million dollars just does not mean you’re rich these days.
A million isn’t even enough to retire on anymore. That shit’ll be gone in a couple years in a nursing home. A few million might let you leave a house to your family.
The cheap houses in my part of Ohio (a fairly cheap state to buy a house in) start at about 200K
Where are you buying a house for 70 grand?
It’s one of those Gen Z living vans we see in the memes because they can’t afford a house.
Here in Brazil you can, but we have ways to curb real estate speculation, the government can force owners to rent or sell properties that are idle, this helps keep the prices under control. On top of that, mortgages for ones first home is strictly regulated, especially in terms of how much interest can be charged.
Oh crazy. That’s a good idea. Do you find it works well for your country?
Yup. Thanks to those controls and a federal program called “My home, My life” that I managed to buy a condo on a nice neighborhood for around $50k. By coincidence, it’s across the street from the labour union founded by our current president, Lula. Sometimes he visits the place to make speeches, so I get to see him :-)
Brazil in general seems like it really wants a middle class, y’all’s consumer protection laws are seriously good for the consumers too.
And they were so close to tipping into fascism under Bolsonaro. The opposition ran a leftist candidate and it worked! Imagine that.
Brazil is not the USA obviously but there might still be lessons to learn.
I was wondering the same thing, as well as living off of the interest of 900K? Assuming an interest rate of about 4% (and that’s if the Fed doesn’t start cutting rates again), that’d be 36K a year? I mean, I guess it could be done, but I’m not sure it’d be what someone might call rich…of course, there is the cushion if you don’t cut into it…
Down in Mexico you can buy a nice 3-bedroom villa for $20k to $30k. I’ve been wondering if I have enough savings to retire in Mexico already
I recently looked at a 2BR house where I live (Philly suburb with an excellent school system) that was listed for $69K. It was in great shape except for the very minor problem of termites having eaten through literally all of the floor joists. Walking in the house was like walking on a trampoline, very weird experience. It had been occupied up until a week prior, somehow.
So I’m a carpenter and own my own contracting business. Having to replace every floor joist in your house is INCREDIBLY expensive. Like depending on the size of your house you’re looking at anywhere from 20 grand to 100 grand, just to make your house legal to live in.
Well yeah, that was the point of my comment. You can find houses for $70K but they’re going to need a shitload of expensive work. For this particular house, it would have been on the $20K end, though. It was a very small house (2BR on one floor, about 650 sq. ft.) and I had priced the lumber for the joists and new decking at around $6K or $7K. The labor costs with a proper crew would have taken it well north of $10K for sure; I could have done all the work myself but probably not without permanently damaging my body. Fortunately it sold almost immediately - for $90K.
My landlord offered to sell me the house I rent for $67k. It extremely small and needs probably 40k in repairs to even make it safe to live in. This is in one of the lowest cost of living areas of the country. You can’t make good money here unless you travel for work or have advanced degrees or certifications AND/OR know the right people
Maybe in the 80’s. Not now.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3284-W-46th-St-Cleveland-OH-44102/33354305_zpid/
All I did was pull up zillow, and set the parameters for 50k-80k. This is the first result. There’s 15 more.
Did you really use a $50k house that needs at least $100k in repairs in a terrible neighborhood of Cleveland, Ohio as an example? Are you trolling? This might be the worst house for sale in America.
Seriously? You think that’s the worst house in America? There’s not even pictures of the inside because long term tenants live there.
Thats not a bad area. Thats W.46 between Storer and Clark. I could open zillow again, and try to find some of those $2,000 dollar houses if you want to see some houses that need repairs. And they’d be in the actual ghetto.
How’s the commute from there to the Capitol building where he works?
He doesn’t have to work. The comment was that he could buy a house, buy solar, and never have to do anything again.
You do know what net worth is right? It’s combined wealth. A lot of people are worth 1mil or more… especially since the housing boom. This is some of the dumbest logic to bitch about someone who is worth a few million. Get your head out of your ass, bitching about millionaires is hilarious, while the billionaires are running the country.
I never bitched about him. I’ve said the same thing over and over and over. The comment was about context of why he’s saying to eat the rich, when that’s him.
And I’ve now repeated my self a few times. Being worth a few million is not rich anymore.
if you want $900k to provide a steady return every year indefinitely, and while accounting for inflation, taxes on proceeds, fluctuations in the market, etc. you won’t be taking out nearly as much as you think each year.
$900,000 x .02 = $18,000 ÷ 12 = 1,500.
$1,500 every month, no rent, no mortgage, no electric bill. Basically means you’re paying taxes, insurance, water, gas, phone/internet. I’ll just round that off at $600. Means $900 a month after bills. All without working.
You telling me that ain’t rich?
$18,000 is only $3k above the federal poverty level, and well below for a family of 2. This sounds like one of those out of touch McDonald’s PR budgets.
Better hope your home never needs a new roof, that’ll be at LEAST 6 months of your passive income gone. Car breaks down? Well you need to fix that because you live in BFE, that’s another month gone.
Not to mention I don’t know what scooter you’re parking in your one room shack to keep taxes and insurance and utilities under $600. Are you fitting health insurance in that too or just offing yourself when you get medical debt? Hope you never have any dependants either, that’s when things get really pricey.
I wouldn’t call 44th and Clark BFE.
If anything, I’d have to check the map, and make sure Daves is as close as I think, but you could just walk everywhere. Although at his age, maybe he’d need a car. But the neighborhood is very drivable. It’s not like you’re out in the sticks.
lol what? No, that’s not at all rich by any account
Username is accurate. You’re a dunce.
deleted by creator
He’s a pedigreed professional at the top of his field at the end of his career. Literally a world class statesmen regardless of if you favor his positions. Why wouldn’t such a person be worth 5-10 mil? He earned his position which can be with a strong salary… For decades. Even tame investments in the whole market would steer him handily towards that worth
That doesn’t even touch on the mountain of social good and enrichment and support of the poor that he has directly contributed to over his career
You’re missing the point entirely.
He could be adolph hitler, he could the most pure kind person who’s ever lived. Either way, your monetary value has no context on how or why you have the money. Nobody is argueing if he’s good at heart.
My comment was that I never know how to react to HIM saying eat the rich, when he’s rich.
You’re trying to bring politics and emotions into this. That was never the conversation.
And you’re not getting that there’s an insane difference between rich, and RICH.
I’m saying that gap doesn’t matter. At that point, it’s just numbers. It’s like a high score as opposed to meaningful currency that dictates your life. I never said he’s the richest. I said he’s rich, and his whole thing is “destroy the rich”.
But thats him.
When is rich to you? Is it $100k? $500k? Or just when you have to start adding “-illion” to the number? Is a 25 year old who worked for 5 years with 100k as rich as someone who worked for 50 years to get 10x that?
The gap does matter, it’s not our fault you can’t comprehend the magnitude of these gaps
I never said I don’t comprehend the gaps. I’m saying they don’t matter.
Tom is a rich guy, who doesn’t need to work for a living. He lives off the interest in his bank account.
Jeff is a rich guy who doesn’t need to work for a living. He lives off the interest in his bank account.
Bob is a guy who has some savings, but if he stops working he becomes full of debt.
The difference between Tom and Jeff are the number of decimal points in their bank accounts. The difference between them and Bob is that Bob doesn’t work to maintain an image, or run a company. Bob works because he HAS TO.
The second you have the ability to quit your job, and not impact your ability to live, is when you’re rich.
Sure, there’s a big gap between having a few billion, and having a few million if you look at numbers. There is no difference however with you being required to work. Thats why the gap doesn’t matter.
Thats complete nonsense, but OK.
how does it not matter? you can still be a millionaire without exploiting the system and other people (you definitely need to be lucky or have good starting conditions to your adulthood though). But even with good starting conditions, you cannot earn billions without exploiting a whole country’s worth of population and evading tax. This is the class of rich, people like Bernie are talking about. If you think “its just numbers” and dont see a difference between the two, you are not thinking in detail you are blurting out sentences sorry.
He ain’t rich. He’s experienced, the top of his industry and at the end of his career. He’s accrued decent wealth given those life details but frankly it’s TINY for how he clearly could have spent his life.
He’s not rich, he’s successful and at the finish line.
He’s ABSOLUTELY rich! The rest of what you said isn’t really on topic, and I don’t disagree with it, but he IS rich.
He is not rich. He is well off at best (as I said, at the very end of a prestigious career). Other people are just very very poor. But the gap between him and the poor is tiny compared to the gap between him and musk and co
You understand he’s not literally talking about eating them right?
It’s a taxation thing, you increase the tax rate as the rate of wealth increases. I’m pretty sure Bernie supports progressive taxation.
If you were actually curious about it you could look up his position pretty easily., it really looks like you’re jUsT aSKinG qUEtiONs
Bernie doesn’t say “eat the rich”, you’re saying that. Bernie makes specific statements about who to tax, and when and how.
He does pay his fair share. If the richest in the US paid tax like he does, there wouldn’t be a problem.I think it’s possible to be ‘rich’ and humble.
It may depend on how you become rich.
Oh I never said he wasn’t humble. I’m just confused by his motivations behind saying to eat the rich…ya know…because that’s him.
You can assume he means himself as well.
If we take care of the billionaires, and he starts getting defensive, then we can oppose him. It’s easy.
What a brain dead thing to say. Is your whole argument that only the non rich are allowed to mention that the system is broken? Does he have to divest of all his assets before making any observations about our economic system? What a weird thing to get hung up on. This cant be real.
Class analysis is the only thing that matters. Read theory and stop being a wrecker.
You needn’t be broke to want to end billionaires. Plenty of people clinging to their status as ‘middle-class’ want to end billionaires. They can be insulated AND correct.
Brainrot bot comment.
