It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by jam321

The rich also increased their salaries while the poor & middle class saw very little increase, if any at all. The rich may have paid more taxes. However, during that same period, the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer.

If the wealth of the rich is not redistributed and they continue to get richer, while everyone else gets poorer, then eventually the rich will have ALL the money and there will be none left to buy their goods and services...THEN WHAT?

This isn't a very complicated issue. The people that are left with no purchasing power either die, live out their meager existences in slums, or "adjust", stop lazying around, and get to work. Look, you can't expect to have as much purchasing power as an IT technician or whatever, as a corporate executive of an IT consultancy firm, for example. People have to realize that even "hard" work and persistence won't get them as far as the ability to fully utilize every portion of your mental and physical faculties would.

People are rewarded for ingenuity and creativity in this society of ours, and to do so you really have to put yourself out there, and really make risks. Over one life time, that corporate executive has subjected himself to a degree of risk infinitely (this is not metaphorical; this is mathematically accurate) more so than the IT "worker", who has really engaged in nothing, other than maybe buying some stocks or bonds from his company here and there. The person that risked more for the good of the advancement of industry and progress should be rewarded more than the person that simply contributed their exhaustible physical faculties to that industry.

A possible solution? Replace all physical labor with capital equipment, such as automata and use them in conjunction with a cybernetic goods/services delivery system to transport finished products. So no one does any physical labor whatsoever. All the people will now have the time to invest their full mental faculties into a highly competitive and vigorous marketplace, where creativity and ingenuity are properly rewarded, and not biased towards those that contribute greater personal financial risk, entrepreneurs and investors, for example. This would immediately close the great fiscal divide that is so evident between long established social, racial and even cultural groups. People can't be born into money, or marry for riches. Blacks would not get worse education than whites. Hispanics would not have worse health insurance than the rest of us, etc. There are no inheritances. They would be irrelevant. Unless you could inherit the knowledge of your predecessors actual brains in the form of a CD or something, you would be no less entitled to wealth and fortune than any other person born in the same year as you. Obviously, intellectual rights to "knowledge" that was developed by your father, for example, would not be passed on to you, but would become the sole property of some global academic institution, which your father's business would have the rights to reproduce and profit from. The whole goal is that education as a life long process would allow anyone to accumulate whatever amount of wealth they choose to pursue. There would be no taxes in this resource based economy, where everything is provided instantaneously through the aforementioned robotic-cybernetic interface system. The human population would be spread much further than it is now. Dense cities would be irrelevant in such a world, where communications systems utilize the speed of light on a quantum level. Just like the Greek city states in the first millenia BCE, these communities would function as their own governments, with their own constitutions, and the interrelations of these communities would serve as the primary interests of a legislative body, which are then reviewed by a judicial body, on the basis of its equity to all communities involved in this extended cyber-city, which are then enforced by a collective military power by the executive branch. So by governing our own little municipalities, we in the long run govern the entire system. Pathway Governance, Hodocracy.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by cognoscente]

[edit on 28-10-2008 by cognoscente]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:53 PM
I had a very similar experience, only the homeless man and the waiter were both wearing McCain tee shirts.

I also withheld the tip.

I did not give it to the homeless man.

I mailed it the the CEO of Exxon like a good republican.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by deepred]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:02 PM
id have to disagree. First off the idea that all money comes from hard work is crap. The rockefellers, Nobels, and many other big names who still have power and money have it because their ancestors where better at robbing and pillaging than the rest. Further, much of todays corporate money is plundered from taxpayers, or legislated into our lives by the power of greed. Many corporations put their competition out of business not by having a better product or services, but by pushing legislation that makes small businesses impractical and unable to compete, or by passing legislation that takes their competition out of legal practice, such as big pharma attacking natural and alternative medicines through the FDA. This is business as usual in washington and surely as much a crime as the wealthy elite voting to give themselves 800billion in a bailout protested by the majority of the taxpayers that money is taken from. It is a truth that a person can work hard their whole life and still die poor and miserable, and if you dont believe that your naivetee is astounding. The rich DO use their power (and money is power...the more money you have the more democracy you can buy) to stack the deck in their favor, while the poor have almost nothing to protect themselves from the powers of the elite. And now, what we have said with this bailout is that the rich need no longer risk, the public will bear the risk, the elite can just stand there and reap the profits. And this is nothing new. 70% of the fortune 500 wouldnt be here today if not for government support or bailouts, we have regularly bailed out the airlines, and the auto companies, and one article i read lately stated that as much as 50% of all corporations pay no taxes. The land of the free....depending on how much freedom you can afford to buy.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:22 PM
This link seems to be the same article written by Lee Walton

Article by Lee Walton

Is that you or did you plagiarize his work and try to take credit for it?

I strongly believe that writers should get credit for what they write!

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by pexx421

It's not about hard work. It's about risk.

The person that risked more for the good of the advancement of industry and progress should be rewarded more than the person that simply contributed their exhaustible physical faculties to that industry. An entrepreneur should be rewarded with more than a worker that merely purchased and sold a few company bonds intermittently over the years.

The problem is that we don't really understand the word "work". It has to be defined.

You might argue that a construction worker has more physically exhausting work hours than a neurosurgeon. Skill is rewarded in this instance, 8 to 12 years invested in education is rewarded here as well, as opposed to 12-24 months of formal training. The surgeon risked those 10 years in school gaining an education, hoping that when he finished there would be work for him. What if there was no work? That's obviously not the best example, because doctors are in high demand in any advanced industrialized country, but nevertheless the concept is true. On the other hand, the formal education required to work as a Union construction worker was a minimal risk to his ability to produce income. If one fails, that person only wasted at minimum 6 months of time used to earn income. Also, society and industry hasn't really lost much when that person failed to become a construction worker, as they are relatively easily replaced.

Now poor people aren't in the habit of risking very much, for example, a family wouldn't take out massive (relatively speaking) loans to send their son or daughter to a state University over paying for community college, unless they were of a level of extremely exceptional intellect. So you see where the poor are the most vulnerable to this monetary system. They can not take many risks. They lose the most from risk taking than any other group of people, or the upper classes, that seemed to have inherited all their savings, education, social networks, and good health.

Many that do take risks end up living in trailer parks. We can see this now with the huge foreclosures. Those sub prime mortgage borrowers that took a risk and ended up not being able to afford the associated steep interest rates are now living on the streets.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by cognoscente]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:40 PM
This happened to me today.....couldn't wait to get home and tell my story...but it seems like it is all over the place. Kinda feel like a idiot now, since I posted a new topic without even searching.

All I can say is "Believe it or not"!

I bet you one thing.....waiters and waitresses won't be discussing politics at work for a long time!

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by grover

"Taxation IS redistribution of wealth" That's nice to know.I was always taught that taxes were paid to fund government,You know keep the highway system in repair,keep the military paid and in good order,things like that.
So truth be told(according to you) Taxes are strictly meant as a way of redistributing wealth?

Ahhh why even try.....everybody loves the aligator...till it bites you on the a**

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:03 PM
When attempting to inquire of someone about a political candidate, I ask them a simple yet effective question that makes them second guess ANY choice they have made.
I find that this question is unanswerable by most of the people that I have asked it to.
Present company, (ATS Members) excepted. "An informed bunch we are."

The question is:
"What has (your choice) done for a living before running for president?
I am shocked by how many people truly do not know the answer.

When I get an "I don't know." answer, I then ask:
"Don't you think that's important?"
"How can you vote for someone you know so little about?"

The point of this is not to dissuade anyone from voting for either candidate but to get them to make an informed decision.
Something we all do far too infrequently these days.
It is, no matter how much I might not like it, their decision to make and I have no right to influence it one way or another.
I only want people to think about their choice.
I think this "teaches" a real lesson here, by getting someone to think, not by making them angry.

I have heard this story about the tip and Obama etc...
I would like to add that, I think it's nothing more to me than a selfish empowerment ploy, by some one who wishes to force their own personal ideas of what is right or wrong upon someone else, and just downright mean. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

If people become informed I believe that they can make an educated decision. There are far to many people out there trying to "PROVE" a point, when they themselves might not be all that informed.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:14 PM
Why is this thread not labeled [HOAX] yet? At a very minimum it breaks ATS plagiarism rules.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by deathhasnosound

Replication aside.I guess if you can't see the point ...censor the point.
Somebody has to play the part.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Duuuuuuuuuuude! Awesome!

What a lesson! I'd like to have a beer with you!

(and yes, I always tip my bartender! Always.)

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:26 PM

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by deathhasnosound

Replication aside.I guess if you can't see the point ...censor the point.
Somebody has to play the part.

Rules are rules. We all abide by ATS rules and when ATS wavers on their rules and only enforces them when they feeeel like it it undermines their opinion when they try to enforce other issues.

In other words if ATS wants to be respected professionally they need to BE professionals 24/7

Not just when they're in the mood.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by nyk537

Duuuuuuuuuuude! Awesome!

What a lesson! I'd like to have a beer with you!

(and yes, I always tip my bartender! Always.)

It wasn't him. He "borrowed" the story from somewhere else.
He lied, he is a liar.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:51 PM

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by deathhasnosound

Replication aside.I guess if you can't see the point ...censor the point.
Somebody has to play the part.

The above post is the reason america is in deep crap. You don't see a wrong with a guy lying? You must be a republican. jk

On a real note, redistribution of wealth has been taken completely wrong.

He is NOT going to take your money and give to someone else. He is going to make the super rich give back a little more than they already do, to the people who made them rich. The CONSUMERS! If there are no consumers with money, the super rich cannot make anymore money.

He is gong to use that money to create programs/projects to enhance american life, while also creating jobs for the unemployed so that th unemployed an now make money to be a consumer so tht they can make the super rich, even richer.

Does this actuality not resonate with everyone?

Why do people think he will take and give it to another person with less money? That is a LIE!

Also, FDR and the NEW DEAL was strictly about government spending to create programs and jobs for american people to earn money (outside of labor regulations and wage requirements). So it has already worked during a financial crisis, why won't it work now?

Yes, some of that money will go to welfare and unemployment liabilities, but I'm sure if you consulted with social workers, you would realize that government assistance is a necessity for many americans with children.


[edit on 28-10-2008 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Aggie Man

But would it change anything?

If we start redistributing wealth through increased taxes for the rich, what are they going to do?

If they are a company that produces goods, they will counter this by raising prices, or laying workers off. So how does this help?

Sure these people may start receiving someone else's money for doing nothing, but if they are paying more for the things they need, what good does it do?


My family earns approx the same amount of money that my parents earned in 1985. Only in 1985 my parents were considered well off because the cost of living was a lot lower than it is now. I have seen the prices of everything triple just in my lifetime on everything from gas, groceries and utilities to school lunches. Now I am stuck in middle class hell where it seems we foot the bill for everything. The poor are doing nothing but feeding the rich by spending their money recklessly on things that they shouldn't be spending it on.

I can say this because I have entirely too many family members who sit around on their bums, not working, drawing benefits, but they always manage to have the money to buy brand new HD TV's and lots of alcohol. You can find anyone of them at the bar on Friday night. I can't afford to look at a bar, not that I want to, because I am too busy working my rear off to support my family.

I am not saying that good people don't deserve help, because they do.

I have worked in the healthcare industy for 10 years and the welfare system is crawling with abuse and fraud and until someone takes a hardline and gets rid of it, redistrubting the wealth is not helping anyone, it's only feeding the frenzy. I can guarantee you that a good 40-50% of Medicaid recipients are taking their Medicaid paid for drugs and selling them on the street.

And that's all I have to say about that.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 12:46 AM
Do you people realize that, in this world, and specifically in this country, there are all sorts of people.

  1. There are genius people that use their brain to make something of themselves.
  2. There are smart people that use their resourcefulness to earn a modest living.
  3. There are somewhat bright people that find a way to barely scrape by, or get dealt a bad hand in life.
  4. There are stupid people that have the smarts to succeed, but are too lazy to do anything.

And so on...

Point being, there are more types of people than we can imagine, and more scenarios and life situations than we will ever encounter in a lifetime.

Many of these types of people are physically or mentally incapable to care for themselves. For one reason or another, they will never amount to anything, and will spend most of their lives barely "surviving." Many times the circumstances are tragic. And yes, sometimes the circumstances are self-imposed. That's just the truth.

For those of you that blindly bash "redistribution of wealth" with the same vitriol that might as well have you invoke the term "Communism," explain to me where our humanity and compassion has gone when we refuse to take care of one another?

Do we have social programs that are corrupt? Absolutely. But are you telling me that, because some boneheaded politicians can't keep their hands out of the coffers, that we can't fix these programs in a way that makes fraud or corruption negligable? It's not that we can't make social programs work effectively, it's that we don't want to, and we use the "redistribution of wealth" argument to make the point; to scare people.

What would you have happen to those less fortunate and without the requisite qualities or means to be a Doctor, Lawyer, Businessowner? To the family that legitimately uses Welfare or Medicare? You would remove the only things that keep them alive, clothed, and fed? All because you are afraid of some boogyman called "redistribution of wealth?" We are not all the same, and as cute as it is to say the contrary, we are not all capable of achieving great things, be it circumstances or choice. That's just the truth.

Spare me your stories of walking for miles to get to class, with no shoes, while holding down 5 jobs, etc, etc, etc. It's all commendable. I worked hard too. But we are not all WIRED the same. Motivation, Determination, Leadership, Resourcefullness... These are things you're born with or taught, and if you're not born with it or taught it, then how would you EVER know how to do it?

You're telling me that the "shining city on the hill," the most successful civilization of all time, can't clothe, feed, and cure its people? That we can't devise a system of government that encourages and supports the rich getting richer AS WELL AS the poor getting richer as well? That we can't fix our existing social programs? That we can't devise NEW social programs that are effective, efficient, and pay for themselves? That we can't freaken get our homeless off the streets and into meaningful lives? Of course we can!

But we won't... It's not as profitable.

Until we wise up and hold our representatives accountable for their actions, and for actually getting some of these things done, nothing will change. But the minute it becomes the new fad to vote your Congressman the heck outa dodge the second he goes back on his promises, the second he holds a meeting with a lobbyist, the second he votes down a party line regardless of the will of his constituents, or the second he gives some ridiculous justification for some corrupt action.

In summary, don't fear "redistribution of wealth." Fear the people that tell you to fear it, because where there's smoke, there's fire, and most often they're just protecting something... Like their own money.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by tommy_boy]

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:45 AM
you people all astound me with your fear mongering of "redistribution of wealth". Its not a question of redistribution of wealth, its a question of who it gets redistributed to. Our country has a long and glorious tradition of funneling the wealth from the poor to the rich....thats what that trickle down economics and voodoo economics crap they sold you in high school was, a way to fool you into thinking that giving money to the rich gives it to the poor, and only a fool would believe such things. Most americans believe this is false, and thats why the majority of americans were against the bailout, whereby the rich got 850 billion of the poors and middle classes money...and if you truly think you are going to see any of that, you are a buffoon. I am quite sure that neither obama or mccain will make much change, and im quite sure both are on the corporate payroll....its written in their top 10 donors...however, it amazes me that people can sit there and blithely accept for decades that the rich get more in subsidies and handout than the poor do, but anytime someone mentions "hey....why dont we give some of that money to those in need rather than those in greed" or someone suggests raising wages or whatnot, then these people get in an uproar, and even MORE amazing is its those who would benefit from it, but theyre so brainwashed by the media...oh, sorry, i mean "educated" that they vote against their own best interest, and the interest of the majority of the country. Now i say educated, and most of these people probably think of themselves as "informed" despite the fact that most have not read a single book on socialism, cant tell the difference between that and communism, and know nothing about the socialist democracies in europe that have higher standards of living than we do, with many more benefits for all their civilians. I may hear some europeans bemoaning some issues, but i have never heard a single one complaining about their free healthcare, their free education, their 6-12 months of paid maternal leave, or their extensive paid vacations each year. Most of these things are essential to healthy life and well being and its no surprise that lacking these things, alcoholism, depression, addiction, suicide and mental illness are rampant and chronic in the US, and that our jails hold more than any other country in the world.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:08 AM
nyk 537, not much of an experiment. Seems as though a waiter should have known better than to promote his favored presidential candidate while on the job. You do not tell us where this all took place. Location seems relevant to me. Perhaps the waiter was taking a gamble and did better over all because there were more Obama supporters increasing the amount of their tips than those resentful of Obama's success, who tipped less than they normally would.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:34 AM
All I have seen are ad hominem attacks against the OP. Oddly enough, most of these attacks are made by the fervent Obama supporters.

No, he is not missing the mark. Whether it's a 50/50 split, 80/20, 60/40, etc., any amount given to the homeless man and not to the waiter is an injustice to both parties. An injustice to the homeless man (even though he enjoys it) because he is rewarded for nothing, and an injustice to the waiter because he is punished for working for the tip.

This is a very basic example of redistribution of wealth. You can argue all you want until your face turns blue, it will not change the truth.

Maybe we would not feel so bad if the waiter made $400k a year, and we were the recipient? What hypocrisy.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:15 AM
You have seen the "less fortunate" individuals with signs that say " will work for food"

I have always wondered the reaction if you were to offer them canned tuna or something that a real starving person would love to have but not a person faking there condition who really in actuality eats more than three meals a day.

It takes me back to the day before yesterday when my six year old son and myself were shopping at the grocery store when I noticed the man before us had left a package of razors in the cart, I asked my son to run them to the guy but avoid cars and excetera, well being six he ran them to the wrong guy, it was a guy about sixty who had a full beard and long braided hair, and I could see him shaking his head at my son, on my son's walking back to me looking confused, the right guy approached from his vehicle smiling and took the razors,

I just thought it all was funny for some reason, and my son was innocent to it all, that guy had oviously not shaven for years, and my son was offering him a multi pack of razors.

So how does this fit in , lets see , the original post was about a guy giving some money to a guy who didn't earn it, which left the guy who actually earned the money out in the cold, originally a clean shaven man left without his razors and a guy who was covered with hair was offered the other mans razors and didn't accept them, but obviously needed them more than the original purchaser.

Anyways I find it all interesting in my mind... Sorry been off of work to long with too many narcotic pain pills and alot of things appear sad and funny to me that make absolutely no sense, plus a little bit paranoid from reading all this stuff here on ATS. You know I actually get up in the middle of the morning around 4am to see if the guys in black are loading up the neighbors to take them to concentration camps, It never fails, everytime I get up to leak, I look...Forms a new addage, always leak before you look...

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in