It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Redistribution of wealth.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I am trying to pick a side on the conservative vs Democrat economic models and I am just going to start this debate so I can learn. I will just state how I see things which will at best be admitedly naive, yet I seek to learn.

I see the conservative view and its merits however I do see why redistribution of wealth at certain levels should occur for instance.

Microsoft and othe large companies that have billions of dollars that was made on the backs of the workers. The conservative view would have this money given to the people who own stock and have done little to truely earn it while the democrat side would see this money taxed then turned back to the poor by providing health benifits etc...

Preferably I'd like to see a very small amount go to the stock holders and a majority go to the workers at Microsoft and the owner/founder because simply Bill Gates made it happen not 99% of the stock holders.

I see how stock holders can provide companies with revenue for R&D and investment in new products yet I still see the workers who actually do something get the shaft.

I'd rather see the money distributed to workers withen the companies instead of taxes or stock holders who in my opinion are just getting a free ride at the expense of the workers.

So on the large scale were does that put me. I mean I do not support government control of the money, but I also think in large part that stock holders are just thieves stealing money from the work force that made the products.

Thanks in advance.




posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
If I understand you correctly I don't think your corporate distribution example really comes into play in either Dem or Republican economy models. Or maybe I need clarification.

And many corporations do elect to offer various forms of profit sharing for employees. But your concerns over stock holders getting the rewards is what a public company is all about IMO. Many employees get discounted stock too. Employee-owned corps.

What sucks is when it's ENRON and you (the worker) lose everything. Give me a good salary anyday over that nonsense.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I wouldn't take Microsoft as an example for "not giving to its workers".

A large percentage of programmers at microsoft are multi millionairs and the wages and benifits you get when working for MS are the best you can get in the modern corporate world. Also does MS provide rather incredibly nice work locations for their employees. A few years back they built a new EU HQ here in belgium, the thing has some of the most beautifull gardens and alot of commodity's you won't even find in high class vacation resorts.

If theres any employer in the world that should get a prize for giving to its employees, Microsoft should be it by a long run.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
I wouldn't take Microsoft as an example for "not giving to its workers".

A large percentage of programmers at microsoft are multi millionairs and the wages and benifits you get when working for MS are the best you can get in the modern corporate world. Also does MS provide rather incredibly nice work locations for their employees. A few years back they built a new EU HQ here in belgium, the thing has some of the most beautifull gardens and alot of commodity's you won't even find in high class vacation resorts.

If theres any employer in the world that should get a prize for giving to its employees, Microsoft should be it by a long run.


Yea but I think even the guy cleaning the toilets at microsoft for 20 years should be a multi millionair to, before any fat cat just buying up stock gets it haha.

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Xeven]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
A few disagreements I have with corporate America is the lack of across the board profit-sharing, and employee research patented by the institution. Republicans believe that tax cuts for corporations will entice them to grow and create more jobs, but there is no law that I know telling corps to spend that money. As for tax cuts for wealthy individuals, I don't understand that at all, what are they creating? I definitely don't agree with tax cuts for wealthy individuals. I think there are a lack of incentives for people to work in professional jobs, at least certain industries, because the wages are all messed up IMO.

I had an idea recently about a new program. Instead of having wills, what if that money and auctioned property just goes back to the government for spending and redistribution?



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven

Originally posted by thematrix
I wouldn't take Microsoft as an example for "not giving to its workers".

A large percentage of programmers at microsoft are multi millionairs and the wages and benifits you get when working for MS are the best you can get in the modern corporate world. Also does MS provide rather incredibly nice work locations for their employees. A few years back they built a new EU HQ here in belgium, the thing has some of the most beautifull gardens and alot of commodity's you won't even find in high class vacation resorts.

If theres any employer in the world that should get a prize for giving to its employees, Microsoft should be it by a long run.


Yea but I think even the guy cleaning the toilets at microsoft for 20 years should be a multi millionair to, before any fat cat just buying up stock gets it haha.

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Xeven]


Actually you are not that far off. During the tech buble there were quite a few low level workers (such as janiters) that used stock options to earn a small fortune. Maybe they aren't millionairs, but they do have a few hundred grand that no one else on their level has.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
As for redistributing wealth....NO! That is not how the US economy is supposed to work. This is not a socialistic society, nor is it a communist one. The whole point of this country is that you CAN, through fair practice and hard work (and a little bit of luck) become filthy rich without the government taking money from you and giving it to someone else.

As for your share holders comment about how they didn't earn the money - do you know how the stock market works? When you buy shares, you are giving your money to the company to use as they see fit. If the company is well run, you then see your stake in the company increase in value because of better sales. The stock holders are the lifeblood of any public company and put more into it then any employee. A person who works for a company is compinsated for his/her time with a pay check - that is the agreement. The stock holder is compinsated for his money by being given a stake in the company and also by seeing divedends of the profits (IE money).



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by XevenYea but I think even the guy cleaning the toilets at microsoft for 20 years should be a multi millionair to, before any fat cat just buying up stock gets it haha.

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Xeven]


Well, it's investor confidence that keeps the stock price where it is, thus making whomever owns the stock in large quantities richer. If the toilet crew gets 10,000 shares per year as a bonus over 20 years, that's 200,000 shares. Now, if Microsoft stays where it's at for 20 years, that stock is worth approximately $5,000,000. But, if all investors lose confidence in the stock and dump, those 200,000 shares could be worth $200,000 or less.

Don't underestimate the role and value of the investor. Their deep pockets provide the capital for companies to grow. Maybe not in the case of Microsoft but that seems to be the company we're using as an example here.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Microsoft is well known for its billionaire secretaries. You really chose an example that is counter productive to your pile of crud communist ideology.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
You know why they have billionaire secretaries? They invested.

Maybe instead of redistributing the wealth to workers, you should just encourage workers to invest.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
The problem with this type of scheme for compensating employees is that the benefit from it depends on the success of the company... All it takes is an Enron moment and all the employees are screwed. It's like having all your eggs in one basket and you don't even get to choose the basket.

It can work in the favour of the employer to motivate the workforce, but for the workers it's not so good. Better to simply pay a higher wage and let the employee's decide themselves how to spend or invest it.

I don't know what the best system is, but I'm pretty sure company equity etc isn't the best answer.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I think that the billionaires in this country need to pay MORE in taxes. Call it what you want. It is crazy for people to spend $10,000 for a pair of shoes when there are people that have to live on that for an entire year! WHO needs to live in a $100 million dollar house? REDISTIBUTE....and NO I am NOT a Communist...I am a realist!!



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
if you must take the wealth form people who started out with nothing and busted their asses to make something of themselves, take it from the corportions, not the tax payers. i am realy close to calling you a commie!



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jalengrma
I think that the billionaires in this country need to pay MORE in taxes. Call it what you want. It is crazy for people to spend $10,000 for a pair of shoes when there are people that have to live on that for an entire year! WHO needs to live in a $100 million dollar house? REDISTIBUTE....and NO I am NOT a Communist...I am a realist!!


No - you are a socialist!
If people make a billion dollars and want to spend it on 10,000 dollar shoes, who cares? It is their right, it is their money - who the hell are you to take that money and give it to someone else? They most likely made all that money through smart career and investing choices - too bad if someone else didn't? As long as you aren't doing anything illegal, I see no reason why some millionair should have to give you, me or anyone else money that they made fair and square.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The Redistubution of Wealth in any form is opposed to the underlying concepts of liberty and self-determination that this country was founded upon.

It rewards failure and penalizes success. This is the very reason that the communist system in the former Soviet Union failed. There is no incentive.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


No - you are a socialist!
If people make a billion dollars and want to spend it on 10,000 dollar shoes, who cares? It is their right, it is their money - who the hell are you to take that money and give it to someone else? They most likely made all that money through smart career and investing choices - too bad if someone else didn't? As long as you aren't doing anything illegal, I see no reason why some millionair should have to give you, me or anyone else money that they made fair and square.



brilliance. sheer brilliance. socialist are lazy. they are nothing but bloodi sucking leaches sucking wealth from the people who work hard to provide for their families. my dad busted his ass to get where he is not and hes making all sort of money, he's number 2 in IT where he works and he should not have to give that away because someone is to lazy to get off their gimmie something something for doing nothing asses.

[edit on 6-25-2004 by KrazyIvan]



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I'm all for re-distributing the wealth that the US government has used to grow fat and wasteful while its citizens are expected to "manage our money" and "get on a budget" !

70 cents of every dollar the government takes in to supposedly re-distribute to the poor and lower class is wasted and unaccounted for. I'm not opposed to helping those in need but if that 70 cents weren't wasted on privolous things, they could cut the confiscation in half and still give more to those in need. That would give business more retained capital to hire more people to mee the growing demand created by consumers with more to spend. All in all the outcome would be better quality of life for everyone, even those who have resigned to let everyone else work to give them what they are "entitled" for undertaking the task of being born.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
That would give business more retained capital to hire more people to mee the growing demand created by consumers with more to spend. All in all the outcome would be better quality of life for everyone, even those who have resigned to let everyone else work to give them what they are "entitled" for undertaking the task of being born.


Ok here is were my problem lies friend and perhaps you can explain to me how this will work. I don't see the Billionairs doing this. I don't see microsoft or other huge companies spending the cash to make more jobs etc.. There are existing companies today that have huge amounts of cash doing nothing for anyone so you see this is were the conservative view cumbles. The rich never or extreemly rarely reinvest the money and create those new jobs.

Another thing that confuses me is why conservatives spew about working hard? Ok I know most do, yet the ones spewing on radio and telvision had a silver spoon and just used dady's money in the stock market to get started. Its actually very hard to get started when you start with nothing and did not have the proper guidence when you were young.

I've worked very hard. In fact Ive put in 18 years now in the USAF and still going. I put my life on the line all the time these days, yet I see no rich and prosperous future nor do I see the rich peoples kids dieing along side my buddies in the Army and Marines.

Anyway to get on subject, THere is no real reinvestment of the cash only a small amount and the rich are taking money from the workers who are getting paid to low (workers being the guys that are truely working hard for their companies) and stock holders (who claim to be hard workers LOL) taking cash off the backs of the workers. That is how it is really working right now in todays world. Your conservative econmic view is at best a theory of how it might work. Yes I know in some cases the conservative view is working but there is way to many working poor in this country and way to much cash at the top. Its called stealing even if it is legal.

Like I said I am naive and willing to listen but I am old enough and bright enough to look around this country and see what is happening verses what some conservative econmic theory suggests will happen. It does not work. Period.

Im not sure how to fix it. I dont like taxes and I dont like making more laws yet the distribution of wealth in this country is convoluted with workers getting the royal shaft. I suppose that will continue untill workers wake up and smell the coffee.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I know that when someone attempts to take my wealth from me and re-distribute it, it makes me less dedicated to produce wealth in the first place. Why work if you don't benefit from it?

Say what you want. Couch it in whatever phrasology you wish. Hide it behind whatever leftist pholosophies you can find to support it. What everyone who advocates this is basically saying is:

"I couldn't get what you have on my own merits and work and I think I deserve it anyway, so I want to get someone else to take it from you and give it to me."

It's theft, no matter what reasons are used to justify it.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Okay,if you'll notice, I never said I thought it was a good idea to stop all confiscation and redistribution of wealth. My beef is with the over taxation required because of the enormous waste. I wasn't refering to the microsofts or really any of the filthy wealthy when discussing the benefits to reduced government waste. To be honest, your painfully wealthy could care less how much waste there is because they are the ones who benefit from it. When we found our military was paying for empty trucks to criss cross Iraq, who was the benefactor? Yep, Haliburton. Do you think Bill Gates gives a rats ass how high taxes are? Why, Because the truly wealthy have so much wealth that they are able to shield a great deal of it from taxation by tucking it into investments and such.

The people that are hurt worst by this waste is the people that have to have every dime they make to pay their bills. Why, because they have to list it all as income in order to use it.

When it comes to taxes and waste and spending, I guess my view might be considered as conservative but in no way do I think today's conservative party reflects my views. Regretfully, now, neither does the liberal party to which I belong because with all our talk about being a party of the working people, our upper ranks have become full of the rich elite that have no connection to, nor give a damn how high taxes are.

Both parties are intent of eradicating the middle class and their main goal is a two class syetm of peasants and lords to rule them. Sound familiar? Though they may be taking very different streams to get there, there no doubt its the same pond where both are heading. Make no mistake, the people who make up the difference are the people that have to work hard to get what they have.



I just wanted to add after re-reading your comments on how big business make tons from paying workers too little, that I agree with you. The biggest and most crooked business which takes more from working people is the US government which has circumvented the binding document from which they are to adhere. They were empowered to run the county's business and maintain our defense but the lengths to which they have now empowered themsleves can no longer be stretched by the broadest imagination to legality.

[edit on 25-6-2004 by astrocreep]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join