Should We Cap The Wealthy?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
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.


Charity and R&D are both tax deductable, which is probably why the wealthy spend in this area. So you can reflect that perhaps this is actually a result of the tax system, doing its job. The tax system deserves some credit, don't you think?




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Personaly, no. The old addage that" You don't get a job from a poor person" tend to sway my opinion. Also, where would the drive to succeed come from if you only can go so far in your endeavour? Limiting the reward, limits the reason. You'd also have to controll pricing and wages. Another limiting factor and unworkable! Just my dos centavos!!
Zindo


Who stole my cheese..... You better wake up or the global economy is going to leave you behind. Man kind has got to become or evolve to a collective thought of working for the greater cause to strive. Individual wealth is a thought process that is being steered our of society. Sorry chap it just is either adjust to a new society pattern or be cast out and live happy in your own matters which you have every right to do.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719


Since when does any government have the RIGHT to take money away from a person who has legally earned it and give it to someone else who has done nothing to deserve it?

The true good of the capitalist ideology is that there is no glass ceiling, that you are allowed to be as successful as you choose to be and thus enjoy the spoils of your hard work.


What you are describing is communism and it has no place in American society.


The government steals money away from people everyday...Its called TAXES! And they re-distribute it to government programs which are then sub-contracted out to private companies????? Do you see a pattern here. The government has a right they exercise every April. And everyone has been conditioned to allow this to happen.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan
The government steals money away from people everyday...Its called TAXES! And they re-distribute it to government programs which are then sub-contracted out to private companies????? Do you see a pattern here. The government has a right they exercise every April. And everyone has been conditioned to allow this to happen.


I don't regard it as "being conditioned", but rather the pragmatic and necessary effort in order to maintain a workable society.

#

The conditioning you speak of is really more on topic: we have become conditioned to think it is okay for the wealthy to cap the wages of the poorer, through usary and influence. But the less affluent can't even discuss the possibility of reversing that situation. Even suggesting that there be some reasonable limits to wealth will label you a "communist".

Conditioning? Who owns conservative talk-radio? It is not the middle class. We are completely conditioned by the wealthiest in our society to passively accept this situation.

No change indicated.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
My question to those who wish to "cap the rich" is what do you hope to accomplish by this measure?

If you take money from these individuals or companies, where is it going to go? The only entity that could undertake such a theft of wealth would have to be some government. You expect the government to all of a sudden become a venerable institution, freely giving away all this money to those deemed poor? There are the arguments that social welfare will be instituted, and many new programs will be developed to help the underclass. What is your guarantee of this?

Example: The people call for the "wealth cap", and it is crafted into legislation by Congress (no doubt with some pork barrel spending attached, but I digress). The president signs the bill into law, and the "National Wealth Cap Agency" is formed.

This agency goes about collecting the money from all those affected by the definition of "rich" in the law. The transfer of wealth from the people to the government has taken place. All of a sudden the executive branch declares an order contrary to the law, thus negating the "redistribution" of wealth. Or the legislative branch could hold an emergency session to quickly and quietly pass a new law, negating the effects of the first law.

This wealth is now spent by the government to usher in a police state at home and countless wars of aggression overseas. Protests? Quelled by a militarized police. Leave the country? Borders locked like in a Cold War divided Germany. The population has funded their own enslavement.

I am not stating that this outcome is a certainty. Tell me though, what do you find more frightening; a group of private individuals / companies with wealth of their own, or a government, having a tyrannical track record, with a war chest vast enough to conquer most of the world?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tsloan
 


Tell ya what, you first, then maybe I'll give up my drive to succeed and give away all I have worked for so someone can sit at home and watch soap operas and eat cheese doodles!!! Me thinks you have watched one to many Star Trek Episodes. Wanting utpoia does not change human nature and trying to legislate human nature isn't going to work either. Are you saying we now have to BREED utopia into existance?? Thats the only way to change human nature. Dream on..dream on!!


Zindo



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NettleTea
My question to those who wish to "cap the rich" is what do you hope to accomplish by this measure?

I want to gain my freedom from the tyranny of paid influence, and promote a free and just society for all people, regardless of their affluence and power. I want fairness for myself, my familiy, and for you and your family also.

It is just money, my friend. It shouldn't allow you to shape society to your personal ends, or give you the power to crush those you disagree with. I don't think.

Edit: If money automatically made people into saints, I wouldn't be arguing for a cap on wealth. The truth is, more often than not, money makes you into a sinner, or worse.

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



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NettleTea
What do you find more frightening; a group of private individuals / companies with wealth of their own, or a government, having a tyrannical track record, with a war chest vast enough to conquer most of the world?

Don't you realize Nettle? The two groups you describe above are the SAME GROUP. And this situation exists mainly because -- why?

Because there is no limit to wealth and power. The wealthy are the owners of government.

(Don't mean to pick on you. Your arguments make sense, but I think there is a lot of idealism mixed in. Same goes for my argument, of course.)



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Zenn...? utopia...? WTF are you babbling about? Notice how the "free trade agreement" that once use to be head lines for those who wish to keep American enterprising pure for the "good ole boys" have passed.......those days are long gone my friend... If having the biggest plasma screen t.v. on your street drives you to get off your ass and do something then so be it. And thats going to work for some...
For others who have decided to take a path that helping your neighbor when he needs a hand with a jacked up roof or helping the poor who don't have the chances some have been HANDED its going to be alot less painful when the hammer drops and the new global order is ushered in.
No one wants to think that income could be capped...But if you are so lucky to fall into that .001% of people who have to worry about your income being capped???? Well then I guess it's just to bad that you cant buy one more million dollar jet and I hate to tell ya the other 99.99% isn't going to be crying any tears for ya.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by tsloan]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Capped earnings wow isn't that straight out of Communist readings.. it may start with certain occupations but what happens when it happens to your job..

All this would do is make people not want to work so hard to get ahead.. Unlimited potential is what makes people work hard.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buck Division
Don't you realize Nettle? The two groups you describe above are the SAME GROUP.


I agree that the two (government and wealthy corporations) mix, and can have disastrous results. Why then would you give these groups that much more power?

If you want to limit the sway that "rich" people have on your life you must limit government and what it has authority to do. Imagine these evil wealthy people are trying to dig a hole in your back yard. Their tool for this task is a shovel in the form of government. Your action of capping wealth would grow the government into the size of a backhoe. This just gets you into a hole faster. What needs to be done is to shrink the government to the size of a trowel, thus making it more difficult for your life to be controlled by others.

If you do believe that the wealthy and the government are the same group, then how would throwing large sums of money at the government not in turn help these evil wealthy people?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
There's no way the government should ever cap the wealthy. No Way! This is what the American dream is about isn't it.


I thought it was about Freedom, Equality, and Justice.

Just in case I am wrong about that I am going to save my money for a new brain.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buck Division
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.



Its the OS that revolutionalized the world and shines its light. I use it by choice on all of our computers. Rarely do we boot into xp for anything. Its not true that there is no business model for making money by open sourcing anything. A designer and inventor would still have the leading edge on his product and if he was forthright about his intentions he would probably draw more customers than the "other" guy. I'd rather buy from someone with integrity than any monopoly any day of the year. Thats not the same as patents and monopolies, but its true to the competing business model.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Cap how much people can make those people move out of the country. It will never work. Unless you have a dream of having everyone be poor.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I'm so tired of reading about how we as a people should somehow feel guilty for wanting to earn a good living and having a good life.

What's wrong with wanting to be rich? What's wrong with wanting more? What's wrong with earning 2 billion and then earning even more?

I'm sorry, but I dont want to settle for mediocre or just getting by and if I made 10 billion dollars, it's MY business and I'll do with it what I want.




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Artista
 


Nothing is wrong with that.

Some believe the system can be changed in such a way as to bridge those ideas with the well-being of the whole society.

I for one want to live in a society where the whole of it is well off.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artista
I'm so tired of reading about how we as a people should somehow feel guilty for wanting to earn a good living and having a good life.


You're kidding right? I stated a cap of 2 billion, thats BILLION. Inflation linked of course.

This would mean you could have a home in 10 countries with a servant on hand at each, have the best clothes and cars and still not put any real dent in your capital.


Originally posted by Artista
What's wrong with wanting to be rich? What's wrong with wanting more? What's wrong with earning 2 billion and then earning even more?


Ahh now we get to the nub of the matter, what wrong with it? Well you can't do much with mre than 2 billion other than give it away to charities. Some rich people do this but it tends to be a tax get out reason that they do it. You really would struggle to spend 2 billion, unless you want a palace and in the end, does anyone need a palace? You could live in a mansion, set your ids and grandkids up with 2 billion in the bank.


Originally posted by Artista
I'm sorry, but I dont want to settle for mediocre or just getting by and if I made 10 billion dollars, it's MY business and I'll do with it what I want.



Well you keep thinkng that because i'd happily stand by what i have said and give the rest away. Although i'm not overly motivated by money so it's a moot point. I think this is down to the selfish ideals of the individual.

Yes you could keep it and look at your bank statement each day and get a warm fuzzy feeling. Or you could take that 8 billion and basically set up a nationwide youth program, or hell just give it to cancer research. Maybe help regenerate an entire town, you get the point.

I'm not a socialist or communist (despite what many here will think). If i were i'd be recommending giving everyone an equal share in a Lenin type ideal. That's not what i'm doing, i'm suggesting a system that would still have rich and poor but the standard of living for everyone would be increased.

More importantly with higher living standards generally and tons of charity and youth programs going round, i would say you would see a massive drop in crime. Most areas that start up small programs often see a drop in the crime rate.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Well you didn't reply to my last post. Which hurt my well-being. But the tears have ceased to flow, so I figure I will prod a little more.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
If i were i'd be recommending giving everyone an equal share in a Lenin type ideal. That's not what i'm doing, i'm suggesting a system that would still have rich and poor but the standard of living for everyone would be increased.


Slippery slope of course.

It's either equal or it's not.

So it it's not, then what's the magic number? What's the sweet spot?

Where is the critical threshold that says 'hey, we have now optimized the standard of living for the rich AND the poor'?

I do not believe it can genuinely be argued that this is achieved from anything other then being equal. For anything else is not equality.

Granted, when I say this I am nothing thinking about money per se, rather the necessities such as food, shelter, water, air, warmth(clothing), etc.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Well you didn't reply to my last post. Which hurt my well-being. But the tears have ceased to flow, so I figure I will prod a little more.


My apologies i didn't see it sorry.


Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Slippery slope of course.

It's either equal or it's not.

So it it's not, then what's the magic number? What's the sweet spot?


I already said 2 billion would be more than enough for any individual to live an extremely good life, after that any more personal wealth would be given to charities, preferably of the choosing of the person who earnt the money. However this might need experimentation with the amount.


Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Where is the critical threshold that says 'hey, we have now optimized the standard of living for the rich AND the poor'?


Again experimentation would be needed. However i'm not encouraging direct benefits for people overall. I'm more in for giving the money to charities, boosting the healthcare system, youth programs etc.


Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I do not believe it can genuinely be argued that this is achieved from anything other then being equal. For anything else is not equality.

Granted, when I say this I am nothing thinking about money per se, rather the necessities such as food, shelter, water, air, warmth(clothing), etc.


The problem with complete equality is you end up with the system failing as people will always want more than the next person. In my suggested system it would not be possible for everyone to be a billionaire and so you still have the poor trying to work hard and come up with something new and original to become rich. The insentive to get rich would stil be there, and when you got rich you'd havea far better life than a normal person. However at least more people would have food, water, shelter and healthcare.

Apologies again for not seeing your post lucid, if i miss another one give me a prod


[edit on 30-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

I already said 2 billion would be more than enough for any individual to live an extremely good life, after that any more personal wealth would be given to charities, preferably of the choosing of the person who earnt the money. However this might need experimentation with the amount.

Again experimentation would be needed. However i'm not encouraging direct benefits for people overall. I'm more in for giving the money to charities, boosting the healthcare system, youth programs etc.


I take issue with this point. You cannot take money from people who don't want to give it away, without the use, or threat, of force (arrest, incarceration, death, so on...). A charity cannot threaten people to hand over cash. Therefore the only entity that has legal authority (and the guns) to take money from you is government. You can't funnel all this personal wealth straight to charities, the middle man will always be government.

I have already stated that if this transfer of wealth was to happen, I would predict a police state and multiple wars would be a result. Do you honestly believe that if we just threw more money at Washington then things would all work out. In addition, most of the billionaires you are talking about are in league with the government already. All you would accomplish by this wealth cap would be to take money from all “rich” people, and then dole it back out to those buddied up with the politicians. Those few good hearted philanthropists who have not sold their soul to Washington would have that much less to work with.





top topics
 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join