It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 62 richest people have as much wealth as half the world

page: 14
43
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
lol, also, they won't put up with being singled out for punishment, for being the ones who actually create the country's economy and jobs.

They can and will simply leave.

So you know the solution to that, from our favorite leftists here......Arrest them, confiscate whatever anybody tries to take out of country.

Gee, where did I hear that already ? Oh that's right....Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, the Kims, Chavez, Mugabe.....the worst people in the history of the world.

Yes, let's try all that one more time.. It's sure to work this time. Much better than letting the world's best businesspeople build big, successful businesses.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong. I like the poor. I like them so much that we should eat them.

They are tender and succulent from never having done any work. Just like veal.

The rich, bleh. Like rattlesnake. All those 80-hour work-weeks have rendered them stringy and lean.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
Hey, I'm sorry for anybody who lives on the edge of disaster. But unless you have a physical or mental handicap, rather than "one paycheck from disaster".....you are really one associate's degree or one certificate away from better times. Or some overtime, or a second job, or a cheaper flat or car. Whatever happened to people coming up with their own solutions to their own problems ? Why is today's person only gonna scream and spit and swear at people who work harder, plan better, and make rational decisions ?

You know, you could live without a 100-200 per month phone, or 100-200 per month cable TV, or 300 per month car. You can still have all of those things for 1/4 that money, with the slightest effort to make it so. Today's struggling people won't even consider that. Today's classic selfish stance is "oh, why should I have to move from where I love it, to a place that's paying 25.00 an hour". Yeah, got it. The 25.00 / hr is supposed to just come to you, not you to it. Yes, that's really the outlook of today's poor. I keep hearing how unfair it is that a career burger flipper can't pay the rent in downtown NYC. That's Godawful childish logic.


You must not be in retail/sales. The problem with our economy as i see it is that there's a huge shift toward people with very little extra income. Most people feeling the pinch are cutting expenses. They keep up appearances, but there's very little if any left over after the normal bills are paid. There's been much less disposable income in the middle 80%. I've done tours with bands. There used to be a majority of people who are strictly consumers, who'd go to events with lots of money and spend it. Now there are like 5x the number of people who go with art or crafts to sell, and there's far fewer people who buy it. Used to be able to make a good living like that, past 7-8 years its been getting worse each season, competition is higher than ever, and all competing for the shrinking pool of customers who are doing well enough to not yet feel the pinch. Im seeing differences even since last year. guys who are talented and successful artists having to try desperate tactics to stay afloat, and the reason is there's less people supporting their work. I see this as partially because there's less real work needing to be done, so many kids are left trying to support themselves via the alternatives they've seen their peers do successfully, >>higher competition, all fighting for the same pool of spending money. We're in trouble for sure. Used to be that I could make a few hundred in a good afternoon, and would have good afternoons on the reg. Now I'm lucky to make that in a week, and I work much harder to do it. The way this is going, we're in for a rough ride. As seen by R.B. Fuller, the only way out of this mess is to provide a guaranteed income to people, so people can afford to reward the ones who go beyond the ordinary and enrich others lives.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
"so people can afford to reward the ones who go beyond the ordinary and enrich others lives."


I like this concept. I think it's what capitalism does.

I think it's what will be completely obliterated once you institute a mandatory wage for burger flippers, that is the same as the regional manager for the restaurant.

Then we'll have nothing but burger flippers and nobody managing them, because it's definitely more fun to get paid the same for zero responsibility, and not one minute more than 40 hours, and having absolutely nothing to be held accountable for.

Then the restaurants and all other retail will fail like the farms in Zimbabwe, because idiots will be running them all.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Fair share is simple forget taxing people a percentage of their wealth, instead set up a budget of (this is how much the government needs per year to run adjust as necessary) then take how much each individual earns. Figure out what percentage of wealth that is in comparison to the rest of the country, and take from them that percentage to put towards the governments allowance. That would be your fair share. If you own 30% of the countries wealth as an individual, well you can pay 30% of the governments budget. You own .001% of the countries wealth, that's what you pay.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Get over it. Live your own life.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove
Nvm
edit on 27-1-2016 by stolencar18 because: nvm



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18

I was answering what fair share is.

As for why, because they own double the wealth of the country they live in.

let's say it's the worlds smallest country ever, with only these two people in it (ridiculous example for simplicity). It has a budget of 30,000 dollars.

50,000 pays 10,000 and 100,000 pays 20,000, leaving both with 40,000 and 80,000 respectively and the 30,000 budget is paid, and neither person is really hurting.

Now for an example with more people, let's add 100 people that make 15,000 dollars a year. So we have a total coming in of 300,000, let's increase the budget required to 60,000

100,000 has 1/3rd of the countries wealth so pays 20,000 still has 80,000 left, wealth is reduced by 20%, a little more than 2 months pay but they can skip a half a year if they wanted and not worry about bills or becoming destitute, and still save money
50,000 has 1/6th of the countries wealth so pays 10,000 has 40,000 left, Wealth is reduced by 10%, a little more than a months pay but like above
15,000 has 1/20th of the countries wealth so pays 300 has 14,700 left, Wealth is reduced by 2%, a little less than a weeks pay, which need I remind you, at this pay scale your living roughly week to week, so this still hurts, but it's livable. Yeah the upper class loses more overall wealth, but unless they are being stupid with their money it doesn't put them in any risk or danger. Meanwhile those at the bottom still are, they at least aren't struggling as much as in the next two.

Everyone has paid their fair share, and no one is destitute for having done so nor is anyone being asked to pay some unreasonable amount. Yeah the 100,000 person lost 20,000 but 80,000 dollars is nothing to sneeze at, if you can't live happily and comfortably on that, I have trouble believing your this superhuman everyone seems to think the rich must have been to get that way.

Is it potentially complicated, yes, but it answers the question of fair share. That double the payment is less unreasonable when put in perspective of what actual effect it has on each persons wealth.

Now let's have everyone pay the same percentage of the countries wealth.

We have 102 people so let's increase the budget required to 61,200 dollars for simplicity sake.
Each person pays 600 dollars
100,000 is reduced to 99,400 wealth is reduced by .6% of their wealth, about 1/14th of a months pay
50,000 is reduced to 49,400 wealth is reduced by 1.2% of their wealth, about 1/7th of a months pay
15,000 is reduced to 14,400 wealth is reduced by 4% of their wealth, half a months paycheck, a single weeks paycheck can mean debt, and no savings, sounds fair til you consider that
This results in the people at the bottom who need their money most paying more than 4 times the percentage of their wealth than the ones who can actually afford it.

Now let's see if we figure out what it would cost for each person to pay while costing the same percentage of each persons wealth aka a flat tax. We want to stay in the 60,000 range but we'll see where we end up, this isn't my job, so not going to go to extremes here to figure this out.

3.70% = 3600 = 3,600 = less than half of a months pay check, but can miss half a month and not even notice
3.70% = 1800 = 1,800 = less than half of a months pay check, but can miss half a month and still live completely well
3.70% = 555 = 55,500 = less than half of a months pay check but lives week to week, a single weeks paycheck can mean debt, and no savings, sounds fair til you consider that
3.70% Flat Tax = 60,900
Ok so flat tax we'll go with 60,900 cause I'm done plugging in percentages and is close enough.

So a flat tax would mean
100,000 pays 3,600, dropping them to 96,400
50,000 pays 18,800, dropping them to 48,200
15,000 pays 555, dropping them to 14,440

In all of these the higher class have more financial security, as that's pretty much always the case, the goal is to bring the lower class up to a reasonable amount of security. Honestly none of these quite do it perfectly, cause those at the bottom aren't paid enough period. No one who works for 40 hours a week should live pay check to paycheck.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
A flat tax sounds nice, but until the tax code is simplified, and immune to gaming, a one size fit's all solution will make no sense.

When the tax was 90% for the highest income earners, the real tax paid averaged 40% or so. That's close to the same as a person earning into the highest bracket today, who doesn't own a company or put in efforts to reduce the amount of taxable income. The problem is that a good chunk of those in the highest tax bracket do own companies, and work with lawyers and accountants to reduce the amount of taxes they actually pay.

Flat tax sounds good in a simple world that doesn't exist. I think in reality it would be more of a benefit for the people already gaming the system. The real rate in the US would need be pretty high, and the people at the top would benefit from their reduced tax percentage while continuing to hide their income.

Your "simple" post above that one also makes no sense. You start with income, and then switch to wealth. They are not the same. Try again.
edit on 28-1-2016 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
That is just a bizarre, convoluted, undoable concept....just like the crazy things that the Soviet, and Romanian, and Chinese, and Cuban, and Vietnamese, and Venezuelan, and Zimbabwan lunatics dreamed up.

You have to have something that's got some degree of rationality, not just punish people who've earned more than others. You can't create / run an economy on some wild idea born of jealousy.

A flat consumption tax always seemed logical. Maybe you start with a flat income tax that's low, like 10 % for everybody.

Then you can supplement that with another X % consumption (or VAT) tax to fill the gap of your budget.

So a guy buying a loaf of bread for a buck pays another 2-3-4 cents. A guy buying a million dollar yacht pays a cool 20-30-40,000 dollars extra for his toys. I think that's plenty punishment enough for someone having the nerve to own a boat, and have fun.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: TrueBrit

Once you have such obscene wealth, the only thing left to spend it on is obtaining more. And thus, the cycle continues.


I think all the charities and other philanthropic organizations that benefit from the generosity of the wealthy would disagree.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
There is no such thing as obscene wealth lol. Money is not tangible, it doesn't do obscene things any more than guns chase people around and shoot them.

It's obscene only in the minds of the jealous, or the lazy who need to blame the successful instead of their own sloth.

As a rule, massive wealth has been reinvested in society in various ways. Gates and Buffet and the Koches today. Vanderbilt and Mellon and the Rockefellors and Kennedies of earlier times. There are hospitals and institutes and foundations all over America given by these folks.

But boy, doesn't that just bust up the meme of "evil" and "obscene" wealth. NO FAIR !!



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
There is no such thing as obscene wealth lol. Money is not tangible, it doesn't do obscene things any more than guns chase people around and shoot them.

It's obscene only in the minds of the jealous, or the lazy who need to blame the successful instead of their own sloth.

As a rule, massive wealth has been reinvested in society in various ways. Gates and Buffet and the Koches today. Vanderbilt and Mellon and the Rockefellors and Kennedies of earlier times. There are hospitals and institutes and foundations all over America given by these folks.

But boy, doesn't that just bust up the meme of "evil" and "obscene" wealth. NO FAIR !!


Every time I point this out, all they will do is say that they should give the money back for ripping off people. LOL.

I started a thread on this very topic...

Have You Thanked A Rich Person Lately?



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
lol, yeah. Those people buying penicillin, and cell phones, and food right around the corner from their houses, and warm durable clothes, and instant knowledge / communication.....sure are getting ripped off.

Did you ever see the stores in the great old socialist/ communist experiments ? They had to have fake ones for the press and visitors, because .999 were pathetically empty.

Yeah, please discontinue what we have and give us that. Please give us legions of bureaucrats with unlimited power, and jail all the capitalists.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

It isn't really that convoluted. If your wealth is 30% of the country's total wealth, then you should be providing 30% of its taxes. Not complicated.



I think all the charities and other philanthropic organizations that benefit from the generosity of the wealthy would disagree.


Money isn't usually given to charities for purely philanthropic reasons. Tax benefits. Sometimes they own the charity they give the money to.


There is no such thing as obscene wealth lol. Money is not tangible, it doesn't do obscene things any more than guns chase people around and shoot them.


I don't think you know what obscene means. Please try again, once you do.


It's obscene only in the minds of the jealous, or the lazy who need to blame the successful instead of their own sloth.


So everyone who disagrees with you is either jealous or lazy, huh? Well, I'll go ahead and say that everyone who disagrees with me is conceited and stupid.

Forgive me, extremely stupid.
Not exactly a good method of argument, is it? Just makes you want to disagree that much harder.
Please, try again.


As a rule, massive wealth has been reinvested in society in various ways. Gates and Buffet and the Koches today. Vanderbilt and Mellon and the Rockefellors and Kennedies of earlier times. There are hospitals and institutes and foundations all over America given by these folks.


All things that would exist independently of the existence of such people. And please, the Koches? They're one of the key players in destroying America.


But boy, doesn't that just bust up the meme of "evil" and "obscene" wealth. NO FAIR !!


I've already stated that I don't really care about people like Oprah, because her wealth isn't obtained and maintained by destroying the lives of others, and the planet itself. It is not her head that I want on a pike.
Do you remember that "leave Brittney alone" girl? Guess who you're reminding me of, for some reason. Don't worry, I don't think our words are that hurtful to multibillionaires like Trump and such.

Get back to me when Bill Gates has contributed the equivalent of 1,540,000 years of hard work to our society. I'd say I'd wait, but I don't think even memories will be left by the time he could even get close to that.

Still, it's become quite obvious to me that some of these guys could be eating children and you'd still be defending them (that is hyperbole, though they do kill thousands of them indirectly), so whatever. I'm no longer going to bother with you.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
lol, what an angry disjointed post. I'm not into these point by point never-ending diatribes....so no thanks. Let's just say I'm not mad at rich people, nor do I know anything about them personally to cast aspersions.

Yeah, it's not hyperbole to say that the rich are killing thousands of kids just for being rich. You may be mistaking them for Planned Parenthood.

And Oprah's billions are still exempt from scrutiny, while all others are simply evil.

heh, we couldn't write this better for you, if you asked us to spoof you.
edit on 29-1-2016 by stevieray because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: stevieray

It isn't really that convoluted. If your wealth is 30% of the country's total wealth, then you should be providing 30% of its taxes. Not complicated.



I think all the charities and other philanthropic organizations that benefit from the generosity of the wealthy would disagree.


Money isn't usually given to charities for purely philanthropic reasons. Tax benefits. Sometimes they own the charity they give the money to.


There is no such thing as obscene wealth lol. Money is not tangible, it doesn't do obscene things any more than guns chase people around and shoot them.


I don't think you know what obscene means. Please try again, once you do.


It's obscene only in the minds of the jealous, or the lazy who need to blame the successful instead of their own sloth.


So everyone who disagrees with you is either jealous or lazy, huh? Well, I'll go ahead and say that everyone who disagrees with me is conceited and stupid.

Forgive me, extremely stupid.
Not exactly a good method of argument, is it? Just makes you want to disagree that much harder.
Please, try again.


As a rule, massive wealth has been reinvested in society in various ways. Gates and Buffet and the Koches today. Vanderbilt and Mellon and the Rockefellors and Kennedies of earlier times. There are hospitals and institutes and foundations all over America given by these folks.


All things that would exist independently of the existence of such people. And please, the Koches? They're one of the key players in destroying America.


But boy, doesn't that just bust up the meme of "evil" and "obscene" wealth. NO FAIR !!


I've already stated that I don't really care about people like Oprah, because her wealth isn't obtained and maintained by destroying the lives of others, and the planet itself. It is not her head that I want on a pike.
Do you remember that "leave Brittney alone" girl? Guess who you're reminding me of, for some reason. Don't worry, I don't think our words are that hurtful to multibillionaires like Trump and such.

Get back to me when Bill Gates has contributed the equivalent of 1,540,000 years of hard work to our society. I'd say I'd wait, but I don't think even memories will be left by the time he could even get close to that.

Still, it's become quite obvious to me that some of these guys could be eating children and you'd still be defending them (that is hyperbole, though they do kill thousands of them indirectly), so whatever. I'm no longer going to bother with you.


You do realize that there is a difference between wealth and income? You also realize that wealth does not necessarily mean you have easy access to said wealth?

This is why we can't have rational discussions on these issues because some of you are so uneducated as to basic finance and economic matters that we have to spend time responding to drivel like you just posted.

Let me help you see the error of your ways. First, wealth is the money you have. Income is the money you earned over the course of a year. For example, a retired school teacher who bought and paid off a home in Silicon Valley might technically be a millionaire just from the equity in her home. However, she may only be collecting a school teacher pension in retirement. Let's say $75k/yr. So we have a situation where someone is wealthy, but has a relatively low income. If she was taxed based on her wealth, it would mean she then would have to sell her home just so she can pay her taxes.

Ah, screw it... it is pointless



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Just like with Hillary, it's pointless to point up where various claims and excuses just don't make sense, or have been wrong so often in the past.

It literally does not matter, lol.

meh, free country, freedom of speech, wide-open internet. Everybody have a big time !!



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Don't think we should care that 62 people have same wealth as half the worlds population. Think we should probably care a great deal that half the worlds population only has the wealth of 62 people.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
ya cuz they steal it from all of us, and inexchange give us products and services that hurt us, poison us, enslave us etc etc.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join