8 Signs the Rich Have WAY Too Much Money

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/8-signs-rich-have-way-too-much-money



***SNIP

1. Jeff Bezos bought the second most influential newspaper in the country—and it barely dented his net worth.

Two things always get a lot of coverage from reporters in this country—what billionaires do with their money, and anything that affects reporters. When Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, we got both.

***SNIP

2. They literally don’t know what to do with their money.

A new study shows that the wealthy are holding on to far more of their money than before: 37 percent of their income goes unspent, a figure which is three times as large as it was in 2007. What’s more, they have more cash on hand, and 60 percent say they don’t plan to spend or invest it.

***SNIP.

3. Corporate profits and wealthy income.

Corporate profits are capturing more of the nation’s income than they have for more than half a century. They stood at 14.2 percent as of the third quarter of 2012, which is higher than they’ve been since 1950, and their after-tax performance has stayed just as robust since then.

***SNIP

4. Internet billionaire Sean Parker had a multimillion-dollar “Lord of the Rings”-style wedding, and trashed a beautiful public glade to do it.

Sean Parker is the Internet tycoon who was portrayed by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network, probably to his everlasting regret. He was recently married, and wedding party caused quite a stir after it was written up on the Atlantic’s website as “ the perfect parable for Internet excess.”

[liberal N proud]

1. But they want more!

They want it all!

[arcane1]

52. It's a sickness. A mental illness. That's the only way to make sense of it.

For me, anyway.

[laundry_queen]

62. I'm guessing it's the same illness as hoarding.

Some subset of OCD.

I agree, there's no other way to make sense of it.

[DrDan]

2. 9. Purchase of $38,000 purse defended by the left - "it's their money and they should be able to

spend it any way they want"

[live love laugh]

5. Reports are that the $38k purse was not being purchased--only that a request was made to see it. nt

[DrDan]

7. you are correct - I should have phrased that better

[Stinky The Clown]

15. There was plenty of defense of the purchase of a $38,000 purse before the facts were fully known.

The initial defense went up at the initial reports of the story. Yes, the initial reports were based on the assumption Oprah wanted to buy it, not look at it. Then the facts became known and the left used that in her defense. It all morphed into the same argument/defense. Your citation of the fact is really just one more Hail Mary parse.

The left did, indeed, defend the (then understood) purchase of a $38,000 purse.

[Cleita]

34. Most of the defenses here on DU of the fact that there are rich women out there who can actually

think of purchasing a $38,000 handbag were hardly a lefty argument. The defenses were all trickle down economics defenses. The $38,000 was supporting so many busy bees that caused it to happen they said. The fact that if the $38,000 were spent elsewhere it would have created so much more wealth over a broader spectrum than just the designer, the manufacturer and the shop keeper, who would all benefit but it would hardly be a demand side benefit to many.

Melissa Harris Perry, an African American woman, addressed this on her show. She dismissed Oprah's racism claim and called it more of a one percenter problem. Then she went on to list what that money could have bought instead, a house in a mid-western state I can't recall right now, food for a family of four for thirty months, a car and a Tron style motorcycle all with the exception of the house would have created more jobs than having it concentrated in just a few hands.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. I merely stated my observation of the defenses from the left that I observed.

Read your post on the issue and see how I replied.

[Cleita]

38. I read your post and I agree with you and I didn't think this post was in disagreement either.

[Th1onein]

40. If you can afford to buy a $38,000 purse, you have too much money.

If there is one person in this world that has no home, or not enough food, you need to either give your money away, or have it taken from you.

You can call that socialism, communism, or whatever you want to call it. It's the right thing to do.

[GalaxyHunter]

53. Well I expect you to do that then, I however do not agree with your thinking.

[gollygee]

75. She didn't know how much it cost

She saw a purse that looked nice and asked to look at it. According to her tweet, she wasn't aware that it cost $38k, though she obviously could have afforded it if she wanted a $38k purse.

[Stinky The Clown]

87. That has nothing's do with the point I was making. Yours is another Hail Mary Parse.

[CJCRANE]

31. AFAIK Oprah ended up owning the purse.

So she did eventually buy it (or it was given her for free or at a discount).

[Phentex]

73. She tweeted that she did not buy the purse.

Her exact tweet was

Turns out that store clerk did me a favor. Just found out that bag was $38K!!! She was right I was NOT going to buy it.


Where did you hear she bought the purse?

[CJCRANE]

86. Some pundit mentioned it. Maybe he was just speculating.

The point of the story is that Oprah could buy as many of those purses as she wanted.

I'm not really that interested in the incident except as an example of the Pretty Woman "rags to riches" + "don't judge by appearances" archetype.

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. You have a strange idea of what or who "the left" might be. n/t

[DrDan]

23. really - I sure read a lot of defense for that purse here on DU - do you not consider

posters here as left?

[Egalitarian Thug]

26. Not very many of the most prolific posters here, no.

Now, almost all of them will self-identify as left, but as my great grandmother was so fond of telling us, "Ignore what they say, watch what they do."

[DrDan]

27. point taken

[Cleita]

35. The whole argument for the purse was trickle down, not a very leftist position I'm afraid. n/t

[DrDan]

45. that was one of the defenses - simply having a lot of money was another

neither is a proud position to take for a progressive imo.

[Lars39]

11. $38,000 purses shouldn't even exist.

"What the market will bear", my ass.

[DrDan]

24. so many items like this are nothing more that visible signs that the buyer

is "better" than the rest of us. They want a purse that costs $38,000, not necessarily one that is worth $38,000.

Just a visible barrier between them and the rest of us.

"Look what I have and you don't"

[burnodo]

67. +38,000

[Recursion]

69. What's the maximum appropriate price for a purse, then? (nt)

[Lars39]

71. Given that there are more multimillionaires

and even billionaires, than at any other point in history, the price was clearly set too low.

[Bettie]

32. A 38K purse is ridiculous

The point was that the clerk wouldn't let her look at it because he saw a person who couldn't afford it.

I can't imagine how any purse would be worth that to anyone, but that wasn't the point at all.

[DrDan]

49. it obviously was of interest to Oprah

and her decision to purchase it was defended by quite a few here - if she decided to do so

I agree a $38K purse is ridiculous - but it is one of those things that separates the .01%ers from the rest of us. Hence there would be those that would buy it just to accentuate the separation. I obviously cannot state that was Oprah's intent, but it would be for some.

[Bettie]

65. I get that

Actually, I just recently had a discussion with someone who was really upset that her 500 dollar bag was on clearance at TJ Maxx or someplace like that. She was really angry that the exclusivity of the price tag was gone because it was being sold at a discounter.

She didn't even buy it because she liked it, she bought it for a label.

I'm a different kind of cat, in that I'd never buy anything I didn't really like simply for a label.

You're right, I don't know the reason or intent behind her wanting to see it, but the point is more that the clerk made a judgment based on how she looks at her ability to afford it.

[gollygee]

74. Oprah never bought that purse

She asked to look at it and didn't even know how much it cost. She later tweeted that she wouldn't spend $38k on a purse anyway.

And for God's sake I'd rather they piss their money away on purses or garbage like that and get the money back in circulation than sit on it forever.

But people love trashing Oprah. She surprised all of the employees of her magazine by getting them each an iPad and a check for $10k. Is that an alright thing for the rich to do with their money?

[DrDan]

76. so in your mind there are two choices - $38,000 purses (or garbage like that) or "sit on it forever"

there are many, many ways to get that money back in circulation - with bigger payoffs.

and could you provide a link where she stated she did not know how much it cost - and that would not spend that much on a purse? I have not read that.

Lets face it - a $38,000 purse is obscene. Is it more about the purse or the price tag? Could it be just another way for the rich to show how different they are, or in their minds, how much "better" they are because they own a $38,000 purse.

[gollygee]

77. She gave each of her employees a surprise of $10k

THAT is what she does with her money.

I agree that $38k is obscene for a purse, but I don't see people attacking Jennifer Aniston, who actually DID buy this purse. I see people deflecting from a story about racism to attack the black lady who dared to ask to look at one.

[DrDan]

78. I was not aware that Jennifer A had purchased the same purse

just as obscene in my book.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[gollygee]

79. She bought one as Oprah didn't buy one

What is obscene about asking to look at a purse without knowing the purchase price, or not buying a purse?

[DrDan]

80. a $38,000 purse is obscene - but you knew that

and I am still awaiting that link

[gollygee]

81. Didn't see the request for the link

https://mobile.twitter.com/Oprah

I don't know how to link to that specific tweet but it was 4 days ago so go to the ones from 4 days ago.

[DrDan]

82. ok - I will take your word for it rather than waste more time

a $38K purse still remains obscene

[gollygee]

83. You seemed to have plenty of time to attack Oprah for something she didn't do

[DrDan]

84. I am not going to play - you are trying to

play the race game with my posts

take it elsewhere

I am done

[La Lioness Priyanka]

89. when whites spend the same money for the same purse we dont seem to mind as much

the left defended racism not the price of the purse

[DrDan]

95. you need to read all of the posts - there are many here defending the purchase of a $38,000 purse

"if they have the money, they can spend it any way they like"

that does not minimize this obscenity, nor does the playing of your race card.

[DrDan]

94. so who is defending that - make it #10 - the wealthy have TOO much money

[KharmaTrain]

3. I'd Rather See A Bazos owning the WAPO...

...than some other large corporate...like News Corps. A single owner tends to pay a lot better attention to the welfare of the overall operation, including employees, than a large corporate that will canabalize one losing operation to attempt to prop up another one. Today, a newspaper is like owning a blacksmith shop...not a "wise" investment, but if Bazos uses his wealth to fund quality journalism despite losing money, it's worthy of praise, not scorn...

[cali]

10. I agree- to a limited point

the point of the article, after all, isn't how good or bad Bezos' ownership of the WP will be for journalism. It's about the massive, concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. Furthermore, a right wing Koch type has the same ability to purchase media outlets. What happens if the Koch brothers decide to purchase, say, Gannett? Not a rosy picture is it?

The quality of journalism practiced at WaPo is debatable. It really isn't high quality or liberal.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Kochs...

...are trying to buy the Chicago Tribune and LA Times...but I've heard negotiations have snagged. Nonetheless, the point is very much taken as to the ugliness that can happen if the remaining newspapers end up in the wrong hands. I don't know enough about Bazos to pass judgement on his politics or what type of paper he'll run...we'll find out soon enough.

If you look in history, newspapers have always been controlled by the elite and wealthy...be it William Randolph Hearst or Rupert Murdoch or a Bazos or the Kochs. The newsprint business is in a real crisis these days...a decade or so ago my daily paper was an average of 100 pages a day. Today it's down to 20...it almost looks like it's suffering from a cancer as it shrinks...and this is symbolizes its diminishing role of these papers on our society and politics. If the Kochs or Bazos thinks that their money will buy voters, those days are long gone...but if they're using it to buy influence from politicians (who still haven't left the 50s)...yes, there's a real problem here. Stay tuned...

[HughBeaumont]

16. Except Bezos, like the lot of rich guys, is an economically right wing libertarian loonbar.

http://www.alternet.org/media/what-will-washington-post-be-under-jeff-bezos

An Uncle Milty disciple through and through. Sad.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Then He'll Flush His Money Away...

...thank you for the link! I know very little about the guy and we'll see what his true motives are for buying the paper. If he uses it to push his own ideology, he'll join the ranks of that other Washington paper that also is subsidized by a billionaire and few use other than for bird cage liner now.

Cheers...

[jeff47]

47. Yeah, but he's still to the left of the former owners

Who, judging by the content of the paper, were even more right-wing libertarian loonbars.

[live love laugh]

4. How long before we crown a King and Queen? That's where we are headed.

Forty years ago, when I was a teenager, I would never have imagined writing such a headline.

Things have gotten so bad so fast that not only am I predicting that this will happen, I'm shrinking the timeline in which it will happen.

With politicians being bought and sold, what value will they be? It's just a matter of time before the 1% get rid of their political middle men and the man with the most money takes it all.

I give it 50 years, if that long.

[7962]

18. It looked like we did that in 2008.....

Until then I never thought I'd see americans buying posters, paintings, t-shirts, hats, etc of a president.

[dembotoz]

28. you forget ronnie r. although the rethugs paint him more as a god than a mere king

[live love laugh]

51. Sorry but T-shirts do not a king make. Ownership is the issue. nt

[reformist2]

6. Nobody wants to criticize the absurd excesses of the "free market."

Obviously there *are* some who rail against it, constantly, but it can't really be denied that belief in capitalism is practically the American religion nowadays. I think the illusion that you too could be a billionaire if you came up with a clever idea is so alluring that people don't want to give that up, despite the one-in-a-million odds. It's the lottery-ticket mentality, and it's ruining the nation.

[GoldenMezzoDiva]

9. The race to being the world's first trillionaire

The race to being the world's first trillionaire is on. Wonder who the king/queen of the world shall be? Shucks, maybe me if I keep playing Lotto, yee-haww!

[AndyA]

12. Just watch Candy Spelling's Manor In the Sky on HGTV

It's obscene. The woman should have enough sense to not boast about herself in this manner, considering how bad things are for everyone. Remember, these wealthy people were helped to maintain their wealth with tax breaks and other financial considerations that aren't available to the average American. The deck is stacked in their favor.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/candy-spelling-set-reveal-35-603560

[nolabels]

14. I like to look on the bright side of it

Without them, us poor people would have so much less to talk about



Btw, do most of the billionaires seem happy or is it a mixed bag?

[1awake]

17. I care less about them having to much money than them having to much power.

One should not equal the other.

[reformist2]

19. We're close to the capitalist ideal of one dollar, one vote.

[duffyduff]

46. You BETTER care because that is coming out of YOUR pocket

These people didn't "earn" "their" fortunes--it was stolen from the rest of us thanks to their ability to game the system.

It was critical for them to buy off Congress and the White House first and foremost.

[1awake]

55. Didn't say I don't care

only which one bothers me the most. I have no disagreement with what you wrote.

[gtar100]

21. If only they had imaginations beyond just the accumulation of wealth.

If they wanted to be real heroes, they'd invest it into projects that made the world a better place. Not too difficult to think of a few ways to do that. But because they don't, it goes to show that they may be rich but they are poor excuses for human beings.

[reformist2]

37. It's an addiction, really. Psychologically, taxing extreme wealth and income would do them good.

[edhopper]

22. I will simply let my signature say it.

[Dustlawyer]

25. If they are going to make that much money and not spend it and corporate profits at all time high,

I would say it is definitely time to raise taxes on the wealthy!

[oldhippie]

29. Number 2 ......

They must be spending some of that hoarded cash to build the Money Bin in the basement of their houses. All that hoarded, un-invested cash ($100 bills) must be stacked somewhere. It won't fit in the mattress.

2. They literally don’t know what to do with their money.

A new study shows that the wealthy are holding on to far more of their money than before: 37 percent of their income goes unspent, a figure which is three times as large as it was in 2007. What’s more, they have more cash on hand, and 60 percent say they don’t plan to spend or invest it.

[nolabels]

33. It's a make work program

We serfs need to keep sweating

And just remember even though it's just one part of the operation, somebody still has to build those money bins for the basement

[oldhippie]

43. And someone is paid to ....

.... count all those $100 bills and keep them stacked up! Do you even realize how hard it is to keep those stacks from falling over?

[stevenleser]

30. Technically with #1, it wouldn't change his net worth at all...

Using a million in cash to buy something worth a million dollars results in no change to your net worth. But I agree 100% with your overall general message.

[AlbertCat]

39. So.... every rich person is like this.

Interesting.

I hear things about "the poor"....so they must be true of all poor people too.


This thinking of people in homogeneous groups makes things much easier, don't it?

[HughBeaumont]

63. Name 10 wealthy people with power, influence and prominence . . .

. . . that AREN'T disciples of Uncle Milty . . . that WANT their taxes raised, that BELIEVE in the greater good, that work to get universal health care for all, that DON'T think of their workers as useless eaters and oxygen thieves.

Myths about the poor (who aren't in any position of power and cannot make a smidgen of relevant change) are spread out of spite, racism and general hatred, mostly by useful idiots that don't even get they're part of someone else's bottom line.

"Mean things" said about the wealthy are said because as a class, they're causing so much long-term poiltical and economic damage and we need to call them on it. It's beyond dispute at this point. For every Nick Hanauer, there are 289 Bernie Marcuses.

[AlbertCat]

66. Name 10 wealthy people with power, influence and prominence . . .

Can I name 5 Hollywood types and 5 sports stars? BTW.... how wealthy is, y'know, wealthy?


Not everyone who is rich is a CEO or a banker, y'know.


Greed is a huge problem! But you don't have to be a billionaire to be greedy.

[Waiting For Everyman]

41. We act like it would be impossible to change this.

All it would take is a change in tax policy. Enact a maximum income of $10 million per year for instance. Above that, is 100% tax. This behavior would stop in a hot minute. At the same time, raise the mimimum wage to $20 per hour.

That's just a for instance. All it takes is the will to do it. But this obscene self-enrichment at the top will go on until that is done. It's a matter of how long it takes the public to get sick of this nonsense.

[duffyduff]

48. Tax them at Ike rates

and the economy will be back on track.

[on point]

42. 2 better signs. Wall Street as casino and the buying of politicians to preserve aristocracy

[duffyduff]

44. It isn't "their" money--it's money they have stolen

thanks to rigging the game by buying politicians to give them all kinds of tax shelters and forcing everybody else to make up the difference or from stealing from their employees outright by paying them lousy and not providing much in the way of benefits.

[Waiting For Everyman]

50. That's exactly right.

They bought lobbyists to change laws that prevented this, and those laws can be changed back. Government is supposed to keep the system fair for the little people, and it has not been doing that for several decades. But it's relatively easy to change, all it takes is the will.

[GalaxyHunter]

54. I would say you are right about some of them, but not all of them.

Not every person with money stole it. SOME have earned it and deserve it.

[duffyduff]

56. There is not ONE who has "earned" it

Somebody ELSE had to make up the difference so the filthy rich could have more. Whether it is employees who make do with lower pay and fewer benefits, whether somebody else has to pay more taxes so the rich can have more, whether somebody has bought whatever it is that the billionaire sells, or whether it is simply gaming the system--there is NO such thing as a "self-made" person.

Horatio Alger is a filthy lie and has no basis in fact.

[GalaxyHunter]

57. I will just respectfully disagree with you.

If that's what you want to believe then go ahead.

[duffyduff]

59. It's fact. I don't subscribe to Horatio Alger.

I wonder if you have any conception of how much money a billion dollars is.

I am old enough to remember when there were only four billionaires in the ENTIRE WORLD (Getty, Hunt, Hughes, and Perot--and they were four of only six in human history with the others being Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller)--the number is now 1,400 and counting.

Inflation doesn't account entirely for this outrageous number, either.

[GalaxyHunter]

61. oh that really proves your point...

I still believe there are those who worked hard for their money and they earned it themselves. Not all business owners are assholes to their employees (which is something I feel you believe)

[hughee99]

92. EXACTLY! People like FDR, the Kennedys, John Kerry, Al Gore, Oprah, and even Michael Moore,

have been stealing money from the people for generations.

That's why you can't trust people like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, or celeberities like George Clooney, Tim Robbins, Bill Maher, Ben Affleck (... and the usual repuke list of Hollywood bogeymen) funding or speaking on behalf of our causes or candidates, because they've been stealing from regular people.

[leftstreet]

58. +1

[aikoaiko]

60. The first one is stupid.

Of course, Bezos worth didn't go down. He traded cash for an asset.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

70. Bingo! The second one is not much better.

"I don't plan to spend it or invest it"

If you don't spend it, you're invested. Maybe in cash held in the sock drawer, maybe in gold, maybe in a checking account. All are investments.

[TBF]

64. Capitalism is our economic system &

we reward profit above all else. It should be no surprise that the rich want to be richer - that is the goal.

[dreamnightwind]

68. How about "use it or lose it"

They could do this through the tax code, so the rich would have to spend it or lose it, stimulating the economy by keeping this money in circulation.

Or the Fed Reserve could do it (crazy talk here, but why not) by making money that literally expires (returning to the general treasury) after not changing hands for a certain length of time. I'm sure we have the technology to accomplish this, those guys that came up with expiring DIVX vids and maybe the digital licensing used by companies like Apple could probably help.

[reformist2]

72. An annual wealth tax would alleviate so many problems...

1) It would provide much needed revenue for the government still running a deficit

2) It would take money that is largely idle and put it to use in the economy

3) It would correct the injustice of taxing those with high incomes vs. not taxing those who live off of inherited fortunes

4) It would provide an incentive for the ultra-wealthy to spend more of their money

5) It would provide a disincentive for the ultra-wealthy to hoard so much wealth in the first place

6) The list could easily be expanded...

[hughee99]

93. If a rich person donates millions of dollars to repuke political causes or

starts buying up land and houses because they have to do SOMETHING with the money, because the alternative is that the government takes the money back, are we better off?

[Tom Ripley]

88. Let them ride in platinum tumbrils

[nolabels]

90. Remote controlled, jewel encrusted, platinum tumbrils

Having no one to complain to or nothing to complain about on the trip might help