Should We Cap The Wealthy?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I think it depends on what type of wealthy people you wish to "cap." There are good millionaires (or billionaires) and bad millionaires. We should not cap the good millionaires and billionaires, but preven the bad ones from ever existing.

Good millionaires and billionaires become wealthy by providing valuable ideas, goods, and services to our society. We can always use a good millionaire or billionaire. It is good to provide people with the incentive to work hard and contribute to the economy by allowing them to become billionaires.

Bad millionaires and billionaires make money by exploiting institutions, governments, and people. They are the people that want to capitalize gains and socialize losses. They turn our society into one where it is not the honest, hard working, and productive people that get ahead, but a society where those who game the system survive.

Bad millionares and billionaires have harmed our economy by turning it into a game. In the process of scoring points in this game, they are willing to send people off to war to die and destroy the economic and social infrastructure of our country. They are willing to lie and cheat. These people should not only be capped, but should be eliminated.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by redled
 


I am not leaving, I live slightly above check to check... dead broke now due to a 5 k house repair.

But duh? You think multi-millionaires will stay if they already have property in Latin America?

Jeeze, tax the guy 90% if he stays or he moves to a Latin American tropical beech, continues to do the same business and pays much less tax to the host country. Do you see that not happening?

....knocks on head.


Yeah, and people can be loyal to countries. Please tell me the exchange rate? 1 Loyalty = $ 1,000 dead or alive?


Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by redled
 


If you think InfoLurker is wrong, maybe you should check out all the real estate thats up for sale in Costa Rica. The sites are very explicit in who they are targeting. They are not cheap properties. The word I would use is 'compounds'! Very expensive and low taxed compounds!


No, the mega rich do not want to live in compounds.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


I guess you've never seen the Kennedy compound in Hyanis then!!LOL Or the one in Corral Gables!!

Zindo



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Clearly not. Only a bunker of a hotel in London for the super rich, which had a cinema as well. And they were so afraid of stepping outside. And it was oh so safe. Maybe not 'compund' rather 'bunker' mentality.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


Actualy then, we agree. The Kennedy compound is a fortress of a kind!!LOL
Zindo



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
if i had an idea that let me make billions i would not want to be capped at 2. i would need a home in aspen, south france, austria, italy, etc as well as servants, planes and other toys. the whole point of getting rich is to enjoy it the way you want to. i don't have an idea, don't have billions but i do without all those things. someday maybe but why bother if the government is going to take it away. the next thing you know they will want to cap life because those of us over 60 don't work so we are not needed. so no to ant kind of limit on anything.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
With all I've read here I wonder what would be the difference between capping earnings and the government seizing all the money over X amount from the rich and redistributing the money to everyone? Would this not mean the end of capitalism and free market ventures?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
With all I've read here I wonder what would be the difference between capping earnings and the government seizing all the money over X amount from the rich and redistributing the money to everyone? Would this not mean the end of capitalism and free market ventures?


Not really, you've got to be set at $500m and not much more for this not to work. This would disincetivise the entire working population from make $2bn, they would all aim for $500m. That aspiration alone is enough for capitalism, $500m. Once you've got there, if you're disincentivised from making $2bn, you have my pity but still $500m. Somewhere in this debate we have to get to the fact that this bubble economically has blown because of greed.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Velvet Death
 


All you have to do is follow the lead of people like George Soros and Ted Kennedy.Keep your major assets off shore where it can't be taxed or otherwise mishandled by the government. Oh look those two are Obama supporters,maybe they'll move their money back into the country so they can be overly taxed.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Velvet Death
 


All you have to do is follow the lead of people like George Soros and Ted Kennedy.Keep your major assets off shore where it can't be taxed or otherwise mishandled by the government.


Did not realise that they made $2bn


Oh look those two are Obama supporters,maybe they'll move their money back into the country so they can be overly taxed.


Much more pertinently put. They don't have to. Maybe you want this $2bn bill to hold people and money to places?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


Soros yearly income according to Investment Daily is about 6 bil/yr! Kennedy??? not sure. He was crying poverty a few years back, but who knows what he and his families have pulled in the last few!

Zindo



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I believe it should either be capped for everyone, or have it ensured that ones wealth directly mirrors ones contributions to society as a whole.

I believe the greater good is best realized when the good of the society is the primary aim. This should be done without compromising the liberties of the individual. Most think those two ideas are mutually exclusive, and I do not. I think people falsely attribute success and happiness to the maximization of wealth. I believe the better the well-being of the society in whole, the better the well-being of the individual.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I do not think a cap would really be a good thing but I do think we need to reward work and not wealth. In other words the guy cleaning the toilets should be making a wadge closer to but not equal to the executives. There just are not enough high paying jobs for everyone to fill one.

We need to reward hard work with very good pay regardless if the skill you are earning your money with came from years of experience or a college education. 8 hours of work is 8 hours of work. The lady selling you coffe and fuel every morning is working just as hard or harder than most of you that sit in cubicles surfing the net earning a bit to much just because your life allowed you to go to college. Most of the time the guy pounding out the widgets is actually making something good and useful and those execs trying to reinvent the wheel on a computer spread sheet are often just making eye candy for even more useless and more wealthy executives.

Instead of expensive trips to expensive hotels with expensive party like meetings that money should be used to pay for a better health care plan for employees.

I think maybe a system that requires near equity within companies for all workers pay would be better than a cap.

Another thing that is messing up the economy is people making money with money. Yes the stock market and dividends = money that probably should go to those working at the company rather than reward a wealthy person who did nothing at all to help the company other than invest in a stock.

The days of wealth feeding wealth needs to end if it comes at the expense of the working classes pay, health care and retirement.

Bottom line is executives need to make a little less so that those actually performing work make a bit more to then spend in our economy. Money tied up in the stock market is not helping the economy if that money is just sitting there and not being used by the company to increase its earnings by making more products and selling them.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Velvet Death
if i had an idea that let me make billions i would not want to be capped at 2. i would need a home in aspen, south france, austria, italy, etc as well as servants, planes and other toys. the whole point of getting rich is to enjoy it the way you want to.


Of course that is absolutely right. And I wish you luck on that! It actually happens sometimes, and it is beautiful when it does.

But most of the time, you will be slaving away, making someone else rich, and finding it impossible to ever achieve more than an infrequent vacation and some limited satisfaction. That is really the state of things.

It is a system, and uneven playing field. Even if you came up with a brilliant idea, you would have to be lucky to find the right investors, because the typical end here is that you do all the work and someone else gets all the money.

Fact. It would be nice to change that.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


So in all honesty.If you developed a perpetual motion engine,that would be worth trillions,You would settle for 500 million?And give the rest to the government?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Here is another idea. Instead of a restriction on wealth, a restriction on poverty. If you can't make so much money, ie support yourself, you need to leave and go to a socialist country who will take care of you.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by redled
 


So in all honesty.If you developed a perpetual motion engine,that would be worth trillions,You would settle for 500 million?And give the rest to the government?


See my post immediately above. You invent a perpetual motion machine, settle for $1 million or less, which is taxed at 80%. The rich investors make billions off of your brilliance and pay no taxes. That is more likely.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
Here is another idea. Instead of a restriction on wealth, a restriction on poverty. If you can't make so much money, ie support yourself, you need to leave and go to a socialist country who will take care of you.


Yes. And then the rich can import you back again for cheap labor, and no longer have to pay for social security, health care, or even a decent wage.

That sounds like a workable plan.

Edit: Oh yeah. Now I am feeling bitter. I've got to stop that


[edit on 29-10-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
you need to leave and go to a socialist country who will take care of you.


In socialism you are taking care of the society and it in turn takes care of you.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by redled
 


So in all honesty.If you developed a perpetual motion engine,that would be worth trillions,You would settle for 500 million?And give the rest to the government?


Fuucking right. I'd buy Tottenham Hotspur FC, shove in about $300 million, buy a house (with a moat), and a swimming pool and a tennis court. And still have fcuk loads to go. Yacht, don't want to drive so taxis, and I wouldn't fly far because I worry about my carbon imprint. Seriously, if I made it to $500m, I would be quitwe content with that. If I could drill up another $500m for my charity the following year, I would be more than satisfied.





new topics




 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join