Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Zuckerberg may have more wealth than 28Million households combind

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 2, 2011, 1:56 p.m. EST by stephenadler (118)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


If Zuckerberg attains more wealth than 24% of the lowest income families combined, when Facebook IPOs, doesn't that say something about our system? Our politicians are fighting tooth and nail, so that Zuckerberg can hold onto all his wealth, because why? he's going to create more jobs? If his wealth created jobs for 24% of the families across the country then I would certainly agree that his wealth is deserved, but FB only has 3000+ employees (according the wikipedia). This kind of capital hoarding is what is breaking our country.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 10 years ago

Who cares? If the tax system is broken fix it. Get up and find people to properly represent you and elect them to make changes. As long as your actions are limited to raising awareness of inequities, they will be ineffective. There is this movement, get it better organized, pick a goal, and make some political change happen.

[-] 3 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

Zuckerberg's "fortune" is not a pile of dollars...it's all contained in the enterprise of Facebook, if he tried to convert it into dollars by selling his shares, they would quickly become worthless, and if others bought a controlling share of the company and he was edged out, the shares would drop in value as well....don't make the mistake of equating "wealth" with actual, liquid, spendable, money.....it's not the same, and cannot be compared to those 24% of lowest income families...because: what have THEY added to society? did they create something out of nothing like Zuckerberg did? He created a social network that brought 800 million people back in touch with old friends/family, and allowed them a forum to discuss whatever topics they wished to discuss, share their lives, and make new friends and acquaintances... if you can come up with and equivalent value to society that those other 28 million persons created, I'm glad to here it, but you can't....so stopped bashing Zuckerberg for being successful

[-] 1 points by fandango (241) 10 years ago

What it says about our system is that if you have a product or service the public wants,.................you will do well. Why are you against success?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

the man should try setting up a parallel voting system

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 10 years ago

We need a People's Social Network:


[-] 1 points by stephenadler (118) 10 years ago

We need a peer to peer social network interface designed so that one cannot sell peoples personal data to the highest bidder...

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 10 years ago
[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 10 years ago

Precisely so.

Free / Open Source, open architecture, crowd-sourced, cloud-based, opaque / private.


[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 10 years ago

Well, what's stopping you? Oh, you don't know how. So it's back to "somebody should do something...!"

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

And, Apple Computers has more money in the bank than the U.S. Treasury. I agree with you. Something is wrong with this picture.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I have more money in the bank than the US Treasury....the US Treasury is 15.1 trillion dollars in the hole....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

LOL! Good point. But, the U.S. Treasury operates with a cash balance of something like $73 billion.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 10 years ago

It's wrong to be successful and provide a quality product that people like to use now?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

No, but it's definitely weird that we're all paying so much for their products while they are running away with so much profit. Consumers need to be more informed so they don't get ripped off. I'm sure Apple Computers would be just as happy to have 1/2 the profit they have made over the years, and consumers, would be better off. If only we knew when we were paying $2000 for a laptop or $300 for an IPod touch what percent was profit.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 10 years ago

I have had 2 macbooks, which have both outlasted the pc's of the same price my friend bought, they both are out of the box better for programming, and they constantly work. They offer a solid product. I don't fault them for making huge profits.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

Sorry. We disagree. I do. I feel ripped off.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

yeah..if you only knew...Apple Inc...one of the highest profiting corp's in existence gets about 24 cents per dollar in profit.....most major corp's are in the single cent per dollar range...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

Are we supposed to worship people who make money? I couldn't care less about people who make money. That is not what I value in people.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

no, money is the reward for contribution...respect the contribution that creates the value we call money...

What do you value in people? their ability to diminish the efforts of others to justify their own lack of contribution?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

I value people with virtues that portray moral excellence. The four cardinal virtues are a good place to start: prudence (wisdom), justice, fortitude and temperance.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

capitalism exemplifies all of those things...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

We don't have true capitalism here. We have capitalism that favors the wealthy who get to buy our government so that it works in their favor. That is not fair at all.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

that is a tired and overused line....the government is still at the mercy of the voters.....and not in the pockets of the "rich" as you contend. Most politicians are ready and willing to do whatever they need to do to get elected....the problem is with government...

You do know it was largely Wall Street money that got FDR elected, and opposed Hoover in 28..right? "The Rich" using their funds to bankroll politicians is nothing new, and....if a candidate is pro-business and is funded by wealthy businessmen...wins and votes of pro-business policies...he isn't being "bought" he is doing what he campaigned to do...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

I agree and you are making my point for me. Just because this has gone on and on doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it. And, it has gotten worse in recent years with the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people and that money is equal to speech.


[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I know all about the Citizens United decision....I read it, and it doesn't say that corporations are people.....the case that established the rights of "personhood" to corporations under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).....

The Citizens United case was argued about "issue" advertisements, the old law (McCain-Feingold) restricted them to no closer than 60 days before an election...

the only thing that that case changed was the 60 day prohibition, nothing more...not direct donations to candidates, campaign finance limits, running adds naming candidates, for candidates, or that money is free speech....none of those things...which are commonly attributed to the decision.

The argument was based partly on the fact that a for-profit propaganda film, like those by Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11, was referenced in the case) are unregulated while any considered “electioneering communications.” were...and they found that distinction unfair,,,,as did the SCOTUS

I don't usually use wikipedia as a source, but it's convenient and their page is accurate to the facts, check for yourself:


[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23615) 10 years ago

I think wikipedia is fine. I'm no expert in this area and you've quite confused me but I'll research further and check out your link. My understanding is that money equaling speech is a recent decision and that is is a recent happening that Super PACs can accept "secret donations."

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 10 years ago

I agree. it's obscene.

[-] 1 points by jaimes (86) 10 years ago

What it says is that he has a sucessful product.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 10 years ago

stephenadler....i did not see this anywhere on the news ...jeez thank for telling me that the govt is trying to do somethng to save zuckerberg his money...ok now tell me where?when? are they meeting to vote on this? Are they moving this to the senate? Please let me know so I can try ,to stop them. God this is nuts if they really are trying to do this,what politicians,Obama,Boehner?PLEASE let me know how they are trying PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!! (and no I am not joking if this is happenig its F*G NUTZ!!!!!)

[-] 1 points by stephenadler (118) 10 years ago

Don't be silly, I'm referring to the GOP not willing to let the Bush era tax cuts expire, close loop holes to the corporations which allow large companies like GE pay 0 taxes etc. Basically the GOP either wants to keep the capital gains tax at about 15% or even eliminate it. All the money Zuckerberg is going to make is through what is called capital gains. His pay check is not going to be 10 Billion dollars, its the worth of the shares he owns in FB.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 10 years ago

Wel thats different than see yes the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that Obama did not do away with yes ...that LAW allows it ...so the GOVT is not "fighting tooth and nail" as you put it for Zucekrberg to keep his money. It is a law thats already in affect and he has all right to. Again do I agree with the exact wording of that law no,but,it is a law. Do I think it NEEDS to be changed yes,but for now it is a law.

[-] 1 points by LoveAndRespect (106) 10 years ago

It's not about demanding handouts to resolve inequality...it's about inspiring the 1% that the 100% would be collectively happier if we did things out of love rather than fear & greed

[-] -1 points by morons123 (131) 10 years ago

that is a very fancy way of asking for a handout.

[-] 1 points by LoveAndRespect (106) 10 years ago

i'm not asking for money, i'm not demanding anything from anyone. i'm doing everything i can to be of service to humanity, and that inspires others. it isn't about controlling people, or being controlled, it's about individual and collective liberation.

[-] 0 points by morons123 (131) 10 years ago

if i may ask, how are you exactly servicing humanity?

[-] 1 points by LoveAndRespect (106) 10 years ago

i work everyday to help people through counseling, cooking, providing transportation, shelter, holistic health services, yoga & meditation instruction, building solution-oriented visionary networks, promoting people's events, co-producing community events, being a source of information and inspiration, teaching about permaculture, community gardens, local agriculture, the connections between our food, water, energy and monetary systems, writing articles, making videos, and simply loving all people.

not that one should have to justify themselves...but i felt that you might have been sincere in your question despite being sarcastic previously.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

Do you encourage them to become better people and contribute more to society? are you teaching them that they can make a contribution beyond their own needs and help others with products and services that make life easier and more enjoyable, and for doing that they can keep a small portion of what they produce and equitably trade with others....

That is what capitalism does.....

[-] 1 points by LoveAndRespect (106) 10 years ago

capitalism doesn't do it...people do...

[-] 1 points by LoveAndRespect (106) 10 years ago

capitalism itself isn't as broken as the centralized and privatized financial system and the globalization / military industrial complex that lives off it...

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

and the centralized nanny state that seduces people into giving up their self-interest and initiative for a benefit, and then holds them hostage to that benefit, not allowing them to attempt to create value or they will lose the pittance they are given...although, this benefit is mixed with enough messages about "you can't make it with out the government" and "the rich are keeping you down, by stealing what you have", etc, etc....that most rarely try....

But, it is those who have truly tasted lack and scarcity that are usually the most success when they decide to throw off that bondage...

Our financial system is so centralized and regulated that it could hardly be called private any longer.....The federal reserve and the various regulations (of which there are thousands and thousands) control every activity undertaken by banks, even when "Deregulated" which was only an exchange of regulations not true "deregulation" they were still required to perform exactly as the centralized government decreed, except in investment vehicles...which are voluntary participation instruments....

The change in Glass Steagall that allowed banks, insurance, and investment houses to merge, while still maintaining FDIC protection, and FORCED (under threat and punishment of inability to compete and merge with other institutions) them to issue loans to normally unworthy borrowers, or loans in excess of the ability to repay to semi-worthy borrowers....that was the genesis of the financial crisis...

Now, had interest rates been high enough that banks would have used deposit funds to write the loans (rather than be able to borrow them more cheaply from the fed) or if the banks were not regulated as to what they must do (what bank would make a bad loan, on-purpose, without being insured against the loss? I'll help you...NONE) then there would have been more responsible issuing of mortgage loans, and no crisis...

See, regulation is a funny thing, if it creates a list of no-no's that's one thing, and some of that makes a lot of sense in certain industries, but when it starts dictating what MUST be done, that is when you get people tunneling under the fence and going over the wall to find alternate "unregulated" ways to conduct business.....banks aren't charities that allow the average hipster to keep his $92.37 balance, living paycheck to paycheck, use the debit card issued by the bank, and have access to his accounts online to see if he has just enough to get a new pair of chucks.... Those people don't make the bank any money, only those with a reasonable amount of savings create profit for the banks, and those who take out loans.....we need to stop with al this contrived system crony capitalism that rewards on the buddy system, and punishes those not aligned with the bureaucratic mindset, or political will, of the current moment...

Yes the system is broken, but it wasn't broken by those charged with the damage by those in the Occupy Movement....it has been broken little by little over 70-100 years by the progressive, encroaching centralized nanny/welfare state and those who seek to expand it, to cement their power over larger groups of people....

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 10 years ago

i was being sincere

[-] 1 points by LoveAndRespect (106) 10 years ago

thank you, sincerity is definitely appreciated :-)

[-] 1 points by glaucom (6) 10 years ago

Problem solved--- take his stuff and give it to the 28 million. and do the same with all the other corrupt greedy bastards.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

and destroy facebook and all the other entities that that wealth represents, and give it to those who produce nothing for greater society and only are willing to labor for their own meager existence....

See, earned wealth is a small portion of a service or product provided for others...you cannot find a fortune where the owner of that fortune did not provide 5-10-100 times the value to others that he gained for himself...and you call those who provide a huge amount of services, jobs and products to others "greedy" because they keep a very small fraction of that production....and those who use up all they produce and demand more, without equitable effort in exchange.....are generous, and temperate? is that what you're trying to say?

[-] 1 points by glaucom (6) 10 years ago

I believe that the problem can't be fixed- the system won't allow it to be modified-- there for the only solution is to destroy all of it and rebuild from scratch- a system based on fairness for all.

your comment proves that is the only solution-

[-] 1 points by MBJ (96) 10 years ago

Worth noting that he's also pledged to give half his wealth to charity.

Good for him, for making the money and for sharing it.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 10 years ago

Although I tend to agree with you I think you cannot ignore the impact that FB has had on millions of businesses. They have millions of employees. Networking has changed the face of the economy but mostly as a safety net when all else failed to sustain some modicum of the business we once had in this country. The internet allows for many a average citizen to become an entrepreneur. Hoarding is wrong. You are right there.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago

He has brought laughter to millions of people all around the world. If you don't like it then don't watch his damned movies.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Yes Mark Zuckerberg created a lot of jobs. Not just at facebook, but also the newly-hired staff at corporations like Microsoft or GM that create advertising for the site. Facebook is also helping to save an industry (radio) that almost died, but now uses the site to increase interaction between DJs and their listeners.

Also it's inaccurate to say he "owns" 24 billion. He owns stock that has a potential future value of 24 billion, but if facebook eventually falls-out of fad like myspace and geocities did, then that stock might only be worth a few pennies each.

(Kinda like what happened when my 401K became a 101K.) Zuckerberg's REAL wealth, in actual paper money, is several million. Not billion.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 10 years ago

What would you gain if all the wealth of the 1% were confiscated? Answer: "ZERO".

[-] 0 points by randart (498) 10 years ago

Facebook has baffled me since I first heard about it. To me there is no reason for his rocket ship ride to wealth. The site really sucks for the most part and seems to be getting worse.

One thing that I have noticed when I do use FB is that the page never seems to finish loading. My paranoid little mind wonders what the wizards are doing behind the screen. Why is a site like FB worth anything at all? I don't get it except that they are providing someone more info than they are letting on.

Oh gee! Look at the ugly sweater Aunt Mary knitted for her cat! Has to be worth at least a million for Zukerberg.

[-] 0 points by leavethecities (318) 10 years ago

I do know zuckerberg called the users of facebook stupid f*cks.

[-] 0 points by leavethecities (318) 10 years ago

I dont like facebook.

[-] 0 points by irsfaggot (171) 10 years ago

Anybody that uses FACEBOOK is an idiot. Today its the #1 tool used by police and CIA/NSA

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 10 years ago

And this site is immune? LOL

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 10 years ago

Most of my "stats" on facebook are either lies or blank. I don't like having all that information out in the open for government usage. (Corporations? I really don't care. They can't throw me in jail.)

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 10 years ago

This demonstrates that market valuation is a farce. There is no way that little intelligence gathering operation is worth that much. Money is make believe.

[-] 1 points by stephenadler (118) 10 years ago

Remember the Internet Bubble? We're in the social media bubble...

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 10 years ago

I think these are very different phenomena. The dot com bubble was broad based and took out a whole lot of people's fortunes. Zuckerberg is connected. This seems like much more of a calculated scam.

[-] 0 points by littlerichard (0) 10 years ago

Open Space online at http://occupyxmas.net. Putting together theories and plans to attack the economic inadequacies that the 99% have to deal with.



[-] 0 points by barb (835) 10 years ago

People could easily take away his success by not using facebook anymore. Its that easy!

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago



You can bet your ass he's not handing everyone over for free, or merely patriotism to Israel!

and of course if you question how eBay is able to be the world's largest "legal" fence of stolen, embezzled and felony modified merchandise, do a bit of research, they will set your private business and personal information to ANYONE in law enforcement upon receipt of a fax request.

That's right, eBay will hand over, to the lowliest Barney Fife in Nowheresville, all your information and even your banking information (via their sister company paypal) upon receipt of said request. That happened before the year 2000.

Google, you should know, is funded by the NSA and started by NSA employees, and it's real mission is guided by the Total Information Awareness program. Yep, read it and then think about what capabilities your android phone has, just the capabilities of which you are aware.



Apple too sets everyone out and mines all data to get those huge tax credits and tax holidays!

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 10 years ago

You know the linked story about Zuckerberg being a secret agent was a satire article by The Onion. It is a joke story.



[-] 0 points by morons123 (131) 10 years ago

I think Zuckerberg should send you a check. Why don't you put together your expenses and send it over to him. He has no right making all of that money and not sharing some of it with you.

[-] 1 points by stephenadler (118) 10 years ago

I'm glad you posted this, because this is not the point. We live in a society where we hand over authority to our government for the purpose of making our lives better. What I mean by better is that we have a police force to take care of criminals, we have a court system to take care of legal disputes between neighbours, we have a system of public education to educate our children, etc, etc. Without this, it would all be chaos and we would all need guns to protect ourselves from everyone one else. And it costs money to run the government which is put in place for our benefit.

These kinds of civil services require money, and what's happening is that people like Zuckerberg are being coddled so that they can make more and more money, but they don't pay a proportional amount back into "the system" or our government. Thus our government is going broke because the other 99% are loosing their income and cannot effectively pay for what Zuckerberg is not contributing. If the Zuckerbers of the world paid their fair share, back into the system, then we would not be in this bind where States like Wisconsin are eliminating public works right to collective bargaining.

[-] 0 points by theCheat (85) 10 years ago

Big deal. Maybe OWS should not use Facebook, that will show him. Losing .000001% of the worlds population will not break his account. Get over yourself and your envy.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

So you would penalize him for his success? If our nation operates on such a premise, then it will surely die. I sure as shit will not work for nothing. I will give forth my greatest effort for a profit.

[-] 4 points by brucellosis (7) 10 years ago

Let's say Zuckerberg's $24 billion was taxed at 90% so he only made $2.4 billion. That would be such a shame! Please penalize me too. I've been bad...

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

I think you fail to understand that Zuckerberg's wealth is mostly in the form of shares. It's not real money, but based on what Facebook is thought to be worth. To pocket that money, he would have to sell his shares for that price. If tomorrow Facebook went bankrupt, he would have very little money at all. You only pay taxes when you pull out your shares, or on the dividends if there are any. Perhaps it's time to buy Economy for Dummies?

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 10 years ago

Poor Zuckerberg ... his $24 billion is only on paper ...

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

I would still like to be in his situation, but it's important to understand the difference between shares and a bi-monthly paycheck if you're going to talk about taxes.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 10 years ago

Unless of course it is a tax on wealth.

Nobody should have a billion dollars. I know some that do, and believe me, the aren't worth the air they displace.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

But, he doesn't own billions of dollars. He owns shares which is quite different.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 10 years ago

It wouldn't be any different if it was gold or real estate or burritos, it has a cash value.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Like I said, he doesn't own billions of dollars. He owns shares. It's not the same. Gold, real estate, and burritos are much more tangible. Shares can lose value very quickly, and it's not sure he could find people willing to buy his shares. If Google's new social network becomes big, of Facebook makes a mistake the shares could lose value very fast. I've seen a website that was very popular for 10 years die in 4 months because of a bad upgrade. They lost all their user base to the competition. Shares in software are extremely volatile. You can't compare that to gold.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 10 years ago

Burritos can go bad, real estate can lose value and gold prices can be manipulated. He can borrow cash against his stock and trade his stock for other assets. He can hedge it and use it to hedge other commodities. It is all the same thing.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

When he borrows cash for his assets, then he will truly be worth that cash. Until then, the shares are just a number on a computer screen that represents what Facebook is thought to be worth. It's not the same as money. I own a lot of shares and they fluctuate up and down all the time.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 10 years ago

Sir, Facebook and Google and similar entities deserve a mega-debate, and I agree that that number is just a number. Nevertheless this gentleman lives like billionaires in reality, not like people who own a number. That number is not like your lottery ticket before the draw. It is like the winner's ticket number. Any decent social network software is almost easy to develop, but to serve it, it needs millions and millions of investment; hence, not feasible, in contrast to Apache and Linux software. Even if it gets some magical free hardware as servers around the world, still it is vulnerable to information gathering and hackings budgeted by the government as simply as a knife cuts the butter. The only solution is to use all the available tools for now until the people who administer them defect to the movement. One should not commit to petit activism by singling out the mentioned gentleman who perhaps dies to be promoted and to ride over the shoulder of any socially attracting event.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

I have no problem with people making a lot of money as long as the poorest people in the country have enough to survive on. The issue is not the inequality of wealth, but the problem of having poor people who cannot afford to live decent lives.

You are right about problem of hardware. Creating an open-source replacement for Facebook is easy enough on the software side, but to support the required infrastructure we need a lot of hardware, and that is not free.

However, I have a problem with this claim:

"Even if it gets some magical free hardware as servers around the world, still it is vulnerable to information gathering and hackings budgeted by the government as simply as a knife cuts the butter."

If an open-source Facebook got of the ground, there would be a lot of programmers involved on the project. They would have just as much power as programmers paid by the government. The issue of hacking is always a cat and mouse game, and it has been shown time and time again that even a few smart programmers can hack systems owned and operated by the government. Anonymous has done it before. Your argument is not very strong.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 10 years ago

Nothing, just what I said. We were quite on agreement from the first comment that we started. Read them again. But easily you could take me to a war. Now, let me finish this thread. Allow me to hug you with solidarity and love. Bye.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Take you to war? No, I am quite a peaceful person. I like debating, not wars.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 10 years ago

Sir, to which government should I write as you said,

If you ever write to your government, please ask him to review their hiring process for the spies you talk of.

I do not have any nationality. I burned my passport and degrees and everything. I am only a hand that writes. I have no personality at all. What might you attack then? There is only a hand here. I am on a friendly discourse with a randomly selected name that you are. But, but. But US society has taken all assets of its individuals for communication in a non-aggressive way. It is what needs to be overcome. That society does not need spy to control. The monstrous robot just has put invisible transplants in the heads of its population. One should be broken into the pieces and put back together to see there is another world but arrogance, suspicion and dog eats dog.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

What is your point?

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 10 years ago

You denied by calling it stupid.

The name sounds really stupid, but that's great. I would have called it "Operation Veracious Hawk".

Why should I stop using those, Sir?

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

I didn't deny anything. I just think the name sounds stupid. It's not important. It's a subjective statement. If you like the name that's fine.

If you are afraid of spies, then you should stop using Facebook and this forum. I don't care about the spies you talk of. I just use proper counter-artuments when people make arguments. You can either do this, or stop using these sites. There's no point in trying to figure out if a certain user is a spy. They aren't very good anyhow. You know as well as I do that America's image has only worsened in the last few years. So, these guys are amateurs at best. They can't even do their job. Just ignore them.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 10 years ago

Source for OEV http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda Jeff Jarvis: Washington shows the morals of a clumsy spammer Comments (672) Nick Fielding and Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 March 2011 13.19 GMT

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

You should stop using online forums and sites like Facebook. What are you doing here? I think it's quite obvious the American government uses media tools to propagate propaganda. Most governments do. Why bother posting this obvious information?

If you ever write to your government, please ask him to review their hiring process for the spies you talk of. They aren't doing a good job. America has a very bad image throughout the world, and in the eyes of many Americans. You should be angry your taxes are used to pay such unprofessionals.

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 10 years ago

Operation Earnest Voice (OEV) is seen by senior US commanders as a vital counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation programme. So they already have started counter measures.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

That's great. The name sounds really stupid, but that's great. I would have called it "Operation Veracious Hawk". Lol!

[-] 1 points by brucellosis (7) 10 years ago

Oh yes, please tell me your address so I can send $24.95 + shipping and handling for this "Economy for Dummies".

Can you also please explain to me why capital gains and dividends are only taxed at a maximum rate of 15%? How is it that I can pay less taxes by getting on e-trade, buying some stocks and collecting a portion of someone else's labor than if I go an do a job myself? Is it because I am taking a risk? Maybe, but its probably a risk with money I can afford to lose, while any one doing a job involving manual labor or heavy equipment is risking their good health / life and everyone else is sacrificing their valuable time.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I can tell you, simply...because capital gains is not a quid-pro-quo, like work and wages are....it's that simple, there is a risk with investing, so the tax obligation is lower, if you invested a million dollars and lost or broke even on all of it except a hundred thousand contained in a particular stock, why should your burden of taxation be higher than the burden of your losses?

Also, capital gains requires initial investment funding, it's your money that your receiving gains on...

as far a s getting on e-trade and "buying some stocks"...please tell me you aren't so foolish as to think it's that simple? if you do, I encourage you to try...you'll be in for a surprise, to say the least....

"money I can afford to lose" that is an ideal of the poor, this idea that some money has less value than other money....money is an energy, not some arbitrarily valued thing that one "can afford to lose"....people who have money understand and respect it for what it is...a representation of time, effort, and life...and the don't believe in losing those things.....

Also don't equate the running of machinery and the performance of manual labor with the funding of investment in the industries and enterprises which provide for those things to be done, it is an antecedent synergistic relationship...the one (idea's and investment) must exist first, but requires the subsequent participation of the second (labor) to survive as an enterprise.....but the contributions are not equivalent, and so...the compensation is not equivalent. It doesn't work in reverse...

[-] 1 points by brucellosis (7) 10 years ago

Umm, not sure what you are talking about... I happen to have an e-trade account and as they advertise, its so easy a baby can do it. You just buy some stocks, hold them a year, sell them at a profit and your profits will be taxed at 15% (or less depending on your tax bracket). The only hard part is deciding when to buy and when to sell.

And, as I said, the reason I was able to invest in stocks is because I have money I can afford to lose. But just because I can personally benefit from the system doesn't mean I think it is just.

In today's world you can make money just by having money. Hard work and ingenuity may eventually get you somewhere, but only if you are extremely hardworking, extremely intelligent, or extremely lucky. Its a much better bet just to be born wealthy.

Your idea that all dollars have the same "value" regardless of a person's income is simply wrong. The poor will often degrade themselves to make money (e.g. prostitutes). The rich will not do the same. And the value of money is completely arbitrary, there is no physical resource that is ever pegged to the dollar (besides that Wendy's Jr. Cheeseburger), this is why the Fed is always worried about inflation...

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Not all capital gains and dividends qualify for the 15% tax rate. There are several conditions that must be met. The idea is to encourage US citizens to invest in US companies. This rate does not apply if you invest in foreign companies. If you are interested in learning more, use Google to search for more information. There are many websites and services which provide all the details.

BTW - If you're in the low tax bracket, your dividends and gains are only taxed 5%, and not at all if your are in the lower bracket where you pay no taxes.

[-] -3 points by silverspider (33) 10 years ago

Zionist Zuckerberg makes millions doing speeches and PR functions...Also, anyone who has worked for a corporation knows his "1 dollar a year" salary is a fabrication....while most of his wealth is concentrated in stock shares there are other ways he makes money - through advertisements, etc.

[-] 2 points by jaimes (86) 10 years ago

What does being Jewish have to with this?

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Indeed, that is true. Precisely why I used the word mostly in this sentence:

"I think you fail to understand that Zuckerberg's wealth is mostly in the form of shares."

Speeches, adverts, PR functions, don't pull near 24 billion in one year.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 10 years ago

And ONLY for a profit. (just had to add)

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

OWS should stop using Facebook! Seriously, the problem is not that some people are rich, but that people with lower incomes don't have enough. It's simplistic to think that taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor Robin Hood style will solve the problems in the economy. Wealth inequality is fine as long as the poorest people have enough to live comfortably. I'm not bothered by Zuckerberg's wealth in the least. I don't think OWS is either, they link to his site right here on this forum.

[-] 1 points by sallyh (10) 10 years ago

since we both disagree, there is only one to see who is right, we take their ill gotten loot and then we will know who is right. training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 10 years ago

Why are you always changing username, and what in the world is a training website?