Well, if they are playing a character in a story, no, I don’t assume the character’s character is that of the actor. But Seinfeld was basically playing himself. Sure, he might be making stuff up about himself. Cosby was a hell of a lot more wholesome on TV than in real life. (Although his stand-up act was closer to “him” than the fictional character that didn’t bear his name.) And yeah, I know I might be wrong about Seinfeld, and if I had to interact with him in person, I’d give him a shot. But it’s still my casual assumption about a person I am unlikely to ever meet.
So you believe in the Laffer curve then. Good to know.
Well, even with comedians who play “themselves,” their comedic persona is not necessarily who they are in real life. One great example is Jack Benny: on his radio and TV show he played a “Jack Benny” who was stingy and selfish, but in real life was quite generous.
I’m pretty sure that Seinfeld has Asberger’s Syndrome. He really seems to have trouble understanding emotions, or having much social awareness. This is probably why he comes across as an asshole to some.
Typical troll strategy, Mr. Troll. Nothing I said could even remotely be construed that way. But enjoy your trolling. What you said, OTOH, definitely was the epitome of the supply-side mythology: “don’t piss off the millionaires/billionaires, because we NEED them – we all benefit from their wonderfulness!” 
Interesting comment. It might explain his “observational” humour, whereby he perceives as “odd” various social interactions that most of us accept as natural. (It’s “Asperger’s”, BTW.)
At least I didn’t spell it “Ass Burgers”.
I know how money works. I didn’t say the money was “sitting there doing nothing;” I said it was sitting in accounts. And in accounts, it is helping the banks, it is not helping the people getting the loans from the banks.
You said there were sitting in accounts “helping nobody and making more money.” It wouldn’t be making Seinfeld any money if it wasn’t helping anyone. You do know there wouldn’t be any loans without the money sitting in those accounts, right?
You guys I think the Onion might be mining us for article ideas
It should be impossible for a person, corporation, or other entity to make massive amounts of money and pay nothing in taxes. Yet in the US that is possible, with the proper strategies and being able to buy the best lawyers and money manipulators. That is absolutely, completely fucking wrong.
Or more likely the author of that article just heard about Seinfeld being worth a billion in the same place the OP did.
The OP & OP are asinine. Why does it perturb the OP that Seinfeld, or anyone else for that matter, is not turning over every penny he’s earned to a variety of charities? First off, it’s none of the OP’s business. Second, whatever amount Seinfeld does donate to charity is doing something for a charity. Next, as mentioned by another poster, money in banks does not just lie there prostrate; it’s what the bank uses for its investments and thus generating a return for its customers in the form of loans or other increases. Finally, and just out of my idle curiosity, how much of your money, OP, have you donated to charities? If you’re not living in the cheapest place possible, eating the cheapest food available, and donating every red cent beyond what you need for a bare minimum to sustain life, then you’re not only an idiot, you’re a hypocrite.
I guess we’re using different definitions of “help.”
I have a simple, if lengthy, response to the “what business is it of yours” question:
Even if you’re The Most Libertarian Person In The World, and you believe that we should strip from the Federal government every single thing that isn’t directly national defense …
The question of whether the wealthiest Americans actually come anywhere close to ‘paying their fair share’ remains.
And because there’s every reason to believe that the middle class is picking up the slack for the uber-wealthy … I say … we do have a say in the matter.
YMMV.
Could someone explain to me why buying an asset for $950,000,000 would make a person bankrupt?
I know it is a joke, but even jokes need to be grounded in reality.
No, but I can explain to you why you shouldn’t go into comedy as a sideline. Or if you do, you should definitely keep your day job. You must be a riot at parties! (That last sentence is what we call “sarcasm”, BTW. You wouldn’t know it.)
It’s using “bankrupt” in the colloquial sense, to mean “broke” or “destitute”. It’s not a reference to the actual legal process of bankruptcy.
Someone on the Straight Dope was pedantic! Inconceivable!
I’m sure your great big brain will recognize what that was.
How much of that billion comes from the show and how much comes from having invested that initial money into other ventures?
NBC apparently believed that what he offered was worth a lot of money. If he’d gotten paid less, he would effectively have been generously undercharging to the benefit of NBC or its advertisers. I’m not sure why they deserve his generosity.
Someone on the Straight Dope got all butt-hurt when their stupid pedantic comment was called out. Incroyable! Fantastique!