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.

 

One person should only be so rich.

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I think your comparing two completely different things so i would argue that your "point" is invalid - Just my opinion. Sport is a personal thing, a runner can only best someone by being better - simple as.
A business can best its competition in a number of savvy underhanded ways, like paying its employees a pittance, buying up its competition and undercutting the same competition.

After a business had earned its 100mil it could give out bonus's to its staff, reinvest, donate money to local communities, start up a new business etc, either way it results in wealth being spread - Even IF they give it to there family and friends, at some point (assuming they are FORCED to comply with what would be law) other people would benefit.

And as i see it, we cant really do much worse then we already are in terms of sharing the wealth.




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus

Originally posted by nawki
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


Why can you not run it for free. You don't need any more money you 100mil ... ??

Can't see your point?



Why would I want to? If I had all the money I could ever own I'd be flying around the world spending it instead of working for nothing.

If You won the lottery for 100 million tomorrow would You continue to go to work and tell the boss to keep Your salary because you had enough money?


Simple: retire early and start improving your community. Why is that so confusing? There are many poor people who are trying to the same with every bit of extra cash they have. Many people who are on food stamps and barely paying bills yet will allow a homeless person sleep on their couch to get back on their feet.

There's an obvious good guy and an obvious bad guy between those two philosophies.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I wonder why people thin it such a bad idea, much of the world that is terrible lies in one person having too much power. Plus it is easier to make money the more you have and so if the rich are careful they could in principle always be rich if they do everything right. The rich have to lose money for other people to get richer. Anyway the most expensive things would become cheaper as they would be no one to sell it too. Everyone's lifestyle would be improved with the super rich losing money but probably being more mentally balanced: we are not evolved to handle that much power. What would be so bad in their being a financial limit for an individual, but no mental one except that inherent, no artistic limit would be in place, no physical limit would be imposed: we would be as we are now in all ways but one: there would be less poverty and ill health. The world would work properly.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


No, you distribute the excess profits to your employees.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 



That is not how it will work, IF I were forced to give away my 10 million in profits a year it would not go to workers, charity etc.. first and foremost I would spend as much as possible on frivolous things(personal bum wiper anyone?) and if there were anything left it would go to my immediate family daughters,parents/,grandparents then cousins,2nd cousins etc.. This is how the elite think and all the money would still be in the controlling families that it is currently.


So....you are either being a sarcastic smartalec, or you are one of them. Which is it?

It is as plain as day that if one builds a company, holds it privately, and it results in wonderful success with plenty of excess, the excess should go to the EMPLOYEES who do the WORK that made you all that money

I have said exactly what the OP is saying many, many times. I think doing away with Wall Street altogether would go a long way. Companies should be employee-owned. All "shares" of profit are distributed to them in DIRECT proportion to the invested time and effort they have spent. Not some Schmoe sittng at home playing penny stocks.

And no "bonuses".

It's ridiculous and shameful, and it's been going on since time immemorial.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Companies should be employee-owned. All "shares" of profit are distributed to them in DIRECT proportion to the invested time and effort they have spent. Not some Schmoe sittng at home playing penny stocks.

And no "bonuses".

It's ridiculous and shameful, and it's been going on since time immemorial.


Most people today have not experienced anything other than the employer/employee relationship and thus think there is no alternative. Or, worse, they are brainwashed into thinking that the alternative can only be a communist dictatorship.

What they don't realize is that under-paying employees and over-rewarding employers is one of the largest drags on our economy. Money-hoarding is terrible for inflation and is one of the biggest reasons we are printing more money all the time (ironically, the biggest opponents to QE1&2 are die-hard capitalists).

Since the capitalist world is one of "better the devil you know than the one you don't", nobody seems willing to explore alternative economics on an official scale. This includes getting rid of government subsidies (which fuel CEO bonuses, paid by your taxes), getting rid of oil industry, and simply have world-wide boycotts of anything not publicly owned.

There are several cases of employee-owned businesses in operation now in America that are functioning smoothly. Needless to say, most of these companies have the same employees they started with and they are all making LIVABLE wages. It's incredibly short-sighted to think that the current structure is the best way.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
You want fair? you want communism? Then forget the rich and make everyone give up U.S. $20.00 for every $100.00 earned to those not making enough or are out of work. When it hits your own pockets, attitudes change quickly.

Or give everyone mundane jobs and make them contribute a portion of their pay to the retired and disabled for subsistence since no one will be motivated by money to produce a quality product or service.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409
You want fair? you want communism? Then forget the rich and make everyone give up U.S. $20.00 for every $100.00 earned to those not making enough or are out of work. When it hits your own pockets, attitudes change quickly.


Many people do that already. And many of them poor. It hits our pockets and our attitudes do not change. It is called not being evil.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by cuervo
 



What they don't realize is that under-paying employees and over-rewarding employers is one of the largest drags on our economy.


It seems like such common sense to me. I don't get how people can fail to realize this beyond the age of about 10. I just don't.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


Exactly how is it unconstitutional?

The Constitution is about checks and balances. Your "right" to make , earn, or take as much money as you want from the shared economy ends where it deprives others other their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Your individual right to wealth stops when it interferes with the rights of others to achieve wealth, too.

That argument simply doesn't hold water.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


Then you retire and turn the company over to whomever you like (perhaps the employees who worked so hard to give you success?), and go on about enjoying your wealth: raising your family with the time and energy you previously devoted to wealth-building might be a good idea.

If you plan carefully, you sell it when the sale price will place you just over cap or just under cap.

What's wrong with that?

If you are so emotionally stunted that you can't imagine doing anything but working, you might think about spending some of your wealth upon a good therapist. Being a workaholic is a way of avoiding emotional interactions with people you are supposed to be closest with. Remember that running a company is the economic equivalent of being a dictator; you get to order others about at your sole discretion, controlling various aspects of their lives through the threat of economic loss. Perhaps it isn't the money that drives you, but the perverse pleasure of power over others.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by nawki
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


Why can you not run it for free. You don't need any more money you have your 100mil ... ??

your still allowed to pay your employees...

You could do a lot with those spare profits.....

I Personally Can not see your point?


edit on 24-12-2011 by nawki because: Add more


Are there really that many people blowing past100million pounds annually??????????? I suggest you worry about feeding your family before you go about regulating anybody else...

Why exactly would I show up to my ceo desk everyday for "free" if I already have 100 million in the account? You'll find me living aboard a large yacht some where warm and sandy .

If I get an idea and build a company worth 50miillion; and leave to start another am I limited to 50 million on the second.?

Keeping the super wealthy from money DOES NOT put it in the pockets of crack smoking welfare mothers.(whether they deserve it or not)... Only violent govt theft can do that...
What's the point; you "the rich are generally bad"; people are incorrigible.There is no"fixed pieces of pie".

Money is produced out of thin air. merely a byproduct based on human interaction and obligations.("debt")

So taking a "piece of pie" from my pocket does not mean there's more for you because: I created it through creating an obligation. It would not exist without "my" input to create the obligation(debt)


Communism is usually imposed over the barrel of a gun to consolidate and centralize control(i.e NOT humanitarian reasons).. It has rightly earned its "bad press"...

"Star trek" was a freakin' movie not an economic/ political philosophy....


edit on 24-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


False analogy.

Being a good athlete doesn't deprive anyone of their ability to be a good one, too.

However, wealth is always finite at any given moment. It is its aspect of finiteness that gives anything its perceived value. Scarcity drives up the value. For instance, diamonds have value only because of their perceived (actually, tightly controlled) scarcity; if all the diamonds that are actually available were placed on the market, their value would be zilch. Potential wealth may be infinite, but realized wealth is always finite. Since it is finite, acquiring wealth becomes a zero-sum game: more wealth for you equals less wealth for others.

By taking excessive amounts of wealth you rob others of the capital they need to achieve wealth for themselves, too. Too much wealth in too few hands always results in a decaying society as those with wealth seek to keep control of it by preventing the growth of new ideas, products, and innovations that might threaten their position.

Capping wealth for some will create greater wealth for all, as many new inventions and ideas will blossom and create new markets that will create more realized wealth for everyone.

I think that this is what the wealthy fear most: lacking any other measure, as others become wealthy, too, they lose their self-image of superiority.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Capitalism works great on paper, too, but not so much in reality.

Just look around you.

Has unbridled capitalism really created a better world?

If you think it has, how do you account for the billions living impoverished lives while a few thousand have vastly more than they need or can intelligently use?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
First off, as long as your money is gotten honestly, I don't have a problem with how much money someone has. I don't like the idea of someone else deciding how much money is too much. I'm all about everyone going out and getting their own and having their deluxe apartment on the east side. The problem is that in today's society, ripping people off has become common place. This will make capitalism appear evil. Communism looks great on paper but human nature takes over and you have what we see in China and in Soviet Russia. I much rather people decide how much money another makes through free enterprise then the government setting the rules on how much everyone makes. If we can get back to the early 20th century, and the way capitalism was suppose to work, we could have a prosperous society. Look at how much was invented in a free society. There was incentive to go out and work hard. If you are only allow to make so much, what incentive would you have spending 12 years in school to be a doctor when you can go cut lawns and make the same amount?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
First off, as long as your money is gotten honestly, I don't have a problem with how much money someone has. I don't like the idea of someone else deciding how much money is too much. I'm all about everyone going out and getting their own and having their deluxe apartment on the east side. The problem is that in today's society, ripping people off has become common place. This will make capitalism appear evil. Communism looks great on paper but human nature takes over and you have what we see in China and in Soviet Russia. I much rather people decide how much money another makes through free enterprise then the government setting the rules on how much everyone makes. If we can get back to the early 20th century, and the way capitalism was suppose to work, we could have a prosperous society. Look at how much was invented in a free society. There was incentive to go out and work hard. If you are only allow to make so much, what incentive would you have spending 12 years in school to be a doctor when you can go cut lawns and make the same amount?


Name anybody who has gotten their billions of dollars through "hard and honest work". No one person can attain that wealth without victims. If you could possibly enforce an "honesty" law that only allowed people to attain wealth through honest and hard work, it would (by nature) also achieve the same result as a wealth cap because it is impossible to reach that cap honestly.

ps - edit - A wealth cap would just be an easier way to do it.

psps - edit - I don't condone a wealth cap unless it is just an intermediary step into something more substantial.
edit on 24-12-2011 by cuervo because: Clarifying.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by s12345
 




Most people here on ATS will disagree with you.

I agree with you.

There should be a set amount to wealth / greed.

I'm too busy getting ready to go down to the shelter for today and tomorrow to prepare food for those that have nothing to argue this.

Most people think they did it "all on their own" and it's alright for some to have 200 pairs of shoes while 23,000 people die each and every day from lack of food and clean water..............mostly children.

No, most people do not make it all on their own, most is luck.

Who you are born to, having good genes, a high IQ (either emotional or intellectual or both), where you are born, opportunities.

But most people, while they think they are empathic haven't a clue as to how the roll of natures dice plays into what one has or doesn't have.

Yes there are stories of people born into poverty (I was one) that worked hard, made good decisions (People with ADHD or that are autistic can't) and "made it'.

Again, yes, nobody should have so much money they couldn't spend it in 100 lifetimes - it's pure greed.

But in today's society most people simply don't realize or care.

Many call it "socialism" which is a way of bad mouthing sharing.

My pet peeve is wage differential - concerning people who are paid tens of millions of dollars to act or sing............while teachers, people who collect our trash, clean our toilets, get our McCoffee in under three minutes, child care workers, who grow our food, stock our shelves, drive the good to the stores all make wages not even close to people who really don't contribute to our society as a whole.

Our priorities are back arse ward but most people simply don't see it and I'm gearing up for being flamed yet again on this one big issue.

I worked under a CEO and with CFO's and "top corporate heads" and folks, no, they don't do half the work the average person does yet they are good at manipulating people and fooling them into over blowing their self worth.

People are so easily manipulated by the jivin ivin's of the world.............they don't want to see how unjust the current system we have is.



In our society we have been psychologically conditioned by the media and advertisements to make allot of money and purchase/consume goods or services: age of infotainment. This keeps us working for unjust wages to pay for goods and services and keeps us set on a narrow-minded goal that blinds us from the knowledge of how things actually operate. We are distracted with nonsense on the internet and on TV. We believe everything told to us to be truth and we don't bother to question anything.
edit on 24-12-2011 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Adamanteus
 



That is not how it will work, IF I were forced to give away my 10 million in profits a year it would not go to workers, charity etc.. first and foremost I would spend as much as possible on frivolous things(personal bum wiper anyone?) and if there were anything left it would go to my immediate family daughters,parents/,grandparents then cousins,2nd cousins etc.. This is how the elite think and all the money would still be in the controlling families that it is currently.


So....you are either being a sarcastic smartalec, or you are one of them. Which is it?

It is as plain as day that if one builds a company, holds it privately, and it results in wonderful success with plenty of excess, the excess should go to the EMPLOYEES who do the WORK that made you all that money

I have said exactly what the OP is saying many, many times. I think doing away with Wall Street altogether would go a long way. Companies should be employee-owned. All "shares" of profit are distributed to them in DIRECT proportion to the invested time and effort they have spent. Not some Schmoe sittng at home playing penny stocks.

And no "bonuses".

It's ridiculous and shameful, and it's been going on since time immemorial.


So: when your"employee owned company "decides it needs to upgrade 10 "machining centers"at $5 million a copy every employee from the janitor to the receptionist to the board will be willing to fork over xxthousand dollars as an investment in their own future?
And willing to shoulder the risks? if it doesn't pan out and they lose title to everything? Because Jim Bob from shipping was on the board that month and his idea: (" free beer fridays") was crap?


because that's why companies "go public"( i.e. raise money for expansion of the business)
I disagree with the basic premise, for so many reasons: Its pointless I'm outt'a "here"....


edit on 24-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Anyone familiar with my posting history knows I have long advocated a $1 billion global wealth cap.

Such a cap isn't unreasonable. It provides an emotionally satisfactory end point without becoming too dangerously excessive.

The solution to what to do with those currently over cap is to allow them four years to divest themselves through tax-free transfers to nonprofit organizations like the Red Cross, UNICEF, ACLU, and other such worthy enterprises. To ensure the wealth is spread around, limit each giftee to no more than four gifts of $100 million each. allow startup non-profits four $250 million gifts.

Allow individual gifts of up to $10 million each.

In other words, redirect the competitive spirit from wealth building to society building for four years.

I truly believe that such a step would inaugurate a golden age of full employment, a vast creative blossoming of new ideas and innovations, and provide for a more tranquil and peaceful world.

I think excessive wealth building should be viewed as a mental disease of the hoarding family, like the person with two hundred cats, or so much stuff in their house they can't move. It leads people into doing irrational things, as after all, what does someone with $50 billion do when they are bored with their "normal" life? An argument could be made that they are financing terrorism just for the thrill of it. In any event, an argument could also be made that if you have so much money you don't even know where it all is or what it is doing, you could be financing terrorism unknowingly, so capping wealth to audit-able levels would help reduce global terrorism, right?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I will never understand why people want so badly to have the government intrude into their lives more and more and take from them and put more and more restrictions on them......it seems absolutely against all logic one should have.

Are there people who truly do not want to be free and be in control of their lives? Are there people who truly love to be slaves and instead of being an individual wan to be an equal to everyone? I suppose so. But I am not one of them. I certainly dont raise my daughter that way. She is raised to know that it is BETTER to be unique and stand out rather than be part of the crowd...and not be equal to everyone else for not everyone is the same nor does everyone DESERVE to be treated equally.....it is BETTER to try your hardest to succeed and be the best you can be, rather than settle and be what others tell you to be....and place yourself on a level playing field so that you are just a mirror image of everyone else.

That is not the world I want to live in.

We have kids being raised in ultra liberal homes who are told that EVERYONE is a winner and equal! Be exactly like the person next to you for it is wrong to be a unique individual. Winning at sports? NO way! Everyone is a winner!! Get better grades than the person next to you? NO way! Everyone is equal! Live in a bigger and better house than your classmate? NO! Everyone deserves the same! Your daddy makes more money than my daddy? NO! Everyone makes the same salary even if your daddy is a lazy piece of crap!

Im sorry, if YOU want to live that way so be it. But do not even think about dictating what is best for me or how I should live! That is not gonna happen! If you want to place a cap on your salary and throw the rest away...so be it. But dont do it to mine! I work my ass off to get what I have and deserve. No cap shall be placed!

If I want to make a zillion trillion dollars and spend it all on myself, I should be allowed to and not have anyone tell me any different because they are...................................jealous.

Jealousy is the root of evil, not money.
edit on December 24th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join