Individual Wealth Cap

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: DBCowboy

haha

whats a ct site?

You're on one.

ct
combustion turbine
natural gas powered in this instance
used to generate electricity and or steam
in this case both

a reply to: toolgal462

wtf can someone with a billion dollars buy that someone with 250 million can't? a country? who cares dude

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: toolgal462

wtf can someone with a billion dollars buy that someone with 250 million can't? a country? who cares dude

You do, apparently. Or are you blind to that fact?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: trollz

According to you, anyway.

Many do not agree, and it is their money.

You choose to limit yourself to 75,000 dollars a year? That's fine. That's a comfortable life. Maybe someone else needs a bit more out of life? That'll take a bit more, perhaps.

It really is none of our business.

Ok, so why does Jeff Bezos need $123 billion to have a fulfilling, comfortable life? What does he "need" that $10 billion can't buy? $100 million? $10 million?
This thinking is gross materialism. The things we "need" aren't bought with billions of dollars. We don't take our money with us into the afterlife.

a reply to: DBCowboy

oh conspiracy

lol so this site is like fake news?

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

So you are advocating that multi billionaires keep their wealth overseas? They're already playing that shell game some law won't change that.

a reply to: toolgal462

I guess I'm blind, I'm talking more about civics not envy.

do you think (if for any reason) someone managed to make A QUADRILLION dollars, this would have a positive impact on the rest of everyone else? or do you think this would have no consequence? can you frame what you're saying around OP

bernie is the old granpa you didn't want your ball to fall into his yard because he would take it;
"why do you need the ball" he would spew;
"the ball should be everyones" he would howl
later we would light paper lunchbags full of dog crap and leave them on his porch after ringing the bell
his Birkenstocks would stink for weeks

a reply to: underpass61

force them to collect assets and heavily audit them lol

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Deny Ignorance

Breakup of the Bell System

The breakup of the Bell System was mandated on January 8, 1982, by an agreed consent decree providing that AT&T Corporation would, as had been initially proposed by AT&T, relinquish control of the Bell Operating Companies that had provided local telephone service in the United States and Canada up until that point. This effectively took the monopoly that was the Bell System and split it into entirely separate companies that would continue to provide telephone service. AT&T would continue to be a provider of long distance service, while the now-independent Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) would provide local service, and would no longer be directly supplied with equipment from AT&T subsidiary Western Electric.

This divestiture was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the United States Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T. AT&T was, at the time, the sole provider of telephone service throughout most of the United States. Furthermore, most telephonic equipment in the United States was produced by its subsidiary, Western Electric. This vertical integration led AT&T to have almost total control over communication technology in the country, which led to the antitrust case, United States v. AT&T. The plaintiff in the court complaint asked the court to order AT&T to divest ownership of Western Electric.

History of United States antitrust law

Public officials during the Progressive Era put passing and enforcing strong antitrust high on their agenda. President Theodore Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while William Howard Taft sued 75. In 1902, Roosevelt stopped the formation of the Northern Securities Company, which threatened to monopolize transportation in the Northwest (see Northern Securities Co. v. United States).

One of the more well known trusts was the Standard Oil Company; John D. Rockefeller in the 1870s and 1880s had used economic threats against competitors and secret rebate deals with railroads to build what was called a monopoly in the oil business, though some minor competitors remained in business. In 1911 the Supreme Court agreed that in recent years (1900–1904) Standard had violated the Sherman Act (see Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States). It broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that competed with one another, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (later known as Exxon and now ExxonMobil), Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco), Standard Oil Company of New York (Mobil, again, later merged with Exxon to form ExxonMobil), of California (Chevron), and so on. In approving the breakup the Supreme Court added the "rule of reason": not all big companies, and not all monopolies, are evil; and the courts (not the executive branch) are to make that decision. To be harmful, a trust had to somehow damage the economic environment of its competitors.

Industrial Commission (1898) to investigate railroad pricing, among other things
United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895) restricting monopoly regulation
Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) the antitrust laws entitled the federal government to regulate monopolies that had a direct impact on commerce
Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904) 5 to 4, a railway monopoly, formed through a merger of 3 corporations was ordered to be dissolved. The owner, James Jerome Hill was forced to manage his ownership stake in each independently.
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) Standard Oil was dismantled into geographical entities given its size, and that it was too much of a monopoly
United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911) found to have monopolized the trade.

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: DBCowboy

oh conspiracy

lol so this site is like fake news?

Actually, this site's motto is to "Deny Ignorance".

This site looks for the facts.

Welcome to ATS.

OP should be busy trying to better himself so he can make a living he is comfortable with and stop listening to a millionaire grifter politician who never worked a job in the private sector in his entire life!

but I am not optimistic that OP understands that you cannot control the world, only yourself.

I don't know anyone who is a billionaire, I do know some people who are worth many millions though. The rich ones I know try to create jobs and try to help the community around here. Trouble is people look at them as evil and they try to block everything they do, believing that they are doing it just to get rich. Most millionaires I know are trying to provide a service to our community, not get richer. Most expand their businesses to create more jobs. They can't employ more and more people if they go broke, so they can't pay really high wages in comparison to other parts of the country, they try to pay a living wage but do not want the customers they work for locally to not be able to afford their services and products either.

People do not want to lose money employing others either, and the costs of owning a business are not cheap.

a reply to: DBCowboy

so the moon # is really fake? what

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

I'm talking more about civics not envy.

no
you do not understand our civics or you would not advocate violating someones rights

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: underpass61

force them to collect assets and heavily audit them lol

HOW? You gonna force them with threat of sending them to gulags? This is just absurd.

a reply to: toolgal462

make them buy bank bonds, least its not real money(yet)

originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Deny Ignorance

Breakup of the Bell System

The breakup of the Bell System was mandated on January 8, 1982, by an agreed consent decree providing that AT&T Corporation would, as had been initially proposed by AT&T, relinquish control of the Bell Operating Companies that had provided local telephone service in the United States and Canada up until that point. This effectively took the monopoly that was the Bell System and split it into entirely separate companies that would continue to provide telephone service. AT&T would continue to be a provider of long distance service, while the now-independent Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) would provide local service, and would no longer be directly supplied with equipment from AT&T subsidiary Western Electric.

This divestiture was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the United States Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T. AT&T was, at the time, the sole provider of telephone service throughout most of the United States. Furthermore, most telephonic equipment in the United States was produced by its subsidiary, Western Electric. This vertical integration led AT&T to have almost total control over communication technology in the country, which led to the antitrust case, United States v. AT&T. The plaintiff in the court complaint asked the court to order AT&T to divest ownership of Western Electric.

History of United States antitrust law

Public officials during the Progressive Era put passing and enforcing strong antitrust high on their agenda. President Theodore Roosevelt sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while William Howard Taft sued 75. In 1902, Roosevelt stopped the formation of the Northern Securities Company, which threatened to monopolize transportation in the Northwest (see Northern Securities Co. v. United States).

One of the more well known trusts was the Standard Oil Company; John D. Rockefeller in the 1870s and 1880s had used economic threats against competitors and secret rebate deals with railroads to build what was called a monopoly in the oil business, though some minor competitors remained in business. In 1911 the Supreme Court agreed that in recent years (1900–1904) Standard had violated the Sherman Act (see Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States). It broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that competed with one another, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (later known as Exxon and now ExxonMobil), Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco), Standard Oil Company of New York (Mobil, again, later merged with Exxon to form ExxonMobil), of California (Chevron), and so on. In approving the breakup the Supreme Court added the "rule of reason": not all big companies, and not all monopolies, are evil; and the courts (not the executive branch) are to make that decision. To be harmful, a trust had to somehow damage the economic environment of its competitors.

Industrial Commission (1898) to investigate railroad pricing, among other things
United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895) restricting monopoly regulation
Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) the antitrust laws entitled the federal government to regulate monopolies that had a direct impact on commerce
Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904) 5 to 4, a railway monopoly, formed through a merger of 3 corporations was ordered to be dissolved. The owner, James Jerome Hill was forced to manage his ownership stake in each independently.
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) Standard Oil was dismantled into geographical entities given its size, and that it was too much of a monopoly
United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911) found to have monopolized the trade.

Yah, but that is "insanely complicated" so OP wants to simplify it by having govt. take all the money you earn and then the govt. can dole it out to people as it sees fit.

LOL this is absurd