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.

 

Tax the rich and feed the poor until there are no rich no more

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
In addition, I would like to put forward two excellent articles from Wikipedia that I think back up my position.

1. en.wikipedia.org...

Please note the distribution in wealth correlates to the amount of education a person has. If the person takes the effort to educate themselves, they will be rich.

Also note the distribution by race. Asians, despite being recent immigrants to the USA, have the highest education rates and household incomes. This speaks to me of a fair system whereby anyone can thrive if they are good enough and work hard enough. If an immigrant arriving in a country with nothing can well for themselves, surely the proletariat could... if they were good enough and worked hard enough.


2. en.wikipedia.org...

From a house built by his grandfather in rural India to 4th richest man in the world, all because he had the ability.

Are you saying that he got to where he is unfairly and by exploiting the poor?




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Anyone that thinks that 'well the poor are poor because they didn't get off their rear ends and make something of themselves!' hasn't read about the Myth of Wealth Mobility.

Chances are, you'll never be wealthy. You'll be lucky to make more than your father. That's the sad truth. And the US is one of the worst places for the 'rags to riches' scenerio. You have a better chance in France or Germany - and a much better chance in Canada or Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden.

If you break all income into 20% increments, if you were born into the bottom 20%, you have less than 7% chance of ending up in the top 20%. 11% if you were born into the 2nd lowest 20%.

From poor to rich:

7.27%
10.98%
18.41%
26.02%
37.31%

So chances are, if you were born in the top 20%, almost 40% will have the chance to remain there, while, if you were born in the lowest 20%, you only have about a 7% chance of becoming as wealthy.

So the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor.


The correlation between the income of parents and their children is so high that it would take a poor family of four with two children nine to ten generations – over 200 years – to reach middle-income status.



10% own two thirds of all the wealth and resources in the US. The rest have to scramble for the remaining third. And the gap between them is growing, making it harder and harder for anyone to make that leap into that last percentile group.



www.tcf.org...

www.stateofworkingamerica.org...

www.acces.us...



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Leaches and moochers and bums, oh my.
Leaches and moochers and bums, oh my.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 


Wealth mobility is immaterial when it comes to statistics.

Successful people are those that are taught well by their parents, given wealth by their parents etc.

I dont see why this is a problem? My parents worked hard to gain assets, which will be transferred to me eventually. Would you suggest that their assets be distributed freely amongst all other peoples of the world rather than go to their own children?

There is also the issue of genetics. Intelligent people have intelligent children, who are more likely to succeed.

Furthermore, if you read the article on Laxmi Mittal I posted above, you can see that a person can go from nothing to being one of the richest men in the world.

I admire him for that, whereas left wingers are jelous of him and want to take away his money.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Successful people are those that are taught well by their parents, given wealth by their parents etc.


Or those that recognize an opportunity when they see it, much the leaders of IBM during WWII



Furthermore, if you read the article on Laxmi Mittal I posted above, you can see that a person can go from nothing to being one of the richest men in the world.

I admire him for that, whereas left wingers are jelous of him and want to take away his money.


As for Mr. Mittal, good for him coming from poor origins, but are you sure he/his company is so clean?

I think not:



A damning report on Mittal Steel's business in Liberia describes how the global steel group has been able to "use virtually every opportunity to maximise profit at the expense of a country trying to get back on its feet after enduring 15 years of bloody civil war".



Mittal Steel head office was resident in the Netherlands Antilles until December 2005, when it transferred its domicile to the tax-friendly region of Switzerland, Zug.


What so interesting about the Antilles? Its an area with virtually no taxes and a known tax shelter for corporations seeking to suffle books and pay nothing to their host country


Similarly, it diluted the government's constitutional and legislative powers in favour of Mittal and has consequently undermined the rights of Liberia's population."
By contrast, however, Mittal has secured access to valuable iron ore deposits on extremely good terms, at the direct expense of Liberia and its people. "It is hard to believe that in signing the agreement the NTGL was acting in the best interests of the nation, and Mittal seems to have taken full advantage of this. It is important to discover what vested interests were at play when the agreement was signed," said Global Witness.


Source

After the exposure Mittal got from this article, they agreed to a renegotiated contract, which to be honest, is a little more fair to Liberia and its people, than the previous draft. But it remains confidential in its closing, crushing any hopes for civil monitoring and regulation.



[edit on 31-3-2008 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Yes, they may have recognised and cashed in on an opportunity. Everyone was free to do so, but only they took the actions necessary.

Again it is just driven by jelousy and envy, and illwill towards those who gambled and won.

As for Arcelor-Mittal, Im not really commenting on his business practices here. The point was to show that supreme wealth mobility does exist in the world.

If you are trying to point out that his companies are "exploiting" the workforce then thats a different issue. Though if the workforce wanted to own their own company they should have set it up instead of working for Mittal. Nobody forced them into it. They just dont have the capability to run steel mills, and so choose to work for Mittal while simultaneously complaining that he gets all the money.

Final comment : Its a beautiful free market out there which lets anyone run their own show. The only thing stopping you is fear, inexperience and lack of vision.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Or those that recognize an opportunity when they see it, much the leaders of IBM during WWII


For left-wingers the only good corporation is a bankrupt corporation, or a dead one.

Had Enron moved some of it jobs overseas to avoid bankruptcy and salvaged the pension funds of it’s thousands of employees they would have been accused of moving jobs overseas and not congratulated for saving the pension funds of their employees as well as saving their jobs.

Keeping a company alive and profitable is very difficult in a world where regulations and taxations continually hammer away at companies. Not to mentions the mood of the people who hate corporations, and bite the hand that feeds them.

Leftwing propaganda has been very affective at creating hate towards Capitalism. Marx would be proud.

Third World counties exist because of Karl Marx philosophy. Good job there Karl.


[edit on 31-3-2008 by gdeed]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by gdeed
For left-wingers the only good corporation is a bankrupt corporation, or a dead one.


First, I dont classify myself as left wing. There are policies on the left that I do not agree with, just as there are policies on the right that I do not agree with.



Had Enron moved some of it jobs overseas to avoid bankruptcy and salvaged the pension funds of it’s thousands of employees they would have been accused of moving jobs overseas and not congratulated for saving the pension funds of their employees as well as saving their jobs.


You seem to believe that corporations have some kind of connection with the working class, they dont. their main concern is profit for the shareholders. Corporations move jobs oveseas and exploit cheap labour markets because it will create bigger profits for its share holders and board of directors. Those savings from the cheap labour markets are not passed on to the working class, they are not passed on to the consumer, they are passed on to the shareholder and CEO.




Keeping a company alive and profitable is very difficult in a world where regulations and taxations continually hammer away at companies.


So, you have no problem with corporations who receive negative tax credits (welfare from the government) while they export jobs to cheaper labour markets?



Not to mentions the mood of the people who hate corporations, and bite the hand that feeds them.


hmmm. considering corporations employ about 1% of the total workforce in the world, while controlling 70% or more of the lions share of the wealth, I dont see how being against corporate profiteering is a bad thing.



Leftwing propaganda has been very affective at creating hate towards Capitalism. Marx would be proud.
Third World counties exist because of Karl Marx philosophy. Good job there Karl.


If the free market was actually free, it would be a great economic system, but the fact is, free market enterprize as it is, is corporate capitalism.

Thrid world countries suffer poverty as a result of the exploitation that colonialsim and imperialism brought. Poverty, as it is, is not an original condition in much of the thrid world.

Take india for example. India exported more textiles to britan than britian to india. that is, untill britian rolled in with gunboats and de-industrialized the great textile centers of daka and madress. After such destruction, I believe in 1850, india's debt rose to 50 million pounds, an amount no country with poor export control and profit could pay off.

Most of the third world is poor because of the relative coniditions between exploitation and social struggle; between democracy and plutocracy.

Karl Marx didnt ruin the third world, Colonialism, Imperialism, Fuedalism, and Plutocracy did.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Yes, they may have recognised and cashed in on an opportunity. Everyone was free to do so, but only they took the actions necessary.


But that opportunity was the suffering and exploitation of others.



Again it is just driven by jelousy and envy, and illwill towards those who gambled and won.


id say slave labour comes with relatively few chances. Either their slaves, or their dead slaves.



As for Arcelor-Mittal, Im not really commenting on his business practices here.


So, his rags to riches story is only important in the context of him getting rich; but anyone that suffered as a result is un-important?



The point was to show that supreme wealth mobility does exist in the world.


it may exist, but it exists at the loss of hundreds of peoples lives and livelyhood. Even then, it exists in rare occaisions.



If you are trying to point out that his companies are "exploiting" the workforce then thats a different issue. Though if the workforce wanted to own their own company they should have set it up instead of working for Mittal. Nobody forced them into it. They just dont have the capability to run steel mills, and so choose to work for Mittal while simultaneously complaining that he gets all the money.


I am merely highlighting my original position, that wealth is built upon the backs of the poor.



Final comment : Its a beautiful free market out there which lets anyone run their own show. The only thing stopping you is fear, inexperience and lack of vision.


Where is it a free market? What countries specifically?

Quite frankly, the free market exists only to those that have the capital to exploit it.

Edit to add: Please forgive any spelling mistakes, im at work and have to type fast and have no time to edit to spelling. thanks

[edit on 31-3-2008 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
You seem to believe that corporations have some kind of connection with the working class, they dont.


They do


their main concern is profit for the shareholders.


What do you think pension funds are? Many ordinary working folk depend on companies making profits so that their pension funds will give them something to retire on


Corporations move jobs oveseas and exploit cheap labour markets because it will create bigger profits for its share holders and board of directors.


Same reason many foreign companies build factories in the Untied States, it’s a global economy. I know many people don’t know how global economies work. That’s why the left is successful at getting them to hate corporations.

And as far as exploiting cheap labor, do you hire the most expensive plumber when your plumbing goes out? I bet not.


Those savings from the cheap labour markets are not passed on to the working class, they are not passed on to the consumer,


Wrong, everything is very cheap because of competition between corporations. If you had to make your own car it would cost you hundreds of thousands, same with computers, cell phones----everything would cost a whole lot more it weren’t for corporations.


So, you have no problem with corporations who receive negative tax credits (welfare from the government) while they export jobs to cheaper labour markets?


Most of those negative tax credits go to minority and women owned corporations.


hmmm. considering corporations employ about 1% of the total workforce in the world, while controlling 70% or more of the lions share of the wealth, I dont see how being against corporate profiteering is a bad thing.


In Third World countries they don’t employ even 1%, that’s why they are in poverty. In the west you either work for the government or a corporation or some company, or you live off the taxpayer.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
But that opportunity was the suffering and exploitation of others.


As I said before, only the worthy survive and are successful. This is the new form of evolution. Personally, I have never made money out of a dire situation, but I knew that if I could I would. Charlie Chaplin increased his net worth by investing in gold before hyperinflation. His assets went up by 1000%, but nobody complains about him..


So, his rags to riches story is only important in the context of him getting rich; but anyone that suffered as a result is un-important?


Precisely. He was poorer than many of his employees to begin with, but he worked his way up due to his innate superiority in vision, attitude, and ability.



it may exist, but it exists at the loss of hundreds of peoples lives and livelyhood. Even then, it exists in rare occaisions.


It is enough that it exists. It means that the playing field is level. It means that anyone can be limitlessly rich even if they are born on the side of a road penniless.



I am merely highlighting my original position, that wealth is built upon the backs of the poor.


So? The poor gain employment from the rich. The rich gain wealth from the poor. Its mutual.

If the poor have such a problem working for someone else, they may easily quit and do something else.




Where is it a free market? What countries specifically?

Quite frankly, the free market exists only to those that have the capital to exploit it.


The entire world is a free market, barring some war ravaged parts of Africa.

I have specifically shown with the Mittal example that a person from a third world country, born with virtually no capital, can become immensely rich.

Doesnt this prove that the market is free and fluid? Doesnt this prove that those with the drive and vision can succeed?

I would like to put a socratic question to you. If you think that the poor are being exploited, what is your solution to the problem? What system could be used to ensure that the working class are protected from exploitation?

The only answer you could possibly come up with is state control of the means of production.... ie communism, which history has shown time and again doesnt work because of intrinsic human nature. We are selfish beasts for the most part, who only care about ourselves. There is no amount of red flag waving that can change this fact of life.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Also, this song slams homosexuals


I really hope you're kidding. If not then you realize he must be slamming himself? 'freaks and hairy’s, dykes and fairies'.

Please listen to the song as a whole, and try to realize that it's not just declarative statements.

As to the whole class warfare thing, please try to understand that socialism was invented by the big money wall street PTB as a means to control you while making you think you have some power, and so keep you slaving away contentedly. What this song says about monopoly is very insightful.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I used to think that there were seriously poor people living in the United States....until I took a trip to Russia, just after the fall of communism and then I saw what REAL poverty was/is. I see so called poverty in America completely different now.

My former neighbors were so poor, they receive every kind of government assistance that is provided….because that is what the assistance is for…people who are poor RIGHT? But they continually seemed to have enough money to go shopping and buy new TVs, new cars, high end clothing, etc etc etc.. And then proceeded to brag about all the aide they got.

Or how about those people who drive up to the welfare office in their brand spanking new cars. Uggg. Ive seen it dozens of times.

Or all of those poor people who have the latest cell phone and spend time chatting on line.

I do my VOLUNTARY part to help those who are TRULY in need….but I will NEVER support the government TAKING my hard earned money and giving it to others.

I do suggest this….that all those that think they are poor go visit a country that has truly poor citizens…then you will be thankful for the richness your life holds.


[edit on 31-3-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by gdeed

For left-wingers the only good corporation is a bankrupt corporation, or a dead one.



More evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

Being a left-winger and a capitalist are not mutually exclusive.

I'm a left-winger and I own two LLCs, very successful I might add; do you think that a bankrupt corporation or a dead one is what I envision.

You paint with a very broad brush gdeed!!

[edit on 31-3-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
As to the whole class warfare thing, please try to understand that socialism was invented by the big money wall street PTB as a means to control you while making you think you have some power, and so keep you slaving away contentedly. What this song says about monopoly is very insightful.


Well lol no wonder you guys are so lost. The state in some countries may have labeled themselves socialist to confuse the working class, which it did obviously as seen in this thread. Russia, China, nor Hitler were socialists, very far from it.

No, socialism came from the working class for the working class, but just like anything that organises labour is very dangerous to the wealthy. And seeing as the wealthy own the means of production, including the press, who's side of the story do you think the state through the MSM are going to portray.
If you all really new what it is you're so against you'd know this. You are against something that you know nothing about other than the twisted version the state offers you.


Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production"


What is wrong with you owning your own means of production? In other words you all become business owners, which seems to be what you all want, no? Only difference is EVERYONE you work with is also a part owner of the company, cooperative, collective, whatever you want to call it.
That means everyone in the company has a vested interest in that company doing well, instead of a low wage crew who couldn't give a crap.

It's the ultimate democracy, another thing you all claim to support, no?


Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.


That is what they had in Russia not socialism at all but capitalism, same with China. Don't make the mistake of using those countries as an example of socialism.


The socialists did not want to disrupt this technological miracle, but merely to distribute the profits of it more fairly. They observed the workers earning profits for the wealthy business owners and maintained they were being unfairly exploited. Believing the strength of the system was in its structure, they didn't want to eliminate businesses, but merely to replace the wealthy business owners with the state.

As early as 1791 Talleyrand, in France, compared the ideal society to a National Workshop. [2] In the 1820s Saint-Simon envisioned the ideal society as one large factory.[3] After his death, his followers, calling themselves the Saint-Simonians, devised a system in which all of society would be organized like a single factory and socialism was the word they chose to represent it. [4] This was the origin of socialism—the conception of a centrally-planned society run like a business.


Really it's what we have now but without the monopolisation of the means of production and exploitation of workers.
But personally I'm a Libertarian Socialist.


Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.


It's socialism without the central control, which comes with ALL governments. The only true socialist society is a Liberated one.
Your own community can decide for itself how to govern itself. Only you know how to govern you.


It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)...
...Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.


Don't be afraid of change, your life can only get better, or worse if we carry on with the system we have now. Educate and learn what alternatives there are to the system we have. What happened to the working class that they fell for the whitewashing of their own true value and their right to not be exploited?

flag.blackened.net...
cbc-inc.com...

[edit on 31/3/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I shall state my theorem for the last time and then leave, because its clear my message isnt getting through.

Based on the facts that:

1. You have freedom to work wherever you want
2. You have freedom to own your own endevour
3. You have freedom to form alliances with others

Why dont socialists start their own companies? Why dont they build their own factories and implement their ideals of worker ownership?

The reason they dont is that they are incapable of doing so by their own weaknesses. They are not willing to take the risk, they dont have the intelligence or the acumen to make the business successful.

Thus they work for an entrepreneur or industrialist who DOES have the acumen, intelligence and ability to take risks; while simultaneously they complain that they dont own a share of the profits.

The solution is simple. Either start your own company where you implement your political ideals of worker ownership. Or you work for someone else and negotiate your pay accordingly. But what you cannot do is work for someone else who offers you employment, and then whinge and cry when you dont get a slice of the pie at the end.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Why dont socialists start their own companies? Why dont they build their own factories and implement their ideals of worker ownership?

The reason they dont is that they are incapable of doing so by their own weaknesses. They are not willing to take the risk, they dont have the intelligence or the acumen to make the business successful.


So true, Socialist and Communist don’t create anything they take from those who have created and then screw it up or trash it.

Public housing is a good example, the taxpayer provides free housing and that free housing has to be rebuilt or tore down and built new every three or four years. That’s the way it is in my city anyway.

When things don’t cost us personally we don’t take care of them. And all the litter and trash spills into adjacent neighborhoods. When you take care of people, they expect you to take care of everything for them, even pick up their trash for them. Which I do everyday when it blows into my yard.

Same with building a company it’s not easy and requires lots of hard work. Most need not apply because it takes too much work, effort and dedication to keep a company going once it has been created.


[edit on 1-4-2008 by gdeed]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Where do you guys get this garbage from?

Have you ever heard of COOPS?

They are businesses based on socialist principles...They are businesses...

Maybe you need to get out of your gated neighbourhood and loosen ya ties once in a while?
There's a wild world out there...


www.ica.coop...



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Maybe you need to get out of your gated neighbourhood and loosen ya ties once in a while?
There's a wild world out there...



I’m surrounded by public housing if that’s what you mean by gated community. And it’s pretty dam wild out there with all the gang graffiti and drive by shootings. The neighborhood use to be nice.

I have noticed that there are many rich Liberals in my town, who need to get out into the cities that their policies helped destroy, but they live in huge mansions in the safe suburbs, that’s probably where you live, am I right?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by resistor
As to the whole class warfare thing, please try to understand that socialism was invented by the big money wall street PTB as a means to control you while making you think you have some power, and so keep you slaving away contentedly. What this song says about monopoly is very insightful.


Well lol no wonder you guys are so lost. The state in some countries may have labeled themselves socialist to confuse the working class, which it did obviously as seen in this thread. Russia, China, nor Hitler were socialists, very far from it.

No, socialism came from the working class for the working class, but just like anything that organises labour is very dangerous to the wealthy. And seeing as the wealthy own the means of production, including the press, who's side of the story do you think the state through the MSM are going to portray.
If you all really new what it is you're so against you'd know this. You are against something that you know nothing about other than the twisted version the state offers you.

You think that my post reflects the ‘official state version’?
Too much.

Are you unaware that Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution?

reformed-theology.org...

If socialism arose from the working class, then why does it leave the big money PTB in control of both the MSM and the gov? Socialism is nothing more than a temporarily comfortable slavery. Five year plans and new deals, wrapped in golden chains. I believe that it’s you who have been fooled by the big money oligarchs.

Communism and Capitalism are two sides of a dialectic coin designed to create socialism as a middle ground the common man would accept.

www.crossroad.to...

www.conspiracyarchive.com...

The only real difference between communism and socialism is that in the latter, private property is allowed, but is still controlled by the government (and thus the big money PTB) through regulation and taxation. Socialism was the goal of the big money PTB all along.

Also, Nazi is short for national socialist.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join