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.

 

Wall St bonuses are back... sparking bidding wars again for mansions in the Hamptons

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
And yet, every time I offer the only realistic solution, everyone screams about how unfair my proposal is to those who've "earned" their massive wealth.

My solution?

CAP WEALTH.

Limit global worldwide wealth to $1 billion and one.

100% tax rate for everything over the limit, and a ban on working for further profit. After accumulating a billion dollars, no one needs to work or to accumulate more. Retire and do volunteer work.

There is absolutely NO moral,ethical, legal, economic, or rational reason to allow unlimited wealth. It boils down to either an immature cry of "But I wanna...", a sociopathic desire to control others, or a form of mental illness best defined as "economic hoarding", the same sort of illness that leads to having 200 cats, a houseful of junk that makes it impossible to move, or compulsively stocking more food than you can possibly consume.

It wouldn't destroy the economy nor would we be deprived of anything we'd miss, the 937 people on the planet a limit would effect aren't the smartest, the most brilliant, or most creative to the extant that they couldn't be immediately replaced for the better. Mostly that class of people represents the most ruthless and selfish folks on the planet, not the best and brightest.

So what is so wrong with capping wealth and allowing some of those who actually created the wealth to share in it?
edit on 7-3-2011 by apacheman because: sp

edit on 7-3-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


You know, a few months ago I would have said "Yep, you're nuts!" to your suggestion.
But thinking rationally about it, you have a point.
I live (relatively) well at the moment with what my wife and I bring home for salaries. Anymore would find a proper use up until a certain amount, at which point it would start to be excessive.

Would I really need a Lexus SUV? Nope, I'll pass!
How about a million dollar mansion on the beach? No thanks, upkeep + hurricanes = too much possible spending.

I think you might be onto something.

What would you suggest we funnel the excess funds into? Education? Sciences?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreine
reply to post by apacheman
 


You know, a few months ago I would have said "Yep, you're nuts!" to your suggestion.
But thinking rationally about it, you have a point.
I live (relatively) well at the moment with what my wife and I bring home for salaries. Anymore would find a proper use up until a certain amount, at which point it would start to be excessive.

Would I really need a Lexus SUV? Nope, I'll pass!
How about a million dollar mansion on the beach? No thanks, upkeep + hurricanes = too much possible spending.

I think you might be onto something.

What would you suggest we funnel the excess funds into? Education? Sciences?


Education is a start, sciences too, arts, how about paying a living wage to all workers? That'd be an excellent start. Making sure even the person who flips the burgers at your favorite fast food chain can live relatively decent off that wage, priceless! Without government assistance. If we paid people a decent wage think how we could rid ourselves of welfare, foodstamps, medicaid. This would save taxpayer money, plus there'd be a larger percent of the population actually paying taxes instead of getting returns. Just my thoughts. Hey but some would say I am delusional.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


To a degree I understand your arguments.



So what is so wrong with capping wealth and allowing some of those who actually created the wealth to share in it?



But your above quote would deter entrepreneur's desire to be successful. Putting a cap on someone's ability to make money, would only also put a cap on the free market. That's as bad as these isolationists intervening with the market system as we see today. Putting regulations would also allow the Government to continue with their ongoing atrocities. The " interventionists " would capitalize on the fruits of another persons labor. ( which we see today anyways )



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Are you honestly saying that being limited to a mere billion and one dollars would kill entrepreneurship?

Most I've known have been driven by the beauty of their ideas (as described by themselves), the desire for personal freedom, or just the pure fun of it.

Any "entreprenuer" dissuaded by a cap is either no entrepreneur or is already too wealthy.

Trust me on this, there are literally millions of people who have great ideas, who have the drive and willingness to work hard that would be more than happy with a cap in place so that perhaps their ideas and inventions might see the light of day, ideas and inventions that are ignored or suppressed because they would compete with the established economic order.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


apacheman,

While I will not speak on the economic soundness of any sort of cap, I did find an article that pertains to your idea.

I read it and simply shook my head:

aworldofprogress.com... ion-dollars/

Personally, I am a retail manager in RL. A large chunk of my compensation comes in a Sales Bonus. I am the only manager in our chain that gives each employee a "cut" of my bonus twice a year.

Why?

Am I a Saint? Nope! (Although I keep hoping the Pope will call me to let me know otherwise.)



Am I a "commie"? Sorry, no! Communists do not believe in God, so that leaves me out.

Do I have trouble sleeping at night? Nah, and if I did I'd just suck down a Scotch or two.

So why?

Simple! Because without the employees I wouldn't get a bonus. Therefore, I gladly give them a piece of the bonus pie because they both deserve it and I wouldn't get any bonus without their efforts.

Guess that makes "fairness" the reason I do it.

Cheers!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hessling
 





Communists do not believe in God, so that leaves me out.




Sorry, but God already left the building!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Hessling
 





Communists do not believe in God, so that leaves me out.




Sorry, but God already left the building!


Can you blame Him? What with all the folks out there condoning, as well as defending, this sort of behavior and calling themselves Christians?





Cheers!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
You guys want to punish them for being successful!

SOROS

Redistribute wealth

ACORN

Socialism



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Janky Red,

"You guys want to punish them for being successful!"

Not at all. However, check out some horrific folks that were labeled "successful" and you can understand why there is cause for concern.

www.cracked.com...

It is one thing to be genuinely successful. It's a whole other kettle of fish when one succeeds due to being an absolute monster.

Just my $0.02's worth friend.

Cheers!
edit on 7-3-2011 by Hessling because: broken link

edit on 7-3-2011 by Hessling because: spelling



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded

But your above quote would deter entrepreneur's desire to be successful. Putting a cap on someone's ability to make money, would only also put a cap on the free market. That's as bad as these isolationists intervening with the market system as we see today. Putting regulations would also allow the Government to continue with their ongoing atrocities. The " interventionists " would capitalize on the fruits of another persons labor. ( which we see today anyways )


Well I think another entrepreneur would be more than happy to take the place of the poor defeated potential billionaire.

What free market BTW???

The government already regulates just about everything

Isn't capitalism the idea of capitalizing on the fruits of another persons labor?

Apacheman, interesting idea



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hessling
 


You are commendable. I have worked in retail for a long time, and never personally met any manager that has done that.

we need more people like you. Unfortunately I beleive it's very rare for people to see beyond their own importance.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
let's see, brokers talking about how great the market is in the hamptons, written in a british paper.

ok, how about some real info.

prices in the hamptons are way down and the only folks buying are vulture shopping and the bidding wars are few and far between as a result of all that product on the market.

a friend of mine just went to contract on a house out in the hamptons. the broker had so many houses to show him (and his wife) that they spent two days out there and never saw half the homes she wanted to show them.

there are tons of for sale and rent signs out there and every year the brokers come out, right before spring, to tout the market. The reason they do this is to try and drive up summer rental pricing and spur buying.

it's a load of crap.

banks ain't lending.
buyers ain't buying


sellers can't sell



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Idyserenity,

Your words are most kind and I thank you for that.

You know, if you'd like to know my reasoning on such a matter you should probably look at your own ATS signature. I really like those words and agree wholeheartedly. Tends to sum up the whole matter quite well.

Cheers!

P.S. - Was it wrong for me to "star" a posting that pays a compliment?

edit on 7-3-2011 by Hessling because: A bit more to add to post



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Hessling
 


No it isn't wrong to star a post that pays a compliment. I wouldn't think so anyway.
And you're very welcome.
Maybe there is still hope for humanity yet!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The Hamptons isn't really well-defended or well-defendable land. Low, flat scrubland with few natural features, easy for any sort of irate mob to overrun.

Kind of reminds me of Versailles that way. Or the Quing Dynasty Summer Palace north of Beijing.

Just sayin'.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
You people have it so so wrong,having a few people who control all the money isnt that bad from an enviromentalists piont of view,if a few people sit on hoards of cash and it isnt being spent then the planets resources will last longer becuase poor people wont have money to spend using up all the resources,having more money means buying more things and doing more things.

i will piont out that the people with hoards of cash are mentaly not right in the head and thats a bad thing but im just pionting out a positive this



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join