Should We Cap The Wealthy?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artista
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.


No sorry this again misses the point. You would have 2 billion to spend as you wish in your personal accoutns. Your business is an entirely different matter. You could still be worth 500 billion via your businesses but not have more than 2 billion to spend personally. Laws would also need to be made so you couldn't get around the system by signing properties into business hands and using them for personal use. IT would have to be an air tight system.

This way you could easily extend your business without any real limit.




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I haven't read the replies, so apologies if I repeat things here.

Should we cap personal wealth? Yes, it would be an awesome thing to do, if done right. As with anything, it can of course be done wrong and hurt people, which is what left wing authoritarism is all about, a fraudulent redistribution of wealth. But it can also be done right and liberate us from elitist sociopathic powermongering, which is the engine behind most of the world's conflicts. And it has the added advantage of being a peacefull solution that would benefit millions and not harm anyone. So a trillionaire is only left with a billion bucks. Oh the poor baby... The risk is in the honesty of the people heading the process and in the transparency of the circulation of money.

The same needs to be done with corporations though, and these have to be taken from authoritarian structures to more democratic structure, with the necessery alterations to their internal compensation mechanisms. People in a corporation should have a skill level and a pay bracket, but that bracket needs to be a fraction of profits, not a set wage. If the company underperforms everyone hurts, if it performs well everyone benefits. Not just silly bonuses, which are higher the higher up you go, but actual proportional distribution of wealth, so that even the janitor has a rewarding job. This is the economics of generosity, and of course it will be a shock to many of the readers here, brainwashed into the economics of selfishness. And no, it's not communism. You can still have a free market. If anything, without elitist powermongering, you will have a free-er market...

I'd say cap personal wealth around a billion. Any income above that falls into a flat 100% tax for the state coffers. Any income below that simply isn't taxed. Any income or lack of income below subsistance level (rent and food money) is supplemented by social security.

Listen folks, you have to realise by now that there is not enough work to go around, that's the beauty of technology, we don't have to be slaves. It will not hurt anyone, in a fair system, to have people not working. The only reason people complain about it because people are doing jobs they don't like for longer hours than they need to, to pay goods that are overpriced. But it dosen't have to be that way. Capping wealth at the very top of the social pyramid would help us all. And the minute number of people hurt with this would still be the wealthiest cats around. They just wouldn't be able to fund both sides of a world war anymore.

Cap it high, but yes, cap wealth, both corporate and personal. Decentralize the economy so people can get control of their own lives back from the elitist cabal currently running this joint.

And if people doubt this would work, well, we have supercomputers on our desktops these days, try mathmatically modelling it. If done this way, globalism would be a near utopia, but as it's going now it seems we are heading to financial serfdom.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Zepherian]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
yes we should because they don't work hard.


I feel that anyone over 250k isn't really earning what they are reciving.

Forget about joe the plummer.


what about Joe the computer guy?

His job was outsouced to India for 1/5 the cost.

His only aspiration was to make 35k per year.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus

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.


well, if they don't like the prying eyes of government on them, well, they are free to find other financing I guess....
I am talking about those businesses that get the nice freebies, ya know tax credits, loans ect..... if their is no corporate welfare that they are benefitting from, well of course, they would be free to do what they wish, it's their buisness, it's their money funding their busieness, not mine!
I mean, look what an individual has to go through to get an extra ten dollars in food stamps....well, when the government gives away money, they have a right to set some restrictions on it and have a few strings attached to it...



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Didn't take time to read the entire thread but I can imagine it has it's fair share of negative comments.

imo yes though it is unfortunate it would have to be a forced thing

I would gladly give up money to charities and families in need if I had that much money , no question about it.

It's not the fact that I'm supporting some "lazy ass" as allot of people see it , instead i would be helping my fellow brothers and sisters through hard times and hopefully provide the means for them to become somebody and support to accomplish their goals ....

Yes there are problems with it such as welfare has though it is my $ and I would rather take the chance of people taking advantage of it then not helping at all because all it takes is to save one family , one individual to make all the difference in the world

people are so greedy today and think of nobody but themselves

If I had insurmountable wealth , I would have no second thoughts about helping anyone and everyone in need

whats mine is yours ....



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
No capping ones personal wealth is not a good idea. Is it sadding to watch what the grossley overpayed and ultra wealthy do with thier fortunes they are thiers to deal with as they please and you nor I have the right to take them from them by means of government interference. You want to make the wealthy poor, then you do it the right way by means of the system already in place you quit buying thier product, it is that simple. Tired of waatching the antics of Paris Hilton dont buy the crap she is selling dont watch the E! THS on her it is the consumer who ultimately created this mess and the consumer is the party responsible for getting us out. You think Wal-mart is the evil empire? Then dont shop there go to the mom and pop store and pay more for the stuff.

Americans demand low prices and high wages until they figure out they cant have both things will continue as they are. Free trade doesnt work because the countries we are trading with do not have the standard of living we do, free trade can only work when either one of two things happen:

1) Works in both trading companies have an equal level of compensation and benefits, as an American we exploit the workers in many countries to get the lowest price possible which has lead to alot of foreign resentment, this is a fact and has been since our nations inception.

2) The government taxes imports on lowered priced goods to make thier cost reflect the cost of goods actually produced in this country, so that by doing so the cost to the company is the same either way.

The middle class wasnt devastated by the wealthy the middle class was devestated by its own demands.

And no the law enforcment and emergancy services libraries and other such social progrmas are not socialist by nature they promote the betterment of society.

Whereas welfare and other such government forms promote laziness and government parasites. Government subsidized healthcare another bad idea it does nothing to promote competition in the healthcare industry, it will rot and stagnate and become bloated from guaranteed government mony a pale shadow of its once great self. Dependence on the government as your source of wealth is the absolute worst idea and never works.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jovi1
And no the law enforcment and emergancy services libraries and other such social progrmas are not socialist by nature they promote the betterment of society ............................ Whereas welfare and other such government forms promote laziness and government parasites.






Read my posts again, i have at no point said it should be used for mass welfare payments. I think it would be better t inject in directly into a mix of charities (bother research and direct action based) and into the health system, libraries, police service etc. That way everyone can benefiot and it will not promote lazyness. Putting the money into benefit payments would just be an awful idea.


Originally posted by Jovi1
Whereas welfare and other such government forms promote laziness and government parasites. Government subsidized healthcare another bad idea it does nothing to promote competition in the healthcare industry, it will rot and stagnate and become bloated from guaranteed government mony a pale shadow of its once great self. Dependence on the government as your source of wealth is the absolute worst idea and never works.


Well the national health service in the UK is an amazing system. You talk about competition? Well our health service doesn't have any and the doctors and nurses can concentrate on the best care for the patient. As someone who has experienced a wide area of the NHS recently i can tell you for a fact that's it's an absolute asset, despite being government run. However you should also know the doctors do have autonomy in out government run system and no patient ever has to talk to a manager.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984


Read my posts again, i have at no point said it should be used for mass welfare payments. I think it would be better t inject in directly into a mix of charities (bother research and direct action based) and into the health system, libraries, police service etc. That way everyone can benefiot and it will not promote lazyness. Putting the money into benefit payments would just be an awful idea.


Charity is not the governments place that is a responsibility that belongs soley to the citizens. The government stepping in and saying you cannot make more than this is not right. The government has one responsibility and one responsibility only to ensure that every citizen is treated fairly under the law. That being said the tax code should be set at a percentage of what your income is no deductions, no loopholes this is what you pay nothing more nothing less.



Well the national health service in the UK is an amazing system. You talk about competition? Well our health service doesn't have any and the doctors and nurses can concentrate on the best care for the patient. As someone who has experienced a wide area of the NHS recently i can tell you for a fact that's it's an absolute asset, despite being government run. However you should also know the doctors do have autonomy in out government run system and no patient ever has to talk to a manager.


And just how many foriegn leaders show up to use your health care system because it is so great? And im not saying you guys dont have a very good system, dont live there and dont have to deal with it, just it is simply not the best possible care in the world.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jovi1
And just how many foriegn leaders show up to use your health care system because it is so great? And im not saying you guys dont have a very good system, dont live there and dont have to deal with it, just it is simply not the best possible care in the world.


Actually people have come from all over the world to use our system. I remember reading about two american parents bringing their child here for heart surgery as we happened to have the best heart surgeon at the time. So yeah people come to our country for healthcare quite often. Granted the heart patient had to be done privately but the surgeon also does NHS work.

You havn't dealt with our system so why wouldn't you want to? If you have no idea about how it works and how good it is then why even comment on it?

Anyway it could be made even greater with legally forced donations of anyone earning over 2 billion in personal wealth.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Still, this is simply preposterous.

If you forcibly legislate that I HAVE to give away the upper part of my fortune, I would simply move to another country.

Your proposition forgets the fact that any arbitrary number setting will lead to an ultimate cap on when people bother trying to make money.

Say Buffett had been capped to £2bn. He couldn't have saved up to higher levels and invested it wisely, thereby generating a total of 20 billion for charity by the end of his life.

If I made £2bn, I wouldn't like to give away the proceeds straight away. There would be much more benefit if I created a bigger company, invested further and made even more money or even better created a stable income base, which could then be donated. This is what Buffett has done... he has donated Berkshire Hathaway class A shares to the Gates foundation, which will generate massive amounts of money from dividend + their intrinsic value of billions.

No offence mate, but your idea is unbelievably short sighted. The ultra, ultra rich will always be forced into charity by the end because there isnt much else they can do with their money. Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, Buffett, Gates etc etc all stand as empirical proof of this. There is no need for more legislation in our society.

What I do support wholeheartedly is for the portion of their income that is given away to charity is tax-free. That way charity can benefit directly instead of the leech of government sucking out 40%.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
yes absolutely we should! there is more than enough resources to go around. allow for incentives, but stop at giving away the farm.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
This illustration reminds me of ImaginaryReality`s OP; it is a perfect pictorial representation of what he is espousing.



This is what ALWAYS happens when Nations adopt the OP`s System;




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I posted in the Wrong thread. I'm 74, give me a break. I'm a veteran (Korea). We all make mistakes. /post moved..

[edit on 2-11-2008 by TruthTellist]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthTellist
 


Not quite because i'm still upholding the good parts of democracy, not going full socialist. To compare my ideas to Hitler and those other sickos is just unbelievable and nothing but a strawman. I'd still support all other freedoms, including freedom of speech and in the system i illustrate you still have rich and poor and no one gets killed by the government.

I NEVER ever said that we should give directly to anyone in the form of handouts and benefits. People wouldn't just be able to sit on their backsides all day every day whilst the rich work. So please don't go falsly compring the two systems, it's just unbelievably unfair.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
If I made £2bn, I wouldn't like to give away the proceeds straight away. There would be much more benefit if I created a bigger company, invested further and made even more money or even better created a stable income base, which could then be donated. This is what Buffett has done... he has donated Berkshire Hathaway class A shares to the Gates foundation, which will generate massive amounts of money from dividend + their intrinsic value of billions.


Missing the point again, i never said you couldn't havea company worth 500 million billion. I said you couldn't have personal wealth more than 2 billion. By that i mean spending money, money you can personally access to fund your own life. There would have to be serious laws making sureyou didn't use your company as a loophole to siphon money though.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
No offence mate, but your idea is unbelievably short sighted. The ultra, ultra rich will always be forced into charity by the end because there isnt much else they can do with their money. Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, Buffett, Gates etc etc all stand as empirical proof of this. There is no need for more legislation in our society.


If you understood what i was proposing maybe you wouldn't think that, as you completely missed the point in what i said earlier. I never said they couldn't reinvest in their companies if you look back at my posts i clarified that. The people you list aren't proof of anything because they only give away a fraction of their money. More importantly they are only in a small minority of the rich who give money away. Once someone reaches that level then i'm sure they'll give freely, but the ones below them often don't.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
What I do support wholeheartedly is for the portion of their income that is given away to charity is tax-free. That way charity can benefit directly instead of the leech of government sucking out 40%.


Well at least we agree on something.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


The American Dream? There isn't an American dream, just look at the ratio between poor and rich in your country.

Most of the rich have inherited their wealth, and a small portion got lucky.

The majority of people in this world work damn hard for nothing more than mere existence.

Their is no viable equation for one acquiring riches except a lucky gamble or inheriting it. The American system doesn't want thinkers, it wants cheap workforce for the benefit of a few individuals.

American Dream, God, Wake up!



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthTellist




Well if you like that Truthtell then you'll love this one.




posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 


Your knowledge of the constitution would be admirable except the 16th amendment was never ratified according to the rules the constitution lays out.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Yes absolutley we should. Were it not for the working class, and the cosumer class...did you hear me? the consumer class, I said...in a country like this, the well to do who are getting rich in the country because of the make up of the country, aught to be willing to pay his or her fair shar into the system that let's the structure fascilitate the very profits that the person earns in the first place.

So absolutley, tax the weathy and spread the weath around! They earned it in a country that allowed them to earn it, so give some back and help your country! God Bless America!



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I'm coming to this thread years, YEARS, late. So I'm pretty sure my words here will not be read. I'm okay with that.

I wonder why some of you see a wealth cap as something that would kill incentive to be productive. Why wouldn't it be seen as a definite, tangible goal to be reached? Admittance into an exclusive Billionaires' Club?

Personally I would see it as a mark of excellence and distinction. A mark that tells everyone you've "won." That you've crossed the finish line of a special race and even though you've finished, you're still running. You don't work for money anymore. You work (presumably) because you are passionate about what you do. Or maybe you keep working for the betterment of your society. Or for countless different reasons. Or maybe you don't and instead enjoy your wealth completely. Either way, there are no losers

I'm just not seeing a downside to this.



top topics
 
5
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join