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.

 

How Much $ Is Too Much For One Person To Have?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
being able to provide a comfortable living for you and your loved ones is not asking too much. wanting obscene amounts of never ending wealth while the vast majority of our species is in the gutter is deplorable.

it would take a "special" kind of person to advocate for any one person to be able to be worth countless millions and billions, guilt free. there is no need under ANY circumstances for that.

the rich bitch and moan about reallocating their wealth to help the poor, but most all of them and their massive income depends on the poor being poor. karma is a bitch and then they'll learn...........

being rich is totally OK, being a billionaire many, many, many times over is a calling to get beheaded.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I believe in equality. I actually don't believe in money. but abundance for all, no one with more, and no one with less.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Domo1
 


The way I see it, well, the more money in circulation (OR in banks hoarded by some people even though it's out of circulation) means that our value goes
The more these guys make (And they basically make it themselves through inflation) means the less buying power our "regular" dollars has. So how much is too much? When our value starts to drop like a Lead Zeppelin, I'd say that someone is making too much.And what's worse they are not putting it back in circulation it's basically stagnating.


First of all, I think you are confusing increases in the money supply with inflation. We want the money supply to increase, because this means the economy is growing, and more people are participating (buying and selling). And a little inflation (1% to 2% per annum) is a actually good thing...as opposed to deflation - like we are seeing in the housing market.

Second, unless people are stuffing their billions under their mattress...there is nobody "not putting it back in circulation". They will be holding their money in company shares, or investing in other companies, or buying real estate (like apartment buildings, or shopping malls), or buying Bonds, etc. What little cash they hold in banks gets lent back out for things like mortgages and car loans.

The wealthy do not have money that is "stagnating".



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wingsfan

being rich is totally OK, being a billionaire many, many, many times over is a calling to get beheaded.


Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before this thread would bring out the loons.

So, I guess you are calling for the execution of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet....among many more. Oprah better watch out...she's over a billion now...who knows when she will pass through your "Deposits of Death" threshold.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
I've seen a lot of complaints about some members in society holding vast amounts of wealth. I certainly understand why people feel frustrated. It IS frustrating to know that some people can wipe with $100 bills and some people can't afford to feed their families. My question, as the title implies; how much is too much? Should there be a limit? Should the wealthy (and I'm going to say someone with more than 5 million dollars) be required to pay more tax than they do already?


Complaints...expressions of jealousy more like.

Why is it that some people can't afford to feed their families? Because some other guy made $5 million, or $5 billion dollars? Apples and Oranges. Of course people who have higher incomes should pay higher taxes - but not so high as to hamstring them.


Someone in another thread something that I liked, 'How much do they really need at that point (referring to Walmart estate beneficiaries) it's seems like it's just to show off after awhile!' That's what really sparked this tread. I don't really need half the things I own. I'm not a millionaire, but live very comfortably. Since I don't technically need my assets, and could theoretically survive working at McDonalds, should I just give everything away? I don't mean that to sound snarky, it's just an example.


That's entirely up to you. But it does not mean that anyone should be forced to do so.


There is obviously a problem in this country, but do you feel that the rich deserve to keep the money they have made, and do you believe there should be a limit on personal assets? If so, what should be done with those assets? How would you redistribute them fairly?


What is the problem you refer to exactly?

Do the "rich deserve to keep the money they have made"? Are you suggesting that the people who did not make the money are more deserving of keeping it?

Fine idea, take all the money from those who know how to make it...and give it all to those who don't have a clue how to make anything, or produce anything. That will fix all of our problems for sure.

So, let's steal that $93 billion from the Walton family...close down the Walmart chain...and distribute the money to the people of America. That's about $275 a person. Wow! No more poverty....yeah.


What would you do to close the wealth gap. I do readily agree this is a problem, and not just a 'they're lazy' issue.


It's simple. Grow the economy. Create more jobs. Create more opportunities for people to start businesses, that will employ more people. Create more millionaires. Create more billionaires.

The solution is not to sit in a circle and count up everybody's money...then just split it up evenly. These are ideas put forth by people who have grown up in a climate of entitlement, and just want more and more given to them in return for doing...nothing.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1How Much $ Is Too Much For One Person To Have?


[(The amount of money you currently have) x 10 ]



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Not my business what one makes or does not make. Envy -- may it be wealth or some other material form is a ridiculous trait to retain and complain about.

ETA: To give an example -- if I were to be one of the "99%" it would be akin to the Civil War -- Brother against Brother. My brother is well off and I am proud of him. I would be against my sister -- who also is well off.

As for myself; I am a product of my own choosing. The situation I found myself in at one point was because of poor decisions, poor calculations and overall apathy. I blame no one for my misgivings and certainly cringe hearing others claim to "represent" me because "I am one of them". Okay -- I am done with my edit and ramble.
edit on 16-12-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


$100 dollars is too much.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mobiusmale
 


problem lies with rothschild and rockefeller ,take their wealth and everyone will be a millionaire on the planet.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Hi, Domo,

I have had too much.

I just can't take any more - so what then?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I have seen the term "Money Junkies" used before and it certainly sums up the situation nicely as far as I am concerned.
When is a good sum of money enough or, for that matter, turning to the corporate world, when is there enough profit? Over the years we have seen many corporations offshore jobs simply to increase profit margins. It's not that those corporations are struggling at all, it's purely to increase the bottom line and the people behind the decisions, at board level, care not a bit about the people they are putting out of work domestically. In fact, they usually get a nice pay increase and bonus for increasing the profits!


So, like a drug, there are those who become addicted to money. They crave it and the power it brings and can never have enough. On a personal level, I don't care how much money someone has or how they perceive their social status. Those who crave it are usually lacking in morals and ethics anyway, and I am just too honest and caring of my fellow human beings to act like they do.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I really couldn't care less how much someone makes. I have a roof over my head, food on the table, and can pay my bills with a little left over to go out occasionally. What someone else makes has no bearing on that. Those of you that think it does have convinced yourself that if someone has something, that is something you don't have.

Jealousy of other people's stuff. Wow.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone
 





Hi, Domo, I have had too much. I just can't take any more - so what then?


I didn't understand this.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
How can anyone decide 'how much is too much?'

Are we talking about wages, bonuses or total wealth?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
100 million. no one man ever will need 100 million dollars or use up that amount of money in 2 lifetimes.
really



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cambion
 


Im talking about total wealth.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Total wealth is a hard limit to define.

Money that is earned though an entire life of working should not be limited, but then that money could have been put into investments that have generated a large profit.

Inherited money is yet other story, can you penalize a family for an ancestor that came into wealth.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

Household income in the United States [wiki]


In 2006, the "real" (adjusted for inflation) median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau. The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113 (about 3.6 time minimum wage in 2006 to 3.7 time minimum wage in 2007). For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102 (2.8 and 2.9 times minimum wage respectively). The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006. In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000. 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178.[8] The aggregate income distribution is highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle incomes controlling a large, though declining, share of the total earned income. Income inequality in the United States, which had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to increase in the 1970s until reaching a peak in 2006. It declined a little in 2007.[10] Households in the top quintile (i.e., top 20%), 77% of which had two or more income earners, had incomes exceeding $91,705. Households in the mid quintile, with a mean of approximately one income earner per household had incomes between $36,000 and $57,657. Households in the lowest quintile had incomes less than $19,178 and the majority had no income earner.


Note I have edited the above text to bold and underline what I think is important data.

$26,036 / person / household / yr

Lets round that off and double it to $52,000 / person / household / yr [or $1000 / week before Tax ]

Now the average lifespan of a worker would be from 15yrs to about 65yrs old or 50yrs worth of income.

$52,000 x 50 = $2,600,000

And that income is supposed to buy and pay for EVERYTHING they both need and want over the whole period of their 85yr average lifespan including paying Tax. [ie 50yrs work must cover 70yrs of living after tax]

So after Tax [minus $7000 as a guestimate plucked outa thin air] = $45,000 / person / household / yr

$45,000 x 50 = $2,250,000

$2,250,000 / 70yrs = $32,142.85 / person / household / yr

Answer to OP's question ... anyone earning more than $52,000 / yr for 50yrs total = $2.6 million U$D

Personal Disclosure: Yes there should be limits imposed in a scarcity paradigm to prevent any and all monopolies.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


How is 25 million too low? I am not sure how I would ever spend over a million.

Maybe it is just me, the "world" I live in and how I was raised, but to me 25 million is more than sufficient to do my family. I would not be looking to spend a great deal on a home and as for cars I am fairly happy with what I have. With 25 million I would never have to work again get the stuff that I want and still have well over 24 million to spend.

Raist



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
For me as long as my bills are paid I am feeling pretty good. I would be ecstatic if my house and cars were paid off. I would be rich in my own eyes with the money I brought home.

I do not think it is right to limit the money someone has though. To me such a thing reeks of selfishness, entitlement, and envy. I really don't care what others have as long as I am happy I could not care if they have more than me. I seen a thing the other day that said people were given an option on what they would want to bring home. One option was that they could bring home 50k a year and everyone else would bring home 25K or they could bring home 100K and everyone else would bring home 200k, it seems most would take the 50K as long as they made more. I would rather take the 100K and let others have the 200K. Then again I bring home less than that now so I see the value that bringing home 100K would be to me.

It seems that most at just selfish and envious of others.

Raist



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join