Why do people believe in redistrubution of wealth and more taxes for the rich?

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Not the same thing, and society already does limit how much you can spend on what or own if you want to be on SSI or welfare.

Please explain to me why you would even want to amass more than a billion dollars? It serves no useful purpose other than to stroke your ego. What can you do with more than a billion that you couldn't do with just a billion?




posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Nope, you just retire and the company goes on.

You've taken your just share and have no need of more, so go enjoy it. If, god forbid, your wealth drops to a mere $900,000,000.00, why then you can jump back in and earn some more to top it off again.

What's wrong with that?


What's wrong with it?

Nothing other than it's a world of fantasy...

Lets cap on the lower end too.. any family who makes less than 30k per year loses their citizenship and we deport them to another country of their choice.

Neither would affect me in anyway

No wait, another fantasy



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


The first question to be asked is: do we want to have a state? If we answer that with yes, some stuff the state does is actually nice to have, we need to pay for that somehow. The only possibility is taxes. Now why tax rich people more.

2 Reasons:
1. Dimnishing Returns of Money-ownership
If you have 1.000$ and I take 100$, i just took 10% of your income.
If you have 1.000.000$ and i take 100000$ i just took 10% of your income.
Yet, in the second scenario I will have impacted your options on what to do with the rest, less, though I took 1000 times more money.

2. Accumulation of Wealth.
In any given generation there will be some people that are more successfull than others. If we like the Idea that kids should have their parents stuff (And that Idea has been proven widely popular even *before* the romans codified it, 3000 years ago) the starting positions for the next generation will be unequal.
If your parents were successfull, a failure will not set you back as much, as if when you started from 0. It will make it easier for you to survive a bad spell, etc, etc... We both have the same bad Idea: you die broke, I go for the savings of my parents.
Over time this means that the unlevel playing field gets more unlevel with each generation. And do I really have to explain why that is bad?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Individual rights stop where they conflict with the rights of others.

I can claim a right to sex, but that doesn't justify rape.

I still fail to see where anyone derives a "right" to unlimited wealth from, and so far no one has offered a shred of evidence supporting it.

When your individual right to wealth accumulation forces others to do without, you are infringing upon their individual rights of survival.

Where is your sense of responsibility and duty to the nation?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Nope, you just retire and the company goes on.

You've taken your just share and have no need of more, so go enjoy it. If, god forbid, your wealth drops to a mere $900,000,000.00, why then you can jump back in and earn some more to top it off again.

What's wrong with that?


You are assuming I would not take the cap as a negative thing, and not just say screw it all. You will never be affected by it so you are for it. If Gates and Buffet were capped 30 years ago at 1 billion would they have a 50 billion+ foundation that helps the world, would Microsoft had ever grown past 1000 employees?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


What makes you think the USSR capped wealth?

I never heard about it if they did.

Communism as practiced in the USSR was a form of totalitarianism, just as capitalism as practiced in the US is a form of oligarchic plutocracy.

Yet another strawman argument. I'm beginning to believe you are incapable of anything approaching rational thought and discussion.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


If they had been capped, the world might have better operating systems than Windows and the Mac OS, for one thing. Ever hear of the Amiga or Atari? Both killed by unscrupulous and illegal monopolistic practices perpetrated by Microsoft (mainly, Mac isn't exactly innocent) for which Microsoft was fined in Europe, although not here as they were able to buy immunity.

The world would be different for sure with a cap: fewer people hungry and sick, fewer wars, and more creativity unleashed.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



1. What skills do you have?

Without sending you my resume....I have a Master's degree in social work, 30+ years in customer service and office management, I type like a bat out of hell, I was an accounting manager in my twenties (double-entry bookkeeping and account reconciliation and month-end financial statement prep),

also have been a food waitress, a cocktal waitress, a child care provider, a grief counsellor

a para-educator for behaviorally and emtionally disturbed kids ages K-12, a tutor, an editor, worked in a library

....a hotel front desk clerk, a hotel housekeeping office coordinator, a cashier, a sales rep, a writer, an advertising designer, a publishing office manager and production manager...

a receptionist, a medical clinic social worker, a psychotherapist, a substance abuse counselor, a gardener, a cook, an executive housekeeper and a domestic engineer....

a newborn photographer, a seamstress, an improvisational entertainer...

and a parent of two very healthy and well-rounded (now adult) kids.

Among other things.


2. Can you get new skills to fit the future job market.

uh, yeah. duh


3. Why should a company hire you?

Because I work hard, I'm a quick learner, I am honest and dependable and healthy and willing to do whatever I need to do. I have ethics, talent, brains, and experience.

4. Are you willing to move to any place that would provide a job?

in a heartbeat

5. Are you willing to work your way back up with new skills?

such as???
answer: yes. Given the chance, I will apply myself to anything presented to me.

--------------------------
Wow, you really come across as an arrogant judge.
Sheesh.

EDIT TO ADD: Oh, and I'm fluent in English and Spanish.


edit on 18-10-2011 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


fund charities?
features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...

let me get that first billion, then I'll let you know what I'm doing with all the excess.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

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.


So, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg etc all made their money in unethical or immoral ways? I'll give you Zuckerberg and his winklevossing facebook and ignoring privacy concerns but, even then, it isn't immoral or unethical. Just sleazy.

Explain how Steve Jobs, Brin, Page etc made their money in an unethical or immoral manner.


I would argue that it is a segment of the wealthiest 1% who have influenced regulations, earmarks, the tax code and legislation to favor the uber-rich, but all of the 1% benefit from that manipulation.

Thus yes....Steve Jobs, Buffet et al. benefit and have ammassed some funds that they would not posses if not for the skewed playing field. For most of the uber-rich, thier wealth was accumulated in accordance with a structually biased playing field.

The most honest of the 1% publically acknowledge this.

edit on 18-10-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
When your individual right to wealth accumulation forces others to do without, you are infringing upon their individual rights of survival.


if, in the course of my desire to accumulate wealth, I create a company, employing thousands, pay my taxes, provide a product or service for the public, how am I infringing on anyone's right of survival?

How is Bill Gates or Warren Buffet infringing on your right of survival?


Originally posted by apacheman
Where is your sense of responsibility and duty to the nation?


along with providing jobs, creating product or services, creating tax revenue and, presumably, paying some income tax, what more are you suggesting? Should Bill Gates take on boarders?
edit on 18-10-2011 by Crakeur because: typing is not my forte



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Individual rights stop where they conflict with the rights of others.

I can claim a right to sex, but that doesn't justify rape.

I still fail to see where anyone derives a "right" to unlimited wealth from, and so far no one has offered a shred of evidence supporting it.

When your individual right to wealth accumulation forces others to do without, you are infringing upon their individual rights of survival.

Where is your sense of responsibility and duty to the nation?


Hmmm

let's say I have a company of 10,000 employees that average 50k per year each, or 500m in payroll, and I make 100 million per year. after 10 years I hit the cap and that allows 100 million of my pay back into the company...
This means I could hire 2k more employees if I had work for them which means my company would need to continue to grow for that need. So what do I do? I could give it as dividends to stock holders, maybe... The company would grow or not with or without the extra100m.

I could give everyone a 10k a year bonus, but if the company had great earnings I could do that too.

I'm not sure how my pay check of 100m infringes on others rights, or their ability to survive.

As an example: Why do I have the right to own a car when so many in the world walk.

As a person I created a livelihood for 10,000 families...isn't that worth anything to society no matter what I make or how I wish to spend it?
edit on 18-10-2011 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


by making money, under the system that currently exists, how are they immoral or unethical?

A simple question.


Bernie Madoff ran an illegal ponzi scheme. That's how he was immoral an unethical.

What about the others? Are the Walton family all immoral and unethical?

Paris Hilton was mentioned earlier. she's a child born unto wealth. She might be a bird brained do nothing but she was born with money. How is that immoral or unethical?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



Should we dictate what kind of car you can drive, how big of house you can live in, what foods you eat?


They (or YOU) DO!!!
I drive an '89 Honda Prelude. Paid for. My husband drives a '98 Dodge. Paid for. Our house is all of 1300 square feet. I buy healthy food because I made sacrifices in other areas. I buy second-hand clothing and furniture. I do my own yardwork, and housekeeping.

You need to zip it.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Then why are you out of work?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


But that isn't how most corporations work: they buy a company that employed 20,000 people, fire 10K, move 8K jobs overseas, and the average wages are 18K a year. The money saved is then given in tax-sheltered bonuses that are spent in foreign countries, or used to pay lobbyists to enact schemes that enable them to access markets unfairly and avoid paying taxes or taking responsibility for the environmental damage they do.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Indigo5
 


by making money, under the system that currently exists, how are they immoral or unethical?

A simple question.


Bernie Madoff ran an illegal ponzi scheme. That's how he was immoral an unethical.

What about the others? Are the Walton family all immoral and unethical?

Paris Hilton was mentioned earlier. she's a child born unto wealth. She might be a bird brained do nothing but she was born with money. How is that immoral or unethical?



Actually a great question since you distinguished between illegal...which BTW is what Bernie Madoff did...and immoral or unethical

I suspect if the discussion shifts to morals or ethics it will slide to untenable positions for both of us fast.

If the system affords an advantage to the wealthiest...is it immoral for the wealthiest accumulate that excess wealth that results from the advantage? It is not illegal.

Do we feel the same about other countries structure of government? Nigeria? Saudi Arabia? Certain Latin American regimes that favor the uber-wealthy?

Illegal and Moral are two different things.

Buffet and Gates donate massive sums to humanitarian efforts, not because they are legally bound to, but because they are morally bound to.

I have no quick answers for you on that front. Let me think about that one.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


But that isn't how most corporations work: they buy a company that employed 20,000 people, fire 10K, move 8K jobs overseas, and the average wages are 18K a year. The money saved is then given in tax-sheltered bonuses that are spent in foreign countries, or used to pay lobbyists to enact schemes that enable them to access markets unfairly and avoid paying taxes or taking responsibility for the environmental damage they do.


They are also subject to limited liability and a nice chunk of the 70,000 page tax code.

Not to mention the collective pool of talent, resources and a legal team.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Because there are NO JOBS.

The corporate world is giving up on producing things because it is too slow a return on investment compared to gambling with derivatives. Plus there are those pesky environmental laws, and besides, solving the problem of producing stuff without wrecking the place in the process is just too hard. And costs money.





top topics
 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join