Ryan Seacrest Makes $15 Million A Year

RoyFairbank wrote: Society is suffering from a collective delusion brought on by living under capitalism. When your inside of something its hard to see outside. Ask the serfs' -- they bought into and loved feudalism. When the enlightenment came around, it suddenly dawned on people that the assumptions about "human nature" made by the Church and the Barons were incredibly self-referential to the Feudalistic system. Consider this - the median income of American families is $45,000, while the mean is $60,000. Most Americans families are losing money (the median family, whoever they are, are losing $15,000) from the fact that a few are overpaid. Money just doesn't come from thin air.  Everything Seacrest gets in his private bank account is money that could be in your wallets and paying food and bills for you.

I used to be a socialist, and "social democrat" in the Scandinavian Model until quite recently, so trust me...I know every line by heart.

That's not the point. What I kept saying is you need to look at reality. How do you expect this to be done? You're right, it's not really possible in a capitalist society but what do you want, Socialism? That's doomed to fail. Why?

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE.
Overall, we like money, we want things. It's not f**king capitalism, it's our nature. Trying to deny this is dumb.
Back to reality: Did you read what I said earlier?
We put people in charge of redistributing money, this is inherently flawed. I realized that so many lefties (myself one) thought people were naturally greedy, selfish and want money...but then we want to redistribute it? Unless you find magic fairies the only way to do that is by having people...doing it.

This is why our tax code is a mess, we spend $1 trillion on welfare with few good results.
It's naturally ripe for abuse and waste. Besides the human factor, by having government do such things...people can then petition government to benefit them.
Like subsidies for businesses/sectors that drive the cost of everything up, hurting regular people like us.

So yeah, it's not philosophical, just realistic. Putting people in positions to redistribute is dumb, because people are selfish and self interested, and it leads to other people (generally more powerful than us) to petition those in power.





Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 20:59

Textbook wrote: I didn't say cutting the grass was the same as hosting TV so I don't get what that was about.   As for the first point, I was, obviously I thought, looking at this from the POV of how much money I feel comfortable putting in my pocket. Obviously I would have no problem with using 14 of my 15 mill to found a charitable institute BUT where is that 14 mill coming from...   You know the John Carter film made headlines the other day because it cost about $300 million to make and about about $184 million. (The loss is much more than the remaining $126 million because the producer splits box office with theatres of course, usually about 50/50.)   But what got me going wasn't the box office loss. What got me going is that $300 million was being used to make asinine films in the first place, when most of us can't find $100 between us to give to charity.

Money doesn't just magically appear for anyone.  You need to learn how money moves.  It moves from those who want to those who have what one wants.  No exception- even the lottery.

In case you don't know, the head guy in charge of John Carver resigned.  And is your artistic discretion worthy for comments like "asinine?"  What credentials do you have other than the fact the film sold poorly?" 

Well that $14 mill is coming from the people...who watch/give/support or do whatever they do that gets their money to you. You know this man.

What you seem to be saying is (correct me if I'm wrong): Is it ok to use that $14 million however you see fit?

The answer is yes. It's long and could go on and on pages and get into all kinds of philosophical/political debate so simply: yes.
If you get $15 million from the people for whatever you do, you can do with it as you want.



Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 20:34

Textbook wrote: Epig: I honestly believe I would turn $15 million down. I would be ecstatic to to earn one or half a million a year. I would feel extremely uncomfortable with more, especially for hosting a TV show.

Not even to take the $15 million and give it to charity?  You'd just turn it down?    You liberal atheists and your "morals" are strange to me.  Unless you all can't cut grass. 

Being on TV (or hosting / performing) is much harder than cutting grass by the way.  I've done both.

Epig: I honestly believe I would turn $15 million down. I would be ecstatic to to earn one or half a million a year. I would feel extremely uncomfortable with more, especially for hosting a TV show.

The whole Ryan Seacrest thing is this: Someone offered him money to do task(s).  He does those tasks and gets the money.

If someone offered you $15 million to cut the grass of their one acre property (and you got that agreement in writing), I doubt any of you fools would say, "Well, my belief is I should only get what I need, so I'll pass."

Don't give people more and expect them to be happy. Give them less and brainwash them to be happy. That works best. 

We should just cap income at $1 million and spread that wealth around, straight up Huey Long style.
Except it all goes to me first.

I will then absolutely distribute it evenly, you have my word :D

The largest shift in thinking I've ever had  is:

Instead of seeking to grab from the wealthy...we should just benefit everyone.



Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 13:33

Also hate to be that guy...but what is "need"?

I personally don't have much need, and tend to look a tad shamefully on those that need a lot...but that is them.
Who is to decide? Should it be me? Can I decide how much you need, Roy?

 
I understand being envious of someone's wealth, and demanding they "pay their fair share"  and I still agree with that somewhat.
But even in my most liberal days...I would never support this society according to needs.
Because by that logic everyone would live on $30,000 (that's a family BTW) since you can literally live on just that much.
If you ever want to go higher, I'd ask "well why is that a need?" Of course in reality this would never happen anyway, unless there was a complete and total redistributive society and in that case where would all the money not going to needs go?

The government?
This is all a bit silly I know, but taking your logic to the end...it's just well, illogical.




Edited by JJLehto - May 02 2012 at 13:13