Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should We Cap The Wealthy?

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
No and if I had 2 billion I would hire people to make sure those that wanted to cap my wealth went missing. That is the truth.




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NettleTea
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.


You never heard of taxes? Please tell me how many people want to pay tax, then tell me how many people still pay it. You can take money away from people who don't want to give it, we do it all the time lol. Yes the middle man will be government, but it would be very easy to set up a straight through system and more importantly i already said that the person who's money it is should be the one to decide the charity. So you could set up a law saying "You have 30 days to pick your charity before government appropriates the funds".


Originally posted by NettleTea
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.


Well throwing my money at washington probably wouldn't do anything, as i have British pounds
However i think you're overstating things. We need a paradigm shift so people want to take care of others and i think you'll find that giving this money to improve the lives of others would eventually lead to less crime and more peace. However there will never be such a thing as a perfect utopia, that's a nice dream but nothing more than that.


Originally posted by NettleTea
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.


Not quite, take a look again at what i am saying. I'm talking about taking the money and directly injecting it into communities. Every single penny would have to be accounted for. The people cozying up to politicians wouldn't get anything unless they had a charity, and that charity would have to show good results not just take the money for managment salaries.

I point out again that the people giving the money away would have say 30 days to choose their charity and fund it directly, or give the money to government to distribute. However this money would not be used to prop up the benefit system. Health system yes, direct benefits no, as all that would do is encourage people to not work.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
No and if I had 2 billion I would hire people to make sure those that wanted to cap my wealth went missing. That is the truth.


What a lovely compassionate person. Seriously you just scared me. Greed is one thing, talking about killing people because they disagree with you is rather horrific.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
the real enemy here is greedy people. wether they are beuricrats, congress, the rich, the mobsters, whoever. these people will give any excuse not to help out those people who help them out, the hard workers, who do the job, whether the job is easy or hard legal or not. congress makes up their own laws for them and friends to stay greedy. kick to the curb the greedy. i say stick a pistol to the greedy head and pull the trigger.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Cap wealth? What ya gonna do, send everyone home from work early if and when they become too productive and start making too much money? Cap wealth? Why limit an individuals potential? Why take away their motivation, their reward, for all their efforts? And besides, what does it matter to anyone else what another makes or has? Isn't that called coveting?



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
the greedy, the greedy. everything will get better if we just get the greedy. the greedy is people who do not help those, who help them get rich. these people just take and take and do not give back to the employees that work for them.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


i think that greedy people are those that do not help those who helpped those people to make them rich. this does not mean that the rich cannot get rich, it simply means that employers should help out the employees they hire. not take and take and take and take and do not help their employees. also congress to stop making bogus laws on people. they ripp people off. not only buisnesses , but the employees too. these people i am really sick of. we the people need to do something about this. maybe a coup de tah, or a revolution of government policies. the people in there have only policies, or laws to protect them and make them rich and powerful. hey, i know congress, make a law that says do as i say, but do not do as i do. thats a great law. what do you think, we the people?



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by estrip these people just take and take and do not give back to the employees that work for them.


Don't employees get pay checks? Doesn't an employer offers a job (which of course they are under no obligation to do in the first place), at whatever the going wage is for such work or what they are willing or able to pay, and then you either choose to accept that, or not? If you don't think it's enough, take a walk. Go work for yourself and pay YOU what you think you're entitled to if other employers don't think you're worth that much.

A job is not a right. It's no other individuals responsibility to create a job for the rest of you and take care of you all and all your needy needs or wanty wants.

When I once worked for another and wanted more money I simply asked the boss what would be required of me to make that much and it DID THAT. I didn't whine and cry and beg. Nor steal.

Dang, I sure hope some idiot doesn't someday try to cap MY earning potential. "Hey boss, I'm gonna double my effort and sell twice the widgets this year and earn twice the commission I made last year! How about that?" "Sorry employee, but the jelous people have proclaimed you can't, you're only allowed to sell the same number of widgets this year as last year." Crazy idea.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


What is this 'Commission' thing you speak of? So you think the wealth should be spread then?



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


What is this 'Commission' thing you speak of? So you think the wealth should be spread then?


Commission = pay. Substitute whatever arrangement or means of compensation that may be relevant in your case.

In my case, when I worked for another, I was management and was paid a salary, which means you don't get overtime, not even when we had to work 12 or 16 hours a day. To get more money, I had to go above and beyond what was normally expected of me in my job, and if I exceeded what was expected of me, I got a bonus at the end of the year. And if I didn't, I got no bonus.

As far as any wealth spread thin, all I can really say is wealth is not something that's simply spread around willy nilly, wealth is earned. If you think you're entitled to more compensation, present your case to your boss. Stand up for YOURSELF! If you are worth that much, they will pay you that much, unless they are idiots, or unless of course you accept NO as their first response. I got a 25% raise one year because I knew I was worth more. I asked, they said no, 25% was unheard of, and they couldn't pay me more than my boss. Fine, I quit. I didn't even make it out the front door. When they realized I was seriously, because they knew I was right and worth that much, I got that raise.

Anyhow, don't expect to become wealthy working for someone else. Many do, but most don't. You want wealth, take control of your own destiny and work for yourself. When you work for another, technically you're just a servant and at the mercy of the ones you work for. To demand someone else to make you wealthy is just over the line. Take control of your own destiny if you don't want to be a dependant servant of another. Trust me, that's the REAL WAY to do it, and if you don't screw up, it will work and you'll receive your just rewards.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Divinorumus]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I want them to make a law, to open an investigation, and well, any corporation or business that is found to have a few within it's ranks making hundred's of thousands of dollars will lose any tax credits or other perks now being handed to them if any employee (with an average family size) in their ranks is found to be on the social service rosters! Sorry, I am just getting sick and tired of paying taxes, that are being used to boost your employees standard of living above what I can provide for myself or my family...otherwise know as subsidizing your payroll, so you can give your buddies a lavish standard of living.
thank you!



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I want them to make a law, to open an investigation, and well, any corporation or business that is found to have a few within it's ranks making hundred's of thousands of dollars . . .

You might be able to do that with a publicly traded business, but that won't fly with a privately owned business. The financial workings of a privately owned business is, just like your own private financial affairs, is nobody else's business. Best be careful on this one or you'll find yourself having to pay for the health insurance of a baby sitter when you need one, or when you have someone mow your yard or plow snow from your driveway.

This is, for the most part, and at least until next February, still a pretty free society. If someone isn't satisfied with someone else offering them a job at whatever terms the prospective employer is willing to agree to, they can always WALK and go do better themselves as their own employer, if they can.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Two billion is not hard to spend at all...!!!

You have 20,000 Employees, each earning $35,000 - $75,000 Per Year, that adds up.

Then there's Expenses for the companies. Stock, stationary, repairs, Advertisement, Bills, overheads, etc, etc, etc.....

If I went out tomorrow & discovered the worlds ritchest Gold Deposite, worth 20,000,000,000. Guess what...? It's all mine!!! Try to take that away from me & I'll use whats left to hire a private army & take it back..lol



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Two billion is not hard to spend at all...!!!

You have 20,000 Employees, each earning $35,000 - $75,000 Per Year, that adds up.

Then there's Expenses for the companies. Stock, stationary, repairs, Advertisement, Bills, overheads, etc, etc, etc.....

If I went out tomorrow & discovered the worlds ritchest Gold Deposite, worth 20,000,000,000. Guess what...? It's all mine!!! Try to take that away from me & I'll use whats left to hire a private army & take it back..lol


The OP was referring to personal wealth, not the assets of a company. One man (or woman) cannot possibly oversee 20,000 employees.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with full-blown communism. At least in theory. Because whenever it's tried, it never works, because no country ever passes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat stage. If nobody in this world was corrupt, Communism would hands-down be the best form of government out there. However, since people generally are douchenozzles, I feel that true Communism will never succeed. In a capitalist, Western society, while Icertainly don't approve of "LOOK AT ME, I MAKE MORE MONEY THAN AFRICA!!!!" kinds of behavior, I don't think putting an artificial ceiling on income is the solution. I think gearing the culture away from consumerism is the answer. And I think that will never happen.


[edit on 31-10-2008 by '___'eviant]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


This is simply the worst idea imagineable.

There is already a cap on spending of wealth... its called exhaustion of ideas.

How many planes, boats and mansions could one man possibly want?

Why are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett giving away over 90% of their fortunes to charity?


Im unusual, because I admit to aspiring to such astronomical wealth. The reason I want this kind of (some would say) obscene wealth is because it would allow me to control the flow of scientific research grants. I would gear massive schemes to fund research into neglected diseases such as malaria; I would finance research into high yield crops etc etc.

Say I had £20bn by the end of my life. Would this wealth be better in my hands (considering I intend to use it wisely) or would it be better for each person in the world to have £3 each?

The wealthy may splurge money sometimes on fancy things, but at the end the bulk of their money will always have to be given away anyway! I would rather let Mr Gates decide how to spend his money than for it to be STOLEN from him via taxation, only to be wasted on stupid government projects that will yield no benefit in the long term.

To me, the wealthy are the sentinels standing over the pages of history yet to be written. By and large, they will make good choices simply due to the fact that they will run out of ideas and things to buy (i.e like the paradox "what do you get a man who has everything").



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
It's funny how some people automatically assume that wealth=greed.
Wealth and greed aren't mutually exclusive.
I always see it in threads like this.

Of course there are greedy rich people who worship the dollar. There are
also plenty of wealthy people who share their fortunes.
Wealth does not automatically mean evil, selfish and cold-hearted.

While I detest the wealthy, money worshipping misers, I think the "lazy poor" are worse. I'm talking about able-bodied people who refuse to work because they can be parasites and live off the work of others.
This is greed and selfishness of the worst kind. These scumbags also
take money from disabled people, the elderly and others who really deserve it.
They're the ones making society worse off through their greed.

As for the OP, I'm against a cap on wealth. If you produce a product or service
that the world wants, and you earn 100 billion dollars in the process, it's
YOUR money. It belongs to you. NOT the government... NOT the poor.... NOT the person\people who think for whatever reason they have the right to distribute it as they see fit, etc...



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Let's start over...

Currently, I don't make anywhere near a billlion dollars and probably by general standards, I would be called middle-class. With my middle class wages, I currently give to charity monthly by direct withdraw of funds from my bank account. I do this because I've had a very hard life and I used to be so poor, I would go 3 and 4 days without food. I know what it's like to be hungry.

A few years ago, told myself I would never be hungry again and decided to start my own business. I work an 80 hour week (sometimes more) to provide food for my family, pay my bills, make my car payment and more. Eight years ago, I didn't even own a car and nine years ago food was a luxury for me.

So, now I work my butt off to be able to own things I've never had, and I'm actually able to give to charity as well as give to my community. I know what it's like not to have even the very basic necessities of life. I can't tell you the number of hardships and heartbreaks I've been though.

Now, let's fast forward to the future:

Let's say that in 10 years' time from today, I happen to make 2 billion dollars.

You're absolutely right - there's a lot I can do with that 2 billion dollars, but I would want to continue my success, so I would probably start up a company, hire employees and make certain they were paid well, recieved great health care, got generous bonuses, etc., because I would want to make sure my employees were well taken care of. Also, a lot of the money my company earned would go into the community, which might help generate new jobs, it might help the hungry, it could help the homeless, maybe it would even make sure people had warm coats in the winter or it may help send underpriveledged kids to summer camp.

If you put a cap on what I make (either personally or on a business I own which is in my name), then I believe by doing so, it is taking away my own ability to prosper, which in turn will prevent new jobs, which will eventually take more away from my community, which will lead to even more hopelessness and despair - which puts me, as well as others I might have been able to help, right back where we started - with nothing, or very little.

That's a very bad and very scary place for me to be.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
what about abolishing inheritance instead of a cap?



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Say I had £20bn by the end of my life. Would this wealth be better in my hands (considering I intend to use it wisely) or would it be better for each person in the world to have £3 each?



Erm that's not what i said at any point in this thread now is it. I said giving t charitable causes and that includes scientific research. I also stated that the person with the money would have the decision where it went. So in your case you would have everything you want to achieve anyway. The only difference is the ones less inclined to spend their welath would be forced to. They could hel research cancer, CFS, HIV or anything else of their choosing.

So in essence it's just what you would do with your money if you had it, only legislated.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by lw2525
While I detest the wealthy, money worshipping misers, I think the "lazy poor" are worse. I'm talking about able-bodied people who refuse to work because they can be parasites and live off the work of others.
This is greed and selfishness of the worst kind. These scumbags also
take money from disabled people, the elderly and others who really deserve it.
They're the ones making society worse off through their greed.


I agee, able bodied people who don't work annoys me also, i started an entire thread on that as well. I am not a rich man hater here, i'm just trying to se an amalgamation of two types of government into a new type which would hopefully lead to greater lives for everyone whilst at the same time still maintaining a rich and poor barrier so that the poor have something to aspire to and the rich ive back a great deal for being so fortunate.


Originally posted by lw2525
As for the OP, I'm against a cap on wealth. If you produce a product or service
that the world wants, and you earn 100 billion dollars in the process, it's
YOUR money. It belongs to you. NOT the government... NOT the poor.... NOT the person\people who think for whatever reason they have the right to distribute it as they see fit, etc...


Again i mention that they would still be able to distribute it to the causes they like, just forced t distribute it. One man cannot spend 100 bilion to live his or her life. Unless you have a palace in every country, even then it probably wouldn't dent the total sum a great deal.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join