[mandmandam]

Really? The last few thousand years of history have been pretty illustrative; the last 50 especially so.

The uber-wealthy have no direct dependence on functional public services. They have no need (and even a preference) for corrupt legal and political systems. They (hire people to) work day and night to gut regulations that protect us, and they cover for each other and circle the wagons when anyone starts getting too close to breaking any part of the golden circle.

If people institute progressive tax systems, billionaires find a way to dodge or loophole their way out; going so far as to leave if people demand "too much". Modern billionaires find creative ways to exploit workers and demonize unions.

Compare all that to the decent and normal people you know, assuming you have something like a normal life. The people I know are happy enough to pay their share for the common good, and wouldn't dream of hiring some slimeball tax accountant to figure out how to hold on to as much as possible - see Pandora, Paradise, etc.

No one normal is paying politicians to break regulations, or writing legislation that allows for tax loopholes, or removing any possibility of accountability for "malfeasance" like oil spills or banking crises.

And billionaire owned media is happy for none of this to be in the national conversation. But once you start looking - it's pretty obvious.

[rowanG077]

So you are saying "normal" people don't hire accountants to ensure they pay the minimal amount of tax while wealthy people do? Normal people don't hire accountants for the simple fact that it isn't economically viable for them. The taxes they could save is much lower then the pay for the accountant. This balance is of course completely different for a billionaire. I'm willing to bet that if the cost of hiring an accountant would be 500$ and a normal person would pay 5000$ less in tax because of that then almost everyone would have an accountant at the ready. In fact you would be financially irresponsible not doing that.

The thing you talk about in your post is that billionaires have more power and use that power to their advantage. Not unlike what anyone really does. Except that billionaires have much more weight to throw around.

[mandmandam]

> So you are saying "normal" people don't hire accountants to ensure they pay the minimal amount of tax while wealthy people do?

Did I say that? Or did I specifically refer to slimeballs, loopholes, Paradise and Panama papers, bribing legislators etc. Do normal people do that, in your view? Because it seems pretty normal among billionaires. I don't remember any normal people paying thugs to bust up strikes, or paying to print anti union propaganda and rig unionising votes.

You seem to be saying, might makes right; and that we'd do those things above if we were in their position. Even if that were true (it's not), that would be all the more reason to change the rules that allow such consolidation of wealth and abuse of power to exist.

Going back to your original claim - that it's not obvious (to you) that billionaires care less about the common good than common people - here is a poem that has survived the last 250+ years.

The law locks up the man or woman

Who steals the goose from off the common

But leaves the greater villain loose

Who steals the common from off the goose

.

The law demands that we atone

When we take things we do not own

But leaves the lords and ladies fine

Who take things that are yours and mine

.

The poor and wretched don't escape

If they conspire the law to break

This must be so but they endure

Those who conspire to make the law

.

The law locks up the man or woman

Who steals the goose from off the common

And geese will still a common lack

Till they go and steal it back

[rowanG077]

> Did I say that? Or did I specifically refer to slimeballs, loopholes, Paradise and Panama papers, bribing legislators etc.

With the exception of bribing legislators these are perfectly fine things to do. And in fact amount to having a smart accountant.

> I don't remember any normal people paying thugs to bust up strikes, or paying to print anti union propaganda and rig unionising votes.

I don't remember any billionaires doing that either. What I do remember is companies doing that might have a billionaire at the helm. And as far as I can see most companies helmed by a billionaire do not do that.

> You seem to be saying, might makes right; and that we'd do those things above if we were in their position. Even if that were true (it's not), that would be all the more reason to change the rules that allow such consolidation of wealth and abuse of power to exist.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying my default assumption is that the expected behavior of normal people and billionaires is the same. The billionaires outcome is simply different because they are billionaires, they have much more weight to throw around.

> Going back to your original claim - that it's not obvious (to you) that billionaires care less about the common good than common people - here is a poem that has survived the last 250+ years

Yes and we also used to believe putting blood sucking leeches on your skin to suck out blood would cure illnesses. It's always easy to blame someone in a better position then yourself. Something that exists in a poem doesn't mean anything.

What I'm asking of you is essentially do you have data/studies that shows very wealthy people have a fundamentally different psychological profile in regards to caring about society then non wealthy people. Because that is your claim.

There are also plenty of counter examples. Like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or Azim Premji. Or the entire billionaire philanthropist archetype.

[mandmandam]

> With the exception of bribing legislators these are perfectly fine things to do. And in fact amount to having a smart accountant.

Dear god man, NO. Those may be legal - and who wrote those laws? But they sure as fuck aren't fine, morally and ethically speaking, unless you're a fucking sociopath. Which billionaires are more likely to be.

> as far as I can see most companies helmed by a billionaire do not do that.

Didn't Amazon get in trouble recently for interfering with a union vote?

> my default assumption is that the expected behavior of normal people and billionaires is the same.

That's a bad assumption, and there are mountains of research out there on the topic. It's stunning that you can't seem to look for any yourself, because if you looked you would find it.

> we also used to believe putting blood sucking leeches on your skin to suck out blood would cure illnesses. It's always easy to blame someone in a better position then yourself.

That's a very, very lazy take. That's really the best you could come up with? Leeches and victim blaming?

> What I'm asking of you is essentially do you have data/studies that shows very wealthy people have a fundamentally different psychological profile in regards to caring about society then non wealthy people. Because that is your claim.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/16/8790357/rich-people-jerks

Read the above link. Look into the sources it cites.

There are huge differences, and it's not even remotely in doubt. Your whole assumption is so far off base it's not even funny; just sad.

[rowanG077]

> Dear god man, NO. Those may be legal - and who wrote those laws? But they sure as fuck aren't fine, morally and ethically speaking, unless you're a fucking sociopath. Which billionaires are more likely to be.

Then you and I simply have different morals. I don't consider anyone trying to minimize their taxes in a legal way to be immoral.

> Didn't Amazon get in trouble recently for interfering with a union vote?

Which is one company whose CEO is not a billionaire...

> That's a bad assumption, and there are mountains of research out there on the topic. It's stunning that you can't seem to look for any yourself, because if you looked you would find it.

I admit I didn't search for any research. I assumed you would have it since you are so certain billionaires are fundamentally different from non wealthy humans.

> That's a very, very lazy take. That's really the best you could come up with? Leeches and victim blaming?

It's lazy to assume something you read about that is in a book that is > 100 years old to be true. And I'm not victim blaming. Who even is the victim here? I'm simply stating that it is always easy to blame something outside of yourself. Blame shifting has been a well researched area in psychology for decades.

> https://www.vox.com/2015/6/16/8790357/rich-people-jerks

> Read the above link. Look into the sources it cites.

> There are huge differences, and it's not even remotely in doubt. Your whole assumption is so far off base it's not even funny; just sad.

While the article is garbage the cited sources are interesting and on a cursory glance do seem to show that wealthy people are more antisocial compared to average people. At least in America. I wonder if this is the same for other cultures.

Anyway I don't really care to continue this discussion with you since you are obviously not in the right state of mind to approach this subject without heavy emotion.