Poorest President in the World

Page 3 of 4<1234>
April 19th, 2017 at 4:02:46 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: pew
Billionaires don't overtly oppress human rights and levy taxes. Governments do.


I think you'll find Billionaires have overtly and covertly oppressed human rights. Taxation, of course not. But you of course consider taxation to be a dirty word. Socialists consider it a way to ensure every one has access to the general services of a country.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
April 19th, 2017 at 5:04:11 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 736
Posts: 8583
Quote: Wizard
I assume this was their maximum net worth or perhaps worth at time of death/writing, depending on whether the president is still living.

After being president anyone can ask $100,000+ per speech so I would expect former presidents to be fairly wealthy.


It is an estimated maximum net worth at the wealthiest point in their life. Some President's have had a negative net worth at point in their life.

Gerald Ford is considered to be the first ex President who went on the circuit, but Ronald Reagan was reportedly paid $2 million by the Japanese media company, Fujisankei Communications for a 1989 tour of Japan, which included two speeches.

Quote: Wizard
My comment on Carter and Ford was on their worth just before, or during, their presidency.


I think it is fair to say that Carter and Ford were "upper middle class". But I think that Truman was the last truly middle class President. Since he died in 1972 and his widow outlived him by a decade. They were both about 88 when he died, so Bess almost made it to a century.

But Truman retired in 1953 at the age of 68 and concern for his well being was the main reason that "The Former Presidents Act" was passed in 1958 that provides several lifetime benefits to former presidents of the United States.
April 19th, 2017 at 5:16:28 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 328
Posts: 11368
Quote: Pacomartin
Gerald Ford is considered to be the first ex President who went on the circuit, but Ronald Reagan was reportedly paid $2 million by the Japanese media company, Fujisankei Communications for a 1989 tour of Japan, which included two speeches.


That caused quite a stir in the media at the time.

I recall at a latter speech he said something like "They offered me $2 million. I didn't say no."
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
April 20th, 2017 at 6:40:43 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 736
Posts: 8583
Quote: Nareed
"They offered me $2 million. I didn't say no."


Certainly it caused a stir in 1989. But Clinton was elected only three years later, and it would have been difficult to imagine that another ex-POTUS could turn speech making into a veritable industry.

Quote: CNN February 6, 2016
Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows. In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.


Hillary Clinton's speeches over $250,000
Company Amount Date Location
Biotechnology Industry Organization $335,000 6/25/2014 San Diego, Calif.
Qualcomm Incorporated $335,000 10/14/2014 San Diego, Calif.
Cisco $325,000 8/28/2014 Las Vegas, Nev.
eBay Inc. $315,000 3/11/2015 San Jose, Calif.
Nexenta Systems, Inc. $300,000 8/28/2014 San Francisco, Calif.
GTCR $280,000 6/26/2014 Chicago, Ill.
The Vancouver Board of Trade $275,500 3/5/2014 Vancouver, Canada
Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal $275,000 3/18/2014 Montreal, Canada
Canada 2020 $275,500 10/6/2014 Ottawa, Canada
Cardiovascular Research Foundation $275,000 9/15/2014 Washington, D.C.
Massachusetts Conference For Women $265,500 12/4/2014 Boston, Mass.
Let's Talk Entertainment Inc. $265,000 4/10/2014 San Jose, Calif.
Let's Talk Entertainment Inc. $265,000 6/2/2014 Denver, Colo.
Advanced Medical Technology Association $265,000 10/8/2014 Chicago, Ill.
tinePublic Inc. (co-sponsored with the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce) $262,500 1/21/2015 Winnipeg, Canada
tinePublic Inc. (co-sponsored with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) $262,500 1/21/2015 Saskatoon, Canada
A&E Television Networks $280,000 2/27/2014 New York, N.Y.
American Camping Association, New York Section $260,000 3/19/2015 Atlantic City, N.J.
Deutsche Bank AG $260,000 10/7/2014 New York, N.Y.
Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies $250,000 3/13/2014 New York, N.Y.
World Affairs Council-Oregon $250,500 4/8/2014 Portland, Ore
April 20th, 2017 at 8:38:03 AM permalink
Ayecarumba
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 85
Posts: 1410
Quote: Pacomartin
Certainly it caused a stir in 1989. But Clinton was elected only three years later, and it would have been difficult to imagine that another ex-POTUS could turn speech making into a veritable industry.



Hillary Clinton's speeches over $250,000
Company Amount Date Location
Biotechnology Industry Organization $335,000 6/25/2014 San Diego, Calif.
Qualcomm Incorporated $335,000 10/14/2014 San Diego, Calif.
Cisco $325,000 8/28/2014 Las Vegas, Nev.
...


In a world where "Jersey Shore" star "Snooki" made $32,000 for a college commencement speaking fee in 2006, 10x that for a potential President whose policies will affect your multi-billion dollar industry/company seems like a bargain.
April 21st, 2017 at 10:18:50 AM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 3
Posts: 818
Quote: TheCesspit
I think you'll find Billionaires have overtly and covertly oppressed human rights. Taxation, of course not. But you of course consider taxation to be a dirty word. Socialists consider it a way to ensure every one has access to the general services of a country.
If they have it's not done within the rule of law. Government by nature is oppression and like taxes needs to have limits.
April 21st, 2017 at 11:16:34 AM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 3
Posts: 930
Quote: TheCesspit
I think you'll find Billionaires have overtly and covertly oppressed human rights. Taxation, of course not. But you of course consider taxation to be a dirty word. Socialists consider it a way to ensure every one has access to the general services of a country.


So are you one of the people that believe that the billionaires have all the money and that is why the rest of us are poor Cesspit? Is this true for just our Canada, the USA as well, North America or world wide?

Would love to hear your distribution plan for whatever of those areas you would like to talk about.
"There is no sin but ignorance" Christopher Marlow
April 22nd, 2017 at 3:02:25 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: kenarman
So are you one of the people that believe that the billionaires have all the money and that is why the rest of us are poor Cesspit? Is this true for just our Canada, the USA as well, North America or world wide?

Would love to hear your distribution plan for whatever of those areas you would like to talk about.


I believe that the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few is a problem. Not the 1%, but the 1% of the 1%. The super, super rich. I definitely don't believe in the trickle down effect. I do believe innovation is a way of making everyone world wide 'better off'. The reduction in absolute wealth of the middle and lower classes in the west is something to be concerned about (if it's happening. I believe there is evidence that this is occurring, but not yet convinced). I believe in some cases, innovation is stifled by those who have the power to stop it, as such innovation is a threat to their own wealth, and that the use of government and the law is one such way to stop that happening.

I believe that there are some fundamental services (healthcare, education, law enforcement among them) that should be provided by the state, and paid for via various forms of taxation (income tax, business tax, import duties and value added taxes). That the tax code should be as simple as possible (and no simpler) and should tend to be regressive, but set up such that everyone who is earning is paying something in. In that sense, I do accept some elements of socialism, but I'd not consider myself a socialist. I think many laws are passed to 'do something' well before it can be seen that anything needs to be done, that governments waste money by changing programs due to whims of those in charge to take away what has gone before. I'm a big fan of minority governments that are stymied from doing much except by cross party agreement.... that tends to ensure actually really important changes are made, and not just what the biggest party 'thinks' needs to happen.

I believe the answer is not tax cuts of for the wealthy, though the regressive taxation in the US has been out of control until recently. In opposition to what I said above, middle income earners in the US have been paying less due to all the tax breaks they can earn (tax breaks that are targetted at sections of the community, which is something I believe is not a good way to run tax code, as incentives for some behaviours can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences). Normalizing the tax code (flat tax is not the answer, simple tax may be) would probably result in overall tax cuts, even if the middle earners end up paying a bit more.

However, I don't know what a good solution is, as direct removal of wealth from the super rich is a) not going to happen b) inequitable c) anti-classical liberalism (*). But large economic inequality causes social upheaval (I might get accused of being a Marxist now)... just it may take a long while. While the film Elysian is science fiction, that's a kernel of truth for a possible future.

(*) I'd have said anti-liberal, but translating here for the American audience that uses the word in away that isn't used elsewhere.

How's that? It's probably riddled with logical errors.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
April 22nd, 2017 at 3:04:50 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: pew
If they have it's not done within the rule of law. Government by nature is oppression and like taxes needs to have limits.


Depends if the laws protect human rights or not. The rule of law does not always protected human rights. Unless you suggest that human rights only extend to that defined by the laws of the land, which has a bit a paradox about it.

I don't agree that government is oppression. I do agree it should have limits. I suspect we don't agree at all where that line is :)
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
April 22nd, 2017 at 4:55:37 PM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 3
Posts: 930
Quote: TheCesspit
I believe that the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few is a problem. Not the 1%, but the 1% of the 1%. The super, super rich. I definitely don't believe in the trickle down effect. I do believe innovation is a way of making everyone world wide 'better off'. The reduction in absolute wealth of the middle and lower classes in the west is something to be concerned about (if it's happening. I believe there is evidence that this is occurring, but not yet convinced). I believe in some cases, innovation is stifled by those who have the power to stop it, as such innovation is a threat to their own wealth, and that the use of government and the law is one such way to stop that happening.......




I think I have shown some of this on the forum before Cesspit but the problem is that the super rich do not control a large enough pool of capital to actually make the changes people think it will.
I will take Canada as an example since the numbers are smaller and easier to work with but I am sure that the percentages are very similar for any of the developed countries and worse for the poor countries. The richest 100 people (families) in Canada have a net worth of $360B. The Weston family is at the top with $39B by the time we get to 100th we are down to only $875 million for Rob McEwan. Divide that $360B by the 36 million population of Canada and you have $10K per person. (All figures have been rounded)
I am sure you agree that Cesspit that a one shot payment of $10K per person is not going to provide a permanent solution to all the problems we might think we have, it doesnít even pay off the Federal Debt. It is only a one shot solution because we taxed the rich 100 at 100% of net worth so they are all now broke. Any percentage above what they can replace in a year will prolong the time before they go broke but will slowly drain their net worth with the same end result.
The other problem with scenario is that we probably donít reduce the number of super rich. Their net worth wasnít in cash it was would have been held mostly in stock, real estate and maybe some high end art. If the government doesnít sell the assets they will receive no additional funds for the budget. Who can buy these assets but other mega billionaires? These donít exist in Canada anymore so now the assets leave the country or they get sold below market price which reduces the income to government below $10K. They are less likely to be recreated since those who had the skills to do it the first time are unlikely or possibly unwilling to try again.
I know the above scenario is not realistic and you arenít and wouldnít propose such a radical solution although when communist takeover a country my scenario comes into play. What I hope to point out with the math is the capital of the super rich is never going to solve the problems of the middle class if it is expropriated, since there are too few of them and too many poor/middle class. This wealth can only help if you let it continue to help grow the country and take very small bites that donít destroy the infrastructure or the drive of the people that create it.
"There is no sin but ignorance" Christopher Marlow
Page 3 of 4<1234>