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.
Originally posted by SeleneLux
There really are just 1% that hold the majority of wealth and power. When it is that far out of proportion then these people did not make this money in any ethical or moral way and are criminals that are protected because the massive sums of wealth make them above the law.
Originally posted by wildtimes
AND who are we to tell anyone they need to help. Helping is a personal choice.
Wow. So, you see someone in desperate need of help, and the "first responder" theory should not be applied?
Well, considering that my combined household income is currently ZIP, as in NADA, NOTHING, NONE and ZERO, and we are living off of carefully saved "retirement" money until such time as the companies that went overseas come back and hire honest Americans, I don't feel like I need to be "careful".
Yes, okay, helping is a personal choice ... one that ANY decent human being would make without being told to do so.
But that's just my kind-hearted, altruistic, idealistic personality.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Xtrozero
The biggest negative to a flat tax is it will basically kill charitable donations.
You do realize you are talking out of both sides of your head? If the system were more fair, there would not NEED to be Charitable Donations!!
If the large and wealthy corporations would HIRE people to WORK for them, those people would not be in NEED of "charitable contibutions".
Sheesh.
Originally posted by apacheman
A better question, or rather set of questions:
1. Why do the super-rich continue to build wealth long after every conceivable need for now and two, three and more generations into the future has been met?
2. From where do people derive the right to unlimited wealth?
3. Why isn't the desire for excessive wealth seen as what it is, an addiction, and treated as such?
4. Why can't the super-rich say enough is enough and gracefully retire when they've reached, say a billion dollars in wealth?
5. Why isn't there a global cap on individual wealth?
The super-rich are being irresponsible due to their addiction to wealth-building and utter lack of self-control, not knowing when to say when, just like any other addict.
Originally posted by apacheman
The rich do NOT "work very hard": they hire other people to do that at very low wages, for the most part.
Unless you call partying (Paris Hilton), meddling in politics (Koch brothers), manipulating financial markets, running Ponzi schemes, and selling junk as solid investments (Blankfein, Madoff, and most of Wall Street) "hard work".
They are not uniquely irreplaceable people.
You are assuming that all progress stems from the super-wealthy, something completely unsupported by facts.
Capping wealth wouldn't stop progress, and wouldn't limit the price of anything to a billion, that's arrant nonsense.
Capping wealth is necessary and inevitable if we wish to make social progress.
It is society's right to do so, as much as it is society's right to say you can't burn down the neighborhood because you want a park there instead.
A society has every right to place a limit on behaviors that harm it, and excessive wealth accumulation is demonstrably harmful to society.
Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Xtrozero
It is society's right to do so, as much as it is society's right to say you can't burn down the neighborhood because you want a park there instead.
A society has every right to place a limit on behaviors that harm it, and excessive wealth accumulation is demonstrably harmful to society.
A billion is a more than reasonable cap.
I and most other people have no desire to be a billionaire: I have no need for more than what I can actually use. It is not envy of the wealth, but rather a recognition that too much in too few hands is dangerous and harmful to the society in which I live.
Most of your arguments against the concept are strawman arguments and don't address anything I've posted with validity.
Capping wealth at a billion dollars harms no one, any damage is strictly to the ego.
Originally posted by apacheman
In case you've been blinded in both eyes, and are deaf, I'll spell it out for you:
Billionaires buy our governments, foment our wars, and fund terrorism.
Capping wealth will have zero adverse effects and many good ones.