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.

 

The Distribution of Wealth; Should personal and corporate wealth be capped?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


Did you know that originally income tax was capped at one percent? Gradually however it kept creeping up. Irregardless of all the other arguments against a wealth cap, no matter how high the cap is initially set, it would be gradually lowered until it hits you to.




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
The OP assumes that wealth is finite. That the super rich are eating out of a pie plate and leaving only a sliver for the rest of us. The thing is, more pie can always be made. I don't mean that more money can be printed, I mean that wealth is not finite.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I'm sorry but something about the statement made at the top of this thread where the Op refers to "the bottom 90%" is pretty darn ridiculous.
If anything is referred to as the bottom ninety per cent, doesn't make it/them the majority and not the victim?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Well, congratulations to that person, they've accumulated enough money to not only live like they were 50 people (with all the cars, houses, jewelry, yachts, planes, etc.), but also have retirement to continue living like they were 50 people until their death when their money will be of no more use to them.

If their accumulated wealth were capped, and it led to them "shutting down" or "stopping their work", I suppose it would leave a niche open for someone else to fill in the spot.

Anyway, the problem with the whole argument is rather moot. Even $1 billion for a single person is ridiculous. What are you really going to do with $1 billion dollars? I'm not talking about investing in a business' infrastructure or some other form of turn around. I"m talking about personal wealth. What is someone really going to do with $1 billion dollars.

The whole system is flawed, setting a cap won't really solve a problem, in my opinion, because it's just more regulation on something already broken beyond repair. It will just make the wealthy angry (because they are already the types to be greedy and put their own gluttonous lifestyles above and beyond everyone else - most likely they're all sociopaths, anyway)...and when they get angry they will stop short at nothing to repeal the law.

Seriously, we all know that they would. We sit here and conjecture and theorize about these 1%ers, but it is obvious that for less than actually capping their wealth, just, let's say, stopping them from earning so much, so quickly, as in (for example) import/export taxation, regulation, etc., they already stop at nothing to fix these issues, off-shoring jobs, setting up "slave" labor in those other countries, corrupt local politics, and fund propaganda at alarming scope and rates.

They already destabilize third world governments, which is tantamount to murder because it leads to coups, disappearances, politically motivated murder, poverty, higher food prices, water privatization, oppression, and torture.

So, let's not all be so smug as to think anyone sitting here typing or reading will ever be in the league that the OP is mentioning. Keep dreaming while you keep defending...



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Originally posted by Alxandro
I'm sorry but something about the statement made at the top of this thread where the Op refers to "the bottom 90%" is pretty darn ridiculous.
If anything is referred to as the bottom ninety per cent, doesn't make it/them the majority and not the victim?


Majority and victim are not mutually exclusive. Look at South Africa under Apartheid as one small example.
edit on 14-8-2011 by Sphota because: added quote by poster



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
the real issue here is greed.

its greed that ruins the use of money. those who are greedy (individuals and businesses) continuously seek ways to avoid taxes, and increase their wealth - at the expense of those who don't have wealth.

if you're not in the club, you're Not in the club.

thus you have inept politicians, the existence of corporate lobbyists, a corrupted banking system, and giant business that cares only for profit. and they are in the club. for example, Mitt Romney recently revealed his worth to be around 264 million dollars.

Two Hundred and Sixty Four Million Dollars.

if anyone believes characters such as he will have a genuine interest in helping Americans, think again.


so what needs to change is greed. it needs to be removed from society.


those who have exorbitant amounts of wealth should be distributing excess amounts of wealth to what matters - the infrastructure and well being of humanity, as a whole.


but then you run into another pair of problems. honesty and honor.


those with wealth have no reason to be honest or honorable to those who don't have wealth. that is why taxation, as it is, doesn't work.

those who pay taxes have no say in where the money goes.

none. i am amazed that no one seems to realize this.

if taxation worked as it should - being guided by those who subscribe to honor and honesty, and not by greed - then the world would be a better place.

if those with enormous wealth cared about their fellow humans, then an enormous amount of wealth could be utilized for enhancement of every society, world wide.

free health care, good housing, healthy food, adequate water. everyone living comfortably.


but greed has to go first. greed of the individual, of business, of society.

second is to bring in those who are guided by honor and honesty - and a genuine desire to help their fellow man and woman - not enormously wealthy individuals like mitt romney.

capping wealth could never be a solution. nor will taxation work as it currently exists.


food for thought.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
The OP assumes that wealth is finite. That the super rich are eating out of a pie plate and leaving only a sliver for the rest of us. The thing is, more pie can always be made. I don't mean that more money can be printed, I mean that wealth is not finite.


I disagree, the planet's resources are finite. Wealth - be it property, water rights, metals and other resources in cars, or the money metaphor that ends up equaling all of those things - is tied to the resources that create it. Ergo, wealth is finite.

The more resources (wealth) that a few control, the less there is to go around for everyone else.

We have a problem of wealth (resource) management.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by solardez

thus you have inept politicians, the existence of corporate lobbyists, a corrupted banking system, and giant business that cares only for profit. and they are in the club. for example, Mitt Romney recently revealed his worth to be around 264 million dollars.


No wonder he misunderstands the idea that corporations are not people...matter of fact, he probably does understand the concept, but could give a flying hoot.

As a person, I'm not able to accumulate the same wealth as a corporation, which is already a hierarchically bottom-up system, allowing the wealth of the corporation to also trickle up to those at the top...downsizing and pension cuts for those at the bottom.

Corporations are "embodiments" (literal meaning) of people where the CEO is the "head" of that body (quite literally Chief [head] executive [carrying out] officer [tasked with the work]). Think about you as a person, what part of you makes the decisions that are not always in the best interest of your physical embodiment or those around you, but rather to the express desires of that mental faculty residing in you...say it with me.... This terminology is not accidental.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TheRemedial
 

Cap wealth when you cap life-spans.

I mean, why not?

Everyone over the age of 80 can't contribute anymore. So off the oldsters. They'l just take the money that people won't have because it is "capped".





If it's taken them 80 years to get to this point and they have not heard of retirement or thought about it, it's probably their time to go. But young people who are just getting into an extremely broken and foreign business world to them, they can starve because they're "laizy and stoopid", right? Disregard this, anyways, it's just an outline of the parody that is your silly opinion: thinking that a cap of 1 million per year would leave you "starving by the time you're 80". Ridiculous, and tell-tale that those who have the money know the least about it's value, they just like watching the numbers go up and calling it "success".
edit on 14-8-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


I think the problem with the question you pose is that the entire premise of corporations is to make money constantly and grow. Since capping it makes no sense, and human greed is so prevailantly destroying the integrity of the system, corporations as a whole are as fundamentally flawed as communism or fascism, and in our modern reality it is being much more destructive than both of them behind closed doors. We would need to get rid of corporations altogether (which I am personally 100% okay with). Otherwise, with a cap the corporations will collapse when they reach their caps and stockholders have no faith for growth, and the system will fail. We need to stop pretending that it's mandatory to leech off of these inhuman entities of out-of-control financial interest that we've created.
edit on 14-8-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


I think the problem with the question you pose is that the entire premise of corporations is to make money constantly and grow. Since capping it makes no sense, and human greed is so prevailantly destroying the integrity of the system, corporations as a whole are as fundamentally flawed as communism or fascism, and in our modern reality it is being much more destructive than both of them behind closed doors. We would need to get rid of corporations altogether (which I am personally 100% okay with). Otherwise, with a cap the corporations will collapse when they reach their caps and stockholders have no faith for growth, and the system will fail. We need to stop pretending that it's mandatory to leech off of these inhuman entities of out-of-control financial interest that we've created.
edit on 14-8-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)


Very interesting points and what you have said makes much sense to me.

This thread though is also for discussing possible other solutions that are outside the box, what has been spelled out are mere musings the concept, explore and learn possibility. Say, a cap is not necessarily a cap at all but more of a point where the direction of accumulated personal and corporate wealth must be put into use in a sector which has direct benefit to citizens.

Simply put for an example, numbers are off the top of my head.

No person nor corporate entity shall have the ability to hold personal cash and precious metal assets that exceed the net value of 1 billion dollars. The holdings above and beyond are to be reinvested into the economy in a sector which has the direct result of creating jobs for fellow citizens and patriots.
-----
This idea above many flaws, most of which revolve around other countries being less strict.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


What resources do musicians and artists use to create their product? How about Google?

I'm not trying to argue, I feel like my tone is coming off that way.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Headshot
 


No offense taken, I'll attempt to address your point.

When we discuss wealth, we mean possession, not means for compensation. Those are not the same thing - though the more possession you have, the more you can invest in actions that lead to compensation - i.e., you need money to make money) and clearly, despite what physical resources you may (or may not) use in order to be compensated, the wealth you accumulate (or not if your a starving artist) is paid out - shall we say - in resources. This is independent of whether or not you "exchange" your abstract money for concrete resources, or simply sit on it.

In other words, the resources used to create wealth (which can certainly be completely mental) are not the same as the resources that wealth equates to. For example, what is the resource used by an investment banker to accumulate his wealth (aside from his shrewdness)? An airline pilot (aside from his skills)? A janitor (aside from his endurance)? Etc. The arguments made are tangential: computers, jet fuel, mops and cleaning supplies, etc.

So, we have to address the concept of Wealth as resource accumulation (discussing money-based economies, not natural economies like those found in Papua New Guinea or the Amazon, for example.). There are some points we need to make:

1. In money-based economies, the currency stands for X amount of things. Three-sixty for a gallon of gas. Four-fifteen for a gallon of milk, and so forth. It's essentially a conceptual metaphor **(see foot note) where money is an abstraction for some real-world, concrete thing that can be purchased with it.

2. We can agree that there would be no money if there were nothing to purchase with it. The opposite is not true as things (resources) naturally exist without money. We know this to be true as I can find a fruit on a tree or a rock on the ground and basically it becomes mine if I chose (no money needed). On the contrary, I cannot find money on a tree or on the ground (in the sense that it is not there unless somebody dropped it, of course).

3. Resources are real things. Water, food, shelter (made from things in nature), minerals, animals. Tangentially, resources are used for services also, either in the provision of the service (tools, materials, etc.) or in the sustainability of the laborer (food, water, shelter, etc.).

4. Money can only be used to purchase resources. There is nothing you can by with money that is not a resource or based on resources. Examples like an online subscription to a music download site or daily maid service does not change this, as the servers that power the online service are powered by electricity, which is powered by coal or oil, the computer you need is made of resources, the cables/fiber optics/satelites are made of resources, etc. The maid service provides you with a person to clean your home. This person uses resources to survive and inevitably uses them to arrive at your home and also to clean your home. There are scant few examples like these that are not direct. Most are 1 to 1, like a box of cereal, a car, water, a purse, a house, a plate, a quilt, etc, etc.

So, under the assumptions made here, no matter how wealth is accumulated - resource heavy as in selling objects like wood or oil or resource "light" as in composing music or writing a book - the wealth itself is equal to resources in that you could not do anything with the money that was not resource-dependent and without resources, the existence of money is obviated.

I hope I make my point clear that how you go about attaining wealth is not the same as the wealth itself, but if you're still not convinced, I'd be address any parts of what I said that need clearing up. Have a good night.

EDIT: Above (in #4) I said that most things are direct, 1:1 relationships. What I mean is material things rather than labor-based services. In reality, a box of cereal, a purse, a car, and even water all require materials and service. I mean, they are tangible things, but that does not mean that I do not acknowledge the intervention by means of a person working in a factory assembling the box for the cereal, a field growing the food for the cereal, the truck driver who delivers it to the grocery store, the cashiers and stock people, and the rest of the supply chain. Just thought I'd make that clear.
___________________________________________________________________________
**In fact, on an added note along the lines of metaphor, words we use to discuss money, such as CURRENCY, LIQUIDATION and LIQUIDITY, FLOW, FROZEN, TRICKLE DOWN - and "BANK" if you want to get really in depth - all show how we tend to discuss money in terms of water. (Excuse the caps, it's standard format for discussing conceptual metaphors in cognitive linguistics.)
edit on 15-8-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chett
Please explain hoarding?

If I have 1k$ and I stick it in my mattress that would I think be hoarding.
If I put it in the bank as savings then the bank can lend someone else money for other things.
If I buy stock in a company then that company has money to spend on new equipment or whatever.
If I go to the store and buy stuff the store makes money and hires workers, the manufacturing plant that made the stuff makes money and hires workers, the transport workers that move the stuff from the manufacturer to the store make money and so on.

So far the only case of hoarding I can see is stuffing it in a mattress, is this what all those 'rich' folks are doing? Or do they spend it and invest it?


This is what happens.

The jealous can't seem to realize that the "haves" aren't just sitting on piles of cash, but invested it in their own companies or in the local/state/national economies.

But the "have nots" are not only jealous of that wealth, they're just as greedy as they convince themselves that the rich are. These leeches don't want that money given to charity, they want it for themselves.

Disclaimer for the ignorant: I'm considered poor as I make $41,200 as head of household with a wife and one child. Neither am I brainwashed. I just have the adult mindset of wanting what I have, not having what I want, or wanting what someone else has.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Chett
Please explain hoarding?

If I have 1k$ and I stick it in my mattress that would I think be hoarding.
If I put it in the bank as savings then the bank can lend someone else money for other things.
If I buy stock in a company then that company has money to spend on new equipment or whatever.
If I go to the store and buy stuff the store makes money and hires workers, the manufacturing plant that made the stuff makes money and hires workers, the transport workers that move the stuff from the manufacturer to the store make money and so on.

So far the only case of hoarding I can see is stuffing it in a mattress, is this what all those 'rich' folks are doing? Or do they spend it and invest it?


This is what happens.

The jealous can't seem to realize that the "haves" aren't just sitting on piles of cash, but invested it in their own companies or in the local/state/national economies.

But the "have nots" are not only jealous of that wealth, they're just as greedy as they convince themselves that the rich are. These leeches don't want that money given to charity, they want it for themselves.

Disclaimer for the ignorant: I'm considered poor as I make $41,200 as head of household with a wife and one child. Neither am I brainwashed. I just have the adult mindset of wanting what I have, not having what I want, or wanting what someone else has.

/TOA


Same typical blame the victim crap i expect from a good serf. Yeah it is way out there for those who have been fleeced to want redress and It is right that folks can hold entire countries hostage with the fortunes amassed by the virtues of doing business in them. Talk no accountability? talk about wanting it all and giving nothing? letś talk about trusts and offshore accounts that avoid even the minimal requirements of taxation, about shuffling assets between empty corporate entities to avoid legal duties and fees. Letś talk about a stacked deck and open thievery on a scale that is rediculous. I am not for stealing what has been earned by production of real wealth. I am for putting a STOP TO THE WORSHIP OF THE WEALTHY AND THE MYTH OF THEIR JOB CREATOR STATUS! They do not create jobs they shuffle assets they hedge bet against the economy and have undermined and spent us into near collapse and then made guys like you blame the poor even as we hand them trillions. You said you felt sorry for me in a thread and I must now reciprocate as even good serfs are sacrificed at will by the rich you hold dear.
History does not support this inequality nor your position so expect some changes for your beloved wealthy.
seed



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustard seed

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Chett
Please explain hoarding?

If I have 1k$ and I stick it in my mattress that would I think be hoarding.
If I put it in the bank as savings then the bank can lend someone else money for other things.
If I buy stock in a company then that company has money to spend on new equipment or whatever.
If I go to the store and buy stuff the store makes money and hires workers, the manufacturing plant that made the stuff makes money and hires workers, the transport workers that move the stuff from the manufacturer to the store make money and so on.

So far the only case of hoarding I can see is stuffing it in a mattress, is this what all those 'rich' folks are doing? Or do they spend it and invest it?


This is what happens.

The jealous can't seem to realize that the "haves" aren't just sitting on piles of cash, but invested it in their own companies or in the local/state/national economies.

But the "have nots" are not only jealous of that wealth, they're just as greedy as they convince themselves that the rich are. These leeches don't want that money given to charity, they want it for themselves.

Disclaimer for the ignorant: I'm considered poor as I make $41,200 as head of household with a wife and one child. Neither am I brainwashed. I just have the adult mindset of wanting what I have, not having what I want, or wanting what someone else has.

/TOA


Same typical blame the victim crap i expect from a good serf. Yeah it is way out there for those who have been fleeced to want redress and It is right that folks can hold entire countries hostage with the fortunes amassed by the virtues of doing business in them. Talk no accountability? talk about wanting it all and giving nothing? letś talk about trusts and offshore accounts that avoid even the minimal requirements of taxation, about shuffling assets between empty corporate entities to avoid legal duties and fees. Letś talk about a stacked deck and open thievery on a scale that is rediculous. I am not for stealing what has been earned by production of real wealth. I am for putting a STOP TO THE WORSHIP OF THE WEALTHY AND THE MYTH OF THEIR JOB CREATOR STATUS! They do not create jobs they shuffle assets they hedge bet against the economy and have undermined and spent us into near collapse and then made guys like you blame the poor even as we hand them trillions. You said you felt sorry for me in a thread and I must now reciprocate as even good serfs are sacrificed at will by the rich you hold dear.
History does not support this inequality nor your position so expect some changes for your beloved wealthy.
seed


Yeah my post was chock full of blaming the poor. I believe I even said in my post, that you quoted, "I blame the poor for being poor!" You got me, I sure did say exactly, precisely that in my post, and it's right there for everyone to verify.



/TOA
edit on 16-8-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
What sort of question is this? No there shouldn't be a cap on wealth, are you serious. What will they think of next, a cap on your lifetime, breathing, anything else?


should be a cap on these type of threads.

you know, the robin hood ones.

let's all go north korea for a while till we get the economy in order and capp his ass,

wait..there is no economy there. sorry!

not you dude, the op.

roll out some mubarack or mugabe or mullah chump?

yeah! the 3 M's!

start with the rest of the world. castro, where is putin's spread sheets, berliscconi, sarcozy, the queen, chubby fat boy from the cancer ward,

kiddaffi, assad, arrafat, china? i know lots of wealthy people there, lol! it's just america, isn't it?


saudi, bahrain, uae, kuwait wtf?

they are serious money, not spielberg or lucas or steven king, cameron

or even Angelina jolie.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


This thread is about a problem with distribution of wealth and how the wealthy are not distributing the wealth they have amassed. Essentially they are hoarding stockpiles of cash which if spent on say, American soil for new industry etc; would employ people which in turn improves the economy and all the rest. You could even expand on it into corporations holding patents for new bar raising technologies hostage.

It is more then just that though, it can be about regulations and policies. Trade agreements or whatever people see as a part of the problem. I could sit here and list things as problems...

Free Trade
Tariffs
Improper financial and market oversight
Fed
Lobbyists
Corporate political contributions
Patent system (Where companies can essentially stop or block new bar raising technologies from hitting the market)

There are more, explore, think, contribute...Sherwood forest is thataway



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


my view is that an honest tax system would be fair to everyone, but would require governance.

since society builds the infrastructure that makes prosperity possible, and the natural resources are considered nationally owned, those that benefit most, can and should pay more.

without transportation, national defense, education, what would be wealth?
the local street gang would plunder your mansion, pirates capture your ships, we would be back to the dark ages.

those that benefit the most from the system should pay more, individuals and corporations.

deductions should be capped, the home mortgage is to enable home ownership, cap it at a 300k mortgage.
if you can afford more, good for you, but not at society's expense, you already have been blessed by wealth.

social security should not end at 100k, why should only the working people pay for the disabled, the orphans and widows, the elderly, the sick?

international laws are required so that oil and mining companies pay a fair price for extracting natural resources.
not get away with bribing politicians, and the sleazy excuse that they are creating jobs.

and our governments should take responsibility for enabling making welfare a career choice, when 4 generations are living off society, something criminal and immoral is taking place.

our present system rewards sleaze from the rich and the poor, you can get away with it mentality.

tax codes will eventually have to be international, otherwise corporations will just low ball every society on Earth.

if we continue on present path, the financial sector will bleed the real economy to anemic level.
while the uber rich will buy ever bigger yachts and more mansions, and the welfare citizens be taken care of, the working class is being reduced to slavery



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen6511
 


I am certainly leaning more towards your lines of thought. I have to say especially regarding the extraction of natural resources, natural resources relating to energy should be the one thing that goes back into the system. I remember reading somewhere that if Canada did not privatize it's Oil company, Petro Canada. They would have health care paid for as well as education while paying down their debt.

Good stuff, thanks to you for your post as well as the many other contributers.

edit on 16-8-2011 by TheRemedial because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join