Should We Cap The Wealthy?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
On the other hand, you could patent it as in an open source model so it belonged to the people and couldn't be buried by TPTB and work for a fair and equal system. That is what I would do myself.




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


That is correct. That would be one way to go. But it wouldn't likely make you rich.

Consider the case of Linus Torvalds -- creator of the famous Linux operating system. It is an amazing piece of work -- really revolutionized things. What is he doing now? Successful, I am sure -- but no Bill Gates or Steven Jobs.

Really -- it boils down to Karl Marx and the tools of production residing in the hands of a limited few. Nobody can afford to popularize / advertise their invention without going after investors -- the people with money

Check it out. Venture Capitalists drive a hard bargain.

And BTW, I doubt that Linux is even on the radar screen for 90% of the world, even though it is vastly superior to the Windows operating system. That's how it goes.



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

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
My question if simply, should we cap the weathly?


No but we should De-Cap (itate) the wealthy.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
People can be o ignorant in our nation. They can make as much as they want but putting a cap on personal wealth is a very good idea. Anything more than that amount goes to creating more jobs.

Multi billionares dont care how much thy have but setting up the game so there is very little for the common man, that is where the power lies. They want the kind of power to own politicians, judges, juries, cops and the list can go on forever.

They become god-like and have no idea what its like to be us. They want the extra money to be above any law and do anything. They do not earn there wealth as much through hard work but from being a conscienceless unscrupulous cretin. They spend billions to keep most of you brainwashed into believing if we rein in there control over us less jobs will be created. The truth is after becoming to large they create less jobs because they can outsource and do not have enough conscience to understand that the workers are what made them.

Capping power and the also the ability to outsource will create more jobs, not less. The think tanks and media though have made sure that most of this zombie nation will never see that.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Why is that always the answer people have?! "People can be corrupted by money so let's make sure no one has so much money they can corrupt people." Don't you see the flaw in that line of thinking? The problem is with the people who are corrupt, not the object of their desire (money.)

It has already been said, most billionaires start up charities and foundations. Many of you are saying its best to not let them make their choice to be generous and helpful. It should be forced, regulated and determined by the government. Your right, that is a much better idea. There are better avenues of negativity associated with the wealthy to challenge than to always suggest they should not have soo much money. That reeks of jealousy.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

It has already been said, most billionaires start up charities and foundations.


It is the function of wealth to help the needy when government doesn't exist. When government exists it is the function of the government to help the needy.

Since we seem to have a clear case of a dysfunctional government and a dysfunctional weathy ruling class we should have neither.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
How about putting a limit on the size a corporation can grow to based on employee size and annual income? It'd basically do the same thing, but not directly.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marius Blackwood
How about putting a limit on the size a corporation can grow to based on employee size and annual income? It'd basically do the same thing, but not directly.


Not sure i agree with this as it would strangle the markets i believe. Personal wealth is all i'm on about. I would however like to see a ban on how many news agencies one man/woman can own



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Should We Cap The Wealthy?

To answer you question: Yes, but only if you clean em yourself, and eat them. I understand that they are quite savory!


Seriously, Exectutives of public corporations should be capped.
If you start it and grow it with your own money than you have earned your profit and deserve it.

If you play games with the hard earned investments of others, you should not be allowed to abuse the privledged life you lead and steal their wealth in return.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
My question if simply, should we cap the weathly?


No but we should De-Cap (itate) the wealthy.


I LIKE this one !


And this


It is the function of wealth to help the needy when government doesn't exist. When government exists it is the function of the government to help the needy.

Since we seem to have a clear case of a dysfunctional government and a dysfunctional weathy ruling class we should have neither.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by Dock6]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Nope, Capping the wealthy is not an answer to anything. Making people in charge accountable when they are in charge of huge financial losses sounds better. COE's, who get huge sums while others loose retirement funds is just wrong. I wonder how many folks will get rich of this bailout that dont deserve it. I bet its a lot.
A lot of the wealth that will be transfered in the next 10 to 30 years will be inherited. Trillions of dollars. It will be interesting to see how this money is handled.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I know many will scream communism or socialism at me here. However i should point out that 2 billion in current terms is enough to live a very luxorious lifestyle. You wouldn't be missing anything with this amount of personal wealth.


What has one got to do with the other? What you are proposing IS communism and leaving someone with enough for a luxorious lifestyle doesn't change that.. so when you say "however" that doesn't wash... there is no "however" , It's communism.

Communism doesn't work.. see how well it's going in the countries that worship it? Even China has injected capitalism into its framework.

If Hugo Chavez didn't have vast oil reserves and profits, where exactly do you think that country would be today?


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
My question if simply, should we cap the weathly? I mean if we capped the personal wealth at 2 billion, would this help the world as a whole?


2 Billion = Rich person, I can't argue with you there, no one needs more money than that but to take is to steal, to "cap" is also a form of stealing.

Anyway, you do realize it's the "rich" people who give us poor shmo's a job right? Keep the economy going, start businesses, invent new stuff, bring products to market like.. food)

Enterprise and businesses are built on profit, someone somewhere profits from their knowledge, engineering, skills or something.. they build a company to sell a product or service a lot of people need, they get paid, they expand business, they hire more people.. on and on.

We all hum nicely along.

You forcefully stop that cycle, you stop incentives.

What you are proposing (actually it's not a proposal because a proposal might actually have a shot at happening) is that anyone with a net worth of 2 billion should give any new money "back to the people", these same people who give money to that person for a product or service? Isn't that just essentially like giving a discount?

I think the initial question is shortsighted, which is typical from those who believe a certain few shaft the masses and those few have the means to help the masses.




Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
The leftover could seriously support the poor, the needy and the third world.



1. A good idea isn't what makes 2 billion dollars.
2. Money going directly to the poor? are you serious?
Great I am sure FootLocker would love that idea, more Nike Jordans would fly off the shelves. (Trust me.. I know)
3. Money to the governments? LOL... thats funny.

and last but most importantly:

4. Take all the "billions' away from all the 'billionaires' in the world, leave them all 2 billion, then count up the rest and divide it amoungst the remaining 6 billion people. Let me know when I can expect my check for .14 cents ok? I wouldn't want to miss that.




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Sure and while were at it,let's cap productivity,why work hard if you'll just be made an example of,why look no further then Argentina everyone seems to lack ambition



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by gormly
 



You're right, it is communism. And you also correctly point out that the unintended consequence will be the fact that there would be no incentive for those people to continue contributing to society. Once they hit $2 billion, there would be no reason to continue taking on risk. The end result is that they would just pull their money out of the economy. That's good for no one.

A more practical approach (and not one I advocate, mind you), would be to implement a windfall profits tax once a person hits a certain level. In this way, there is an incentive for that person to continue to contribute given that they can still make money, if at a slower rate. I don't advocate that solution as it runs into many of the same problems as would occur with a wealth cap, but they would not be as pronounced as with a true cap.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
capping corps would not work either. when hoechst, bayer and basf were merged to form i g farben it was a giant chemical company. after wwii they broke back up into the individuals companies. they are now some of the biggest corporations in the world with fingers in many pies although hoechst was absorbed by Sanofi-Aventis. they always find a way to grow.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
All replying "no" I recognize and understand your point of view but there is something you are failing to realize:

These people that you say earned this money and should be able to keep it, they are able to control YOU yet you say nothing about it.

They have the position and control to effect where your money goes. Sure, there are a view average people that had a great idea and banked off of it, but they sure aren't making more then 2 billion. Also, some people aren't able to move out of the class they have been thrown in. You can blindly say that everyone has the equal chance to move up and make a living for themselves but the facts are, the elites know they need a lower class and will do a lot to keep people there.

Unless they are using their money for the good of the world, f'em!



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I certainly don't agree with capping the amount of wealth you can save up as a person. However, I do agree that some serious changes need to be made when it comes to salaries. Why are we spending billions of dollars for entertainment?! Celebrities make millions of dollars for one movie, I find that to be ridiculous! These people are making billions and billions of dollars for simply being able to entertain us! I have no problem with people making a great living with plenty of money but there comes to a point when it's excessive and becomes somewhat of a waste. I think salary adjustments need to be made.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Inheritance Tax!



I discussed this in the other ATS related thread at length. I want to bring it up one more time here.

Rather than cap the wealth of an individual during his life time, why not cap the amount you can leave in your will?

Many of the wealthy idle in this country INHERITED their wealth.

www.breitbart.com...

I suggest this: make the largest amount you can leave one individual, in your last will, $5 million dollars, tax free. After that amount, 100% goes to the state.

In the other ATS thread, many people argued against this -- people have a right to work not only for their gratification in this world, but also so that they can dictate things after they die, and ensure that their ancestors are forever powerful.

So -- do individuals have a right to form a tremendous dynasty of wealth? If so, isn't that contrary to the USA declaration of independence, and common sense in general?

Finally, is it possible that people are so muddled by this (that life is for the living and not for the dead) because the wealthy are SO POWERFUL that they have managed to convince otherwise rational people of this ridiculous anti-life argument?

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Sorry, but the wealthy in this country give more to charity than any taxing system could, their money also goes towards research and development.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
There's no way the government should ever cap the wealthy. No Way! This is what the American dream is about isn't it. If we should cap anyone it should be the government. They need capped so they don't grow so big and interfere with our right to happiness and liberties. If I were a billionaire and was capped by the American government I would leave this country along with all the other billionaires leaving and never return.

It time for this " give me nation " to earn your wealth and quit crying about your own decisions and faults. If you make good decisions then you'll be successful, if you make bad ones then learn to better yourself and dig your way out. It's crazy! All I hear is fair is fair and money earned should be given to people who didn't earn it. No caps on the successful is what I say.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join