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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
No. I dont think we need to take money from anyone. I just think we should start right now today paying the workers more so in the near future all hard working american lives become more prosperous instead of 1000 people holding enough to make 100000 hard workers millionairs =).

Current conservative view:
I make widget for company. Company sells widget for 10 dollars I get one dollar, owner get 5, and stock holders get 4.

I think it should be Owner gets 5 workers get 4 and stock holders get 1.

Then america would be the most amazing country in the world.

Yea yea I know we gota throw uncle Sams share in there to I just want to keep it simple. So ya get the idea. Its funny to see your excuses fall apart.

I actually lean toward conservative view but I think the rich people today are just being a tad to greedy for the good of all america.




posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   


I make widget for company. Company sells widget for 10 dollars I get one dollar, owner get 5, and stock holders get 4.


More like you get 1 dollar, owner gets 3, stockholders get 3 and the government gets 3. The government then also gets .5 or your dollar, .5 of the owners because he only shows he got 1, just like you and 1 of the three from the stockholders for a grand take of 5.

You made the widget, the owner risked the start-up money to begin making it and the stockholders paid for everything you needed to use to make it. What did the government do? Thats right, they gave you a permit to say its okay with them if you make it..and why wouldn't it be? Now, take your .5 and feel guilty because those who never attempted to make a widget got nothing.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
Current conservative view:
I make widget for company. Company sells widget for 10 dollars I get one dollar, owner get 5, and stock holders get 4.

I think it should be Owner gets 5 workers get 4 and stock holders get 1.



Hang on.. the Owner IS the stockholder!

A more realistic summary is something like this

10 dollar for the widget
4 dollars to the workers
1 dollars for materials/supplies
2 dollars to the bank (loan repayment on the widgetomatic machine)
2 dollars to the government (tax)
1 dollar for the owner/stockholders

Not a whole lot of room to squeeze anymore from the shareholders/owner!!

[edit on 25-6-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
I make widget for company. Company sells widget for 10 dollars I get one dollar, owner get 5, and stock holders get 4.

I think it should be Owner gets 5 workers get 4 and stock holders get 1.



Then the stockholder will not invest his money since there is no profit. The business will close or fail due to lack of capital with which to grow. The workers that you wanted to get 4 will now get 0 and the rest of us get to pay their way until they find another widget company to work for.

Actually your example is inacurate. Much of that money will be used to by supplies to make the next batch of widgets and to maintain the machines that help you make them. Some of it is used to pay your health insurance and match your social security payments (the self-employed understand the what a big deal this is). Some of it will be used to comply with federal regulations enacted due to people who sued the company because they stuck their hand in a widget machine. Some will be used to hire lawyers to fend off the lawsuits that some customers will file due to the fact that they used the widget incorrectly even though instructions were right there in the package that the widget came in. Some of that....

Oh well, you can probably see what point I'm trying to make.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet

Originally posted by Xeven

A more realistic summary is something like this

10 dollar for the widget
4 dollars to the workers
1 dollars for materials/supplies
2 dollars to the bank (loan repayment on the widgetomatic machine)
2 dollars to the government (tax)
1 dollar for the owner/stockholders

Not a whole lot of room to squeeze anymore from the shareholders/owner!!

[edit on 25-6-2004 by muppet]


You forgot that the government also got 1.5 of the 4 paid to the workers and .5 of the 1 paid to the stockholders plus the tax on the materials paid by those who sold them as well as the workers who made them along with any materials used in their creation. No matter how you slice it, the government got a good 6 bucks of the 10, wasted 3 of it on interns and fringe benfits, gave 2 to the military who put .75 of that into secret projects. The ramaining 1 was split between infrastructure and entitlement programs to ensure that those who just didn't feel like making widgets got just enough to keep from from having to make widgets so they could remain dependant on the government.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
*Bows to Astrocreep for coming up with a much better answer than I did*



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
astrocreep,

you're dead right about most of the employees share going to the government.. that's the deal in the employee world...although in the UK you can start a business on the side and claim all but 8% of this back, if you're self employed and still making a loss(like most businesses do to start with).Then when your business picks up you can sack the day-job anyway! I'm assuming the rules are similar in the US.

the motto? start a business!!



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I guess its about the same though most deem anyone who starts a business as part of the problem even though most small business owners I know make me cringe when they began telling me about what they spend their so called huge profits on. Insurance, compensation, taxes, taxes, and more taxes, along with still more taxes and thats before any of it can be used to keep their system modern and competitive. Makes one wonder why people do it but then most of them aren't people willing to wait around until someone gives them what they want. I guess they have a little more than most but just asked any one of them if they've seen the latest episode of Will and Grace and you'll find most were working while it was aired. Me, I plan on doing that one day but while my son is still young, 40 hours per week gives me the time to spend with family. Once he's grown, I'll probably be ready for 70 hour weeks to fill the time but for now, family is my priority.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Bravo astrocreep


It's nice to see there are still some people who have a grip on economics and the INSANE taxes paid in the US



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
This thread actually popped into my mind during a discussion about the Wal-Mart discrimination class action suit. The stat I heard bandied about was that though their profits were almost 10 billion dollars last year, they're not only paying the women less, but the average pay is something like $10 - $12k per year. Seems that within that huge profit there would be some room to give more to the workers for their contribution which is what helps make the place profitable. They're claim to fame is that they are such a helpful force in the communities they (stomp through) enter, but this points to the Americanized version of paying somebody overseas 15 cents a week to make tennis shoes.

I'm not saying take from the rich or take anyone's personal wealth, but it seems it would be in a big profitable corporation's best interest to cough up a little more dough to the working folks. They're important, at least as important as the investors if not more so. If an investor isn't in the store, I don't care. If somebody isn't there to ring up my Advil and lightbulbs, it's K-mart here I come!



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Owners/Investors are by far more important than the worker. There will always be someone to replace the worker, but it is much harder to find someone to invest. Bottom line, without the investor there would be no worker.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   
You should also remember that the "big corporate profits" are also what causes the worker's pension funds, IRA's and 401s to grow. Also those "big profits" don't look nearly as big when you compare them to the stock price.

Ultimately the wealthy are those who are best at generating wealth. They don't take wealth from others. Quite the reverse, they PROVIDE wealth, by building businesses, buying from suppliers, paying wages and keeping money flowing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join