I personally agree with a cap on wealth. There's no reason for one person to have $50billion in liquid assets. Where do you draw the line? What if
one person were to make/have so much money they actually became a threat to the government. Once they hit a certain point in assets all it becomes
more is a competition for power in the rich peeps club. They will never stop trying to get more unless someone steps in and makes them. Take away
their money. 1Billion is enough for one man, make him give the rest to the poor.
Would a wealth cap save the global economy?, page 2
reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 05:28 PM by tide88
Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by tide88
Bill Gates is much more of a ruthless businessman than a good engineer, his ruthlessness stifled many good products that Microsoft would otherwise have had to compete with to the betterment of both (isn't that a capitalist truism?). It also got him sued multiple times for unfair business practices. Microsoft's products really suck because of him, they've retarded better software development and adoption. Have you ever used an Amiga or Atari?
To say that Microsoft was in an "infantile stage" when he made his first billion is simply preposterous, please try to make your arguments rationally supportable by facts.
In a population of some 350 million people, high IQs are, in fact, a dime a dozen: ask any corporate recruiter. And as history has shown uncountable times, "irreplaceable" people have been and are replaced on a daily basis throughout the country.
Both Gates and Jobs didn't do their thing all by themselves: each had an army of talented people behind them who were more directly responsible for the innovations, ideas, development and production than they were. And each was and is replaceable.
[edit on 24-1-2009 by apacheman]
He made his first billion in 1986, so yes microsoft was in its infintile stage compared to where it is today, technologically speaking, that is. (should of specified, but I thought you would get it seeing I was talking about advances in technology that these specific people create. Look at the advances that microsoft has made since then. Not claiming there wasn't misstep or bad decisions by Gates but I am saying computers would not be the same without him at the helm of Microsoft.
The big break came in 1980 when an agreement was signed to provide the operating system that became known as MS-DOS, for IBM's new personal computer. In a contractual masterstroke, Microsoft was allowed to licence the operating system to other manufacturers, spawning an industry of "IBM-compatible" personal computers which depended on Microsoft's operating system. That fuelled further growth, prompting the company to float in 1986, raising $61m. Now a multi-millionaire, Allen had already stepped back from the frontline. But Gates continued to play the key role in the company's growth, with his vision for networked computers proving central to Microsoft's success.And his business savvy and ruthlessness as well as ability to run a company has made the company the success it is. Not everyone with an IQ that high has the ability to run a company and do what he did at microsoft. ANd to say an IQ of 170 is a dime a dozen is completely untrue. Seeing that only 1% of the worlds population have an iq of 135 or higher, I would harldy say that constitutes a dime a dozen number.
Apacheman please try to make your arguments rationally supportable by facts. . A dime a dozen.
[edit on 24-1-2009 by tide88]
reply posted on 13-6-2009 @ 03:15 PM by Xtraeme
It's comical that people in this thread are advocating no cap by arguing that Bill G would have quit Microsoft thereby damaging market growth and
regional prosperity.
The man was and still is a workaholic.
I was a programmer at Microsoft for a couple years. So I can say with some clarity many of the more popular products weren't Bill's ideas. While I admit Bill was a smart guy, and a fine engineer to boot, his savvy was (1) trend prediction, (2) he understood how to promote a highly competitive internal business culture, and (3) the man was utterly ruthless. If the US instituted a wealth cap Bill wouldn't have quit. What's more likely is he would have worked out a way to to consume the money at a rate so his net worth would indefinitely sit at the cap. Also, seeing as how Microsoft's financial team is adept at avoiding corporate taxation (i.e. the way MS uses overseas operations, through Ireland HQ, to skirt reporting total gross earned income) I'm nearly certain Bill would devise a way to game the system and ultimately avoid the wealth cap.
If productivity is increasing the ratio of wealth earned by other nations / international organizations at cost to the US, then who cares about decrease in productivity? Reclamation of wealth is probably a better short term answer than letting money continually seep out through tax havens to foreign nationals. I don't doubt it would have a deleterious effect in the short term, but until monetary globalization & world unification is achieved, making taxes truly an unavoidable reality, the United States will more than likely have to resort to these sorts of short-term corrective measures.
It's either that or war, subjugating another government and claiming their resources. Your pick.
The world has finite stuff.
(source and the full article)
Money is one of them. To not regulate the flow of that money, especially, at the macro level is, geopolitically speaking, foolish.
To be honest, unregulated personal wealth is a tertiary problem in the grand scheme of things. Corporate wealth is much more concerning.
In the here and now international companies wield as much power as foreign governments. When a company's yearly gross income exceeds that of a 3rd world nations GDP, the company is no longer a business it's a country without borders. I see no reason why the US should treat these entities any different than how we treat potentially hostile foreign nations. If the leaders of these organizations refuse to play ball, our military / intelligence agencies should seize their assets and insert new management.
Money is about balance of power and a means of resource allocation.
Wealth distribution, especially at the macro-scale, very much follows a mode of moral reasoning. At the macro-scale an unregulated monetary system is a detriment to society and should not replace actual human value judgments.
[edit on 13-6-2009 by Xtraeme]
The man was and still is a workaholic.
I was a programmer at Microsoft for a couple years. So I can say with some clarity many of the more popular products weren't Bill's ideas. While I admit Bill was a smart guy, and a fine engineer to boot, his savvy was (1) trend prediction, (2) he understood how to promote a highly competitive internal business culture, and (3) the man was utterly ruthless. If the US instituted a wealth cap Bill wouldn't have quit. What's more likely is he would have worked out a way to to consume the money at a rate so his net worth would indefinitely sit at the cap. Also, seeing as how Microsoft's financial team is adept at avoiding corporate taxation (i.e. the way MS uses overseas operations, through Ireland HQ, to skirt reporting total gross earned income) I'm nearly certain Bill would devise a way to game the system and ultimately avoid the wealth cap.
Originally posted by RRconservative
So if I reach the wealth cap in 3 months....does that mean I can take a 9 month vacation?
When you punish productivity...productivity will decrease.
If productivity is increasing the ratio of wealth earned by other nations / international organizations at cost to the US, then who cares about decrease in productivity? Reclamation of wealth is probably a better short term answer than letting money continually seep out through tax havens to foreign nationals. I don't doubt it would have a deleterious effect in the short term, but until monetary globalization & world unification is achieved, making taxes truly an unavoidable reality, the United States will more than likely have to resort to these sorts of short-term corrective measures.
It's either that or war, subjugating another government and claiming their resources. Your pick.
The world has finite stuff.
(source and the full article)
Money is one of them. To not regulate the flow of that money, especially, at the macro level is, geopolitically speaking, foolish.
To be honest, unregulated personal wealth is a tertiary problem in the grand scheme of things. Corporate wealth is much more concerning.
In the here and now international companies wield as much power as foreign governments. When a company's yearly gross income exceeds that of a 3rd world nations GDP, the company is no longer a business it's a country without borders. I see no reason why the US should treat these entities any different than how we treat potentially hostile foreign nations. If the leaders of these organizations refuse to play ball, our military / intelligence agencies should seize their assets and insert new management.
Money is about balance of power and a means of resource allocation.
Wealth distribution, especially at the macro-scale, very much follows a mode of moral reasoning. At the macro-scale an unregulated monetary system is a detriment to society and should not replace actual human value judgments.
[edit on 13-6-2009 by Xtraeme]
reply posted on 21-9-2010 @ 05:50 PM by unreasonable
Ecology - from the Greek meaning "the study of the household". Ecologists are the scientists who study all living things and learn their relation
to each other and the biosphere.
Economy - from the Greek meaning "the running of the household". Economists are the gamblers who shift money and power around without knowing or caring what it does to the biosphere we are part of.
A Science News study concluded that economists have a lower average of correct predictions than bookies do. How can we run our planet without studying how it works? Isn't it time we consulted with ecologists before economists run our planet into the ground?
"Money is power, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Progressive taxation has never worked. As they say "them with the gold makes the rules". The problem has long been that we have allowed economists, financiers and money to run our world without their knowing or caring about how the world works. Their religion of the "Free Market" has not, cannot and will not fix the world. How can they call it Social Darwinism when there is an unnatural, slanted playing field where the super-rich control the market itself through central banks and corporations? If nature can be said to be God's art, we have bookies doing heart surgery. In a biblical way, we have left things up to Mammon instead of to God.
Nature caps the amount of resources any organism can hoard to the amount it can personally defend. Money subverts this natural process, allowing endless resource and power concentration. Society has never been able to brake money-power concentration through rigged, loophole filled taxation, by following voodoo economist's predictions or by war. If we controlled money-power concentration the way moneyless nature intended, we would cap personal net worth, and globally to prevent capital flight. But how can We the People do this without involving easily compromised politicians?
A cap on wealth/power could be achieved direct democratically by fraud-free yearly referendum. The Swiss formula for success is the secure referendum as opposed to California's fraudulent referendums: ni4d.us... It gives them one of the highest per capita incomes in the world despite having few natural resources, no wars in over 150 years despite being surrounded by warring nations, no boom and bust economy, the best health care and education, few immigration problems and a healthy environment.
We could decide in a direct democratic way that with a net worth of say 10 million one can have all one desires by renting instead of buying. We could rent mansions, jets, yachts, etc. with the added benefit of providing employment to those that maintain them without our having to bear these and other costs of ownership. No one needs any more. Having too much money leads to disastrous power concentration resulting in a shift of resources toward war profiteering, decreased social spending, infrastructure decay, poverty, disease, famine, ignorance, environmental destruction, illegal immigration and so on. All to enrich the 2% of the population that drunk on greed and power, proposes we grow ourselves out of poverty to avoid having to share.
We could decide that any personal net worth above the wealth cap should have to be given away to other individuals and be counted on the recipient's wealth cap determination. That these excesses would not be given to organizations or governments of any kind to prevent extreme concentrations of wealth and power in any institution. In fact, the net worth of all institutions, religions, governments, parties, armies and other organizations should be spread among their members and counted in their personal net worth determination.
The result of a wealth cap would be automatic wealth redistribution by the rich themselves as required by the people, and a brake on imperialistic concentrations of power. Poverty would disappear. People could use their new found wealth to pay for infrastructure directly. The need for taxes would wane. Politicians would only exist to carry out the will of the people as expressed in frequent and secure referendums like the Swiss have. And former super rich, maybe even the Koch Brothers, would be able to join humankind and walk among us without fear as cherished people's philantropists.
To humanely address the vital issue of overpopulation that is causing resource depletion, global warming, pollution, species extinctions, immigration, plagues, famine, crime, war, etc., by popularly mandated referendum, the world's rich could give a money incentive for people to have fewer children. The lower the global birth rate, the greater the share of wealth cap excesses from a tiny super-rich minority each person would enjoy. This is a far preferable way to lower human populations than letting nature take it's course and lowering our populations by war, crime, disease, famine and other ways characteristic of beasts, not humans.
With a cap on wealth or resource hoarding, power is naturally limited. This is nature's way of achieving a sustainable ecosystem that allows for competition, adaptation and natural selection. A natural system that benefits the most members of every species. In human terms, a system of government that has the best of direct democratic capitalism and socialism without allowing destructive extreme concentration of wealth/power and overpopulation.
Economy - from the Greek meaning "the running of the household". Economists are the gamblers who shift money and power around without knowing or caring what it does to the biosphere we are part of.
A Science News study concluded that economists have a lower average of correct predictions than bookies do. How can we run our planet without studying how it works? Isn't it time we consulted with ecologists before economists run our planet into the ground?
"Money is power, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Progressive taxation has never worked. As they say "them with the gold makes the rules". The problem has long been that we have allowed economists, financiers and money to run our world without their knowing or caring about how the world works. Their religion of the "Free Market" has not, cannot and will not fix the world. How can they call it Social Darwinism when there is an unnatural, slanted playing field where the super-rich control the market itself through central banks and corporations? If nature can be said to be God's art, we have bookies doing heart surgery. In a biblical way, we have left things up to Mammon instead of to God.
Nature caps the amount of resources any organism can hoard to the amount it can personally defend. Money subverts this natural process, allowing endless resource and power concentration. Society has never been able to brake money-power concentration through rigged, loophole filled taxation, by following voodoo economist's predictions or by war. If we controlled money-power concentration the way moneyless nature intended, we would cap personal net worth, and globally to prevent capital flight. But how can We the People do this without involving easily compromised politicians?
A cap on wealth/power could be achieved direct democratically by fraud-free yearly referendum. The Swiss formula for success is the secure referendum as opposed to California's fraudulent referendums: ni4d.us... It gives them one of the highest per capita incomes in the world despite having few natural resources, no wars in over 150 years despite being surrounded by warring nations, no boom and bust economy, the best health care and education, few immigration problems and a healthy environment.
We could decide in a direct democratic way that with a net worth of say 10 million one can have all one desires by renting instead of buying. We could rent mansions, jets, yachts, etc. with the added benefit of providing employment to those that maintain them without our having to bear these and other costs of ownership. No one needs any more. Having too much money leads to disastrous power concentration resulting in a shift of resources toward war profiteering, decreased social spending, infrastructure decay, poverty, disease, famine, ignorance, environmental destruction, illegal immigration and so on. All to enrich the 2% of the population that drunk on greed and power, proposes we grow ourselves out of poverty to avoid having to share.
We could decide that any personal net worth above the wealth cap should have to be given away to other individuals and be counted on the recipient's wealth cap determination. That these excesses would not be given to organizations or governments of any kind to prevent extreme concentrations of wealth and power in any institution. In fact, the net worth of all institutions, religions, governments, parties, armies and other organizations should be spread among their members and counted in their personal net worth determination.
The result of a wealth cap would be automatic wealth redistribution by the rich themselves as required by the people, and a brake on imperialistic concentrations of power. Poverty would disappear. People could use their new found wealth to pay for infrastructure directly. The need for taxes would wane. Politicians would only exist to carry out the will of the people as expressed in frequent and secure referendums like the Swiss have. And former super rich, maybe even the Koch Brothers, would be able to join humankind and walk among us without fear as cherished people's philantropists.
To humanely address the vital issue of overpopulation that is causing resource depletion, global warming, pollution, species extinctions, immigration, plagues, famine, crime, war, etc., by popularly mandated referendum, the world's rich could give a money incentive for people to have fewer children. The lower the global birth rate, the greater the share of wealth cap excesses from a tiny super-rich minority each person would enjoy. This is a far preferable way to lower human populations than letting nature take it's course and lowering our populations by war, crime, disease, famine and other ways characteristic of beasts, not humans.
With a cap on wealth or resource hoarding, power is naturally limited. This is nature's way of achieving a sustainable ecosystem that allows for competition, adaptation and natural selection. A natural system that benefits the most members of every species. In human terms, a system of government that has the best of direct democratic capitalism and socialism without allowing destructive extreme concentration of wealth/power and overpopulation.
reply posted on 12-8-2011 @ 05:56 PM by Romanian
reply to post by BlackOps719
Communism? Well, what about 85 % of the wealth being in the hands of a minority? I guess communism is bit better than slavery! If you want to see WORKING models of capitalism+socialism working fine, look no further than Norway, Sweden, Finland. The highest standard of life for everyone in the end leads to a more educated society, more productivity and a better society.
Communism? Well, what about 85 % of the wealth being in the hands of a minority? I guess communism is bit better than slavery! If you want to see WORKING models of capitalism+socialism working fine, look no further than Norway, Sweden, Finland. The highest standard of life for everyone in the end leads to a more educated society, more productivity and a better society.
reply posted on 12-8-2011 @ 06:07 PM by Gmoneycricket
“maximum wage”
Do a search we are still under this law to this day, but the percentage has changed.
In April 1942, just months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt called on Congress to enact a 100 percent top federal income tax rate, effectively a “maximum wage”. FDR, a wealthy man himself, believed that no American should be pocketing over $25,000 per year after taxes, a sum equivalent to more than $300,000 today.
thurmanhubbard.com...
Do a search we are still under this law to this day, but the percentage has changed.
In April 1942, just months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt called on Congress to enact a 100 percent top federal income tax rate, effectively a “maximum wage”. FDR, a wealthy man himself, believed that no American should be pocketing over $25,000 per year after taxes, a sum equivalent to more than $300,000 today.
thurmanhubbard.com...
edit on 12-8-2011 by Gmoneycricket because: percentage has changed
reply posted on 12-8-2011 @ 07:56 PM by ZeroSumWinner
reply to post by Nastradamus
I agree. If I can sucker people into giving me all their wealth. Then I've earned it. It doesn't matter if they're borderline morons. I should be able to abuse people as much as I want, especially when those people allow me to abuse them. Granted I've inherited most of my money (hedge fund investments). Regardless, I'll be damned if I'm going to give it away to society's dregs. Winner takes all. Thanks for supporting me.
I agree. If I can sucker people into giving me all their wealth. Then I've earned it. It doesn't matter if they're borderline morons. I should be able to abuse people as much as I want, especially when those people allow me to abuse them. Granted I've inherited most of my money (hedge fund investments). Regardless, I'll be damned if I'm going to give it away to society's dregs. Winner takes all. Thanks for supporting me.
America in Crisis - Five Core Problems, But Are They Solvable or Do We Dissolve As a Nation
Posted 16 days ago with 23 member flags
Posted 16 days ago with 23 member flags
We are in danger of entering a recession? I didn\'t know we were out...
Posted 17 days ago with 14 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 14 member flags
If the American People Incorporated, would we be \'too big to fail\'?
Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Police swoop on the homeless taking sleeping bags and food parcels in co-ordinated raids in Redbridg
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 12 hours ago, 22 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 12 hours ago, 22 flags
29 New Jersey Resteraunts caught selling rubbing alcohol
Breaking Alternative News: 9 hours ago, 21 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 9 hours ago, 21 flags
BBC: RAF jets scrambled after 'incident' (possibly hijack?)
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 11 flags
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Woolwich attack: Muslim cleric Anjem Choudray claims he knew murder suspect - video
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 43 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 43 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.288 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.288 seconds
