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: 20
32
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 

Well then, according to you the drive and want to be successful and to continue that success to be a mental disorder, though it is one that is a new problem that is occurring in this day and age.

Yet with what you are stating, there should be a cap, then ultimately there would go charities, and philanthropic endeavors that those who have accumulated so much tend to give to. Gone would be the museums, and the music of the world, oh yes, such still exists today. The schools that teach do not need any more endowments, nor would the hospitals. And what of those who so foolishly squander what they were given, do we continually give to them, only for them to lose it all again?

Guess what, it does not work, it always fails, and history proves this. Back in the 1960’s communes started up, every one was equal, yet they do not exist today, as they failed. Cuba is slowly coming out of a decade long economic slump, that was crippled by the fall of the Soviet bloc, and before that, if the sharing of wealth was so great, then why did so many seek to leave the island nation to come to the USA?

And you know isn’t it really strange that most use a computer, chances are either a MAC or one that runs on windows, whose creators were very wealthy, should we now take away from their accomplishments, all cause we don’t have what they worked to accomplish and put together? Funny the world seems to be a bit bleaker with the idea that we give everyone fish, instead of helping them learn how to fish and feed themselves. After all is that not what we tend to do every time there is a famine somewhere in the world, feed the poor, but it seems as though it is a never ending struggle or problem that seems to go away and always in the same parts of the world, one must wonder what all is going on.

Yet at the same time, we did not look at the problems of North Korea or even that of China, nor did you mention, how even when the wealth is distributed, how the people who were poor before were no better afterwards.




posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Most countries have limited ways of preventing overaccumulation of wealth. If you look at the graph at the following website showing CEO to average worker ratios, you will see reflections of each country's taxation system. Many countries have a progressive taxation system that increases as your income grows. In the U.S., the wealthy find ways to avoid taxes as their income grows. Simply looking at income taxes are misleading since there are so many taxes in the u.s. including sales tax, property tax, car tags. Taxes are supposed to be returned back to the people through government projects such as college tuitiion (free in many countries), health insurance (also free in many countries) and other public services but in the U.S. these taxes are often diverted to other causes including defense and corporate bailouts.

creativeconflictwisdom.wordpress.com...

edit on 25-12-2011 by qver74 because: typo



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by maestromason
I must refrain from speaking to you from this point forward due to your flagrant and illegal use of my order's light. I tried to keep this discussion well-grounded and generally academically decent.

I leave this discussion and forum TOTALLY free and clear.


Flagrant and illegal my ass. I have not posted anything secret about "your" order.

I am a Master Mason. I sat in the East. I attended Grand Lodge. I know your damn laws better than you know your laws.

Ask any Mason on this forum what the secrets are that cannot be revealed. They will tell you the secrets are merely the grips and passes.

I have not shared them.

The ritual itself tells you that ALL are your Brothers, but most especially fellow Master Masons.

As these things belong to all, and I am an initiated, passed, and raised Master Mason (though suspended), so who are YOU to question my authority to share what I share?

I came like a thief in the night and stole the treasure from your halls. You will not notice it missing. Most were not even aware of it.

With Love,

Your Brother
edit on 25-12-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by John0Doe

Originally posted by s12345
I believe that there should be a limit on how much wealth one person could have: this would solve some of the worlds problems, it would mean too much power could not be in the hands of one person, help to solve inequality, and increase social mobility, less wealth at the very top would only be a good thing. Although this would be difficult to enforce I think it would be a good thing for the world. How about a maximum wealth of 100 million pounds worldwide for any individual?


if u ask me limit would be 10mill euros,as that is more than enough for each family for all their need. But i am sure Rothchilds and Rokkefellers would have something to say about it.


Well if you ask me wish should limit someone's wealth to $100,000 Dollars USD. That's 'enough' right? I mean should we see if we get a lower bid on "acceptable worth"?

It's only human isn't it? To tell people how much they can acquire?

Why not set up a super committee to monitor it? I'm sure we can all tell our neighbors "Hey pal, that car looks new, you running over your allotment? I'm gonna call the Wealth Monitors!!"

Do you get the point?



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
People should have only so much hair.

I want the govt. to limit how much hair some genetically superior people have. If they are not genetically superior, but still have better hair than the majority of people, they need to forcably have it cut. Just because they take the time to take care of themselves better than the common man is no excuse for anyone to have better hair than the majority.

What about skin color tints for caucasians? Tanning restrictions for those that choose to take the time to tan!



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
People should have only so much hair.

I want the govt. to limit how much hair some genetically superior people have. If they are not genetically superior, but still have better hair than the majority of people, they need to forcably have it cut. Just because they take the time to take care of themselves better than the common man is no excuse for anyone to have better hair than the majority.

What about skin color tints for caucasians? Tanning restrictions for those that choose to take the time to tan!


That argument is very played out and does not work. If I grow out my hair, does it cause you to become bald? Will my excess hoarding of hair cause the hairdresser industry to print more hair? Probably not.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 




Actually sir I disagree respectfully with your opinion....

Please carefully reread my post and remove your emotions...

First all I earn is mine to keep and spend as I see fit...

Second have you ever considered how people become "Experts" in there field... Well... bet you haven't.... Well let me do your homework for you so you can argue your case better... It takes roughly 10000 hours in your chosen field to become an expert...

as for the different specialties required for each of the areas I mentioned... well its probably why people like you would end up working for people like me...

I hate how these words have been misused so forgive me...

It is a synthesis of research, history, management, and then leadership....

I build upon the shoulders of the greats in business... (as measured by RESULTS)
Ford, getty, Walton, kroc to name a few... Each provided part of the keys to success....

Meanness, delegation, good living wage, reliability of service...

"Everyone claims to be able to build a better burger then McDonalds, few take the time to build the system to deliver said burger... Hence why you have probably ate at mcdonalds and not Apache burger...."


Skills required

Delegations- assigning the work to those who can do it and ensuring it gets done

Honesty with self- positive feedback is not what the system is based on...
-ex..- ENRON- positive feedback loops

Necessary evil- can you fire someone for both of your own good

Competence- like attract like

Your case sounds like a matter of high emotional content and no delivery... pretty much all fluff...


You see I guess I read to many comic books growing up... To many communist and socialist do not want the great responsibility only the great power.... sounds like you...


If your system of doing things is right, let me ask you this... why has every example of taking from the producer and giving to I only consume group always caused massive human suffering....

Also, do you have any clue how many people my plans would employ... did you even bother to read my whole post...I would still follow under the guidelines you would set because I would be rolling the profits from one project right into the next one....

So no I Would STILL BE BROKE.... no 1969 spider for me..... Because the cost of the Spider could be put to use putting people to work... training people... and closer to my life goals....

I would leave my kids nothing except the understanding of what I went through and an education... they get to make there own way...


So go ahead and call me a capitalistic pig and future robber barron in the making... most of my employees will be making more then I will...

I am not in it for the money... The industries I named will grant the means to build reliable space travel and fight off idiots who want to a share of something they never earned....

Please read my original post...

And by the way, Your fired... have a nice Day



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
Very good video.

Walzer is one of the pre-eminent U.S. social scientists of the 20th century. Obviously in a few minutes on video he cannot provide all sorts of nuance and caveats. Why not read one of his books, or at least a journal article, and then add your (informed, well argued) critical comments?

Wow! This guy is really scary. He not only wants to limit how much wealth a person can accumulate, he wants to limit how the person may use his wealth. I simply love how puts buying expensive medical care not available to everyone in the same bracket as buying justice: the things that money should not be allowed to buy, to take the "sting out of money".

Never seen such a sophisticated defence of envy: you may not have something I myself cannot have.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 


Gotta love a little Marxism now and then... Capitalism works brilliantly until you get monopolistic entities that end up making the decisions our government should be making because they have "lobbying money" Now that our country is ran by the Pharmaceutical, Oil, Insurance and other powerful industries I am a firm believer that there should be income limits. I also think there should be NO POSSIBLE WAY a politician can receive any monies or jobs or gifts from any one or any company once they take office and that law would remain in effect for the rest of the politicians life. No more Senators becoming CEOs!!!! They should, however, be entitled to what would equate to a "middle class" retirement when they are done in office. At the end of ten years the middle class percentage of the population would rebound back to being nearly a whole number percentage. (sarcasm)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
It is not a racial slur, but rather a term which adequately defines the situation.


It was a racial slur by definition, but I'm not going to argue the point since I'm pretty sure my point would pass the common man test. House slave would have served the same purpose without the negative connotations.


You say no one is forced, yet where are the alternatives? Do you really think there is some piece of land somewhere waiting for hippies to find it? Everything is already claimed, yet it belongs to NO ONE to claim.


I explained the alternatives, and sure you might have to buy the land but not all places are claimed (even in America). Perhaps it belongs to no one in real terms, but the system stands as it stands and combating human nature seems futile. I'll leave the rest for further down.


Personal property is a lie. Don't believe me now, but you will find how true it is when you are dead and no longer have the property you thought you owned.

With Love,

Your Brother


You seem to be operating between two parameters. 1) That because things are transitory that they are not true at any point in time, and 2) That broad theoretical ideas should somehow be brought down into practical reality.

Personal property exists because we say it does. Fight for a system without it, obtain it, and soon enough it will regenerate itself right back in again. As for theory, I don't specifically disagree in a personal and theoretical sense, but it does seem like a grand departure from both the practical points and the discussion.

Don't think that I say this from a position like what you feel from the poster you responded to, since I have personally backed off quite a bit from the illusion of civil society, safety, and sophistication we humans like to pretend we exist under in addition to material status as I've aged.

Perhaps we agree and are discussing two different points. I have, however, always found you interesting.

Peace
KJ



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by tkwasny
People should have only so much hair.

I want the govt. to limit how much hair some genetically superior people have. If they are not genetically superior, but still have better hair than the majority of people, they need to forcably have it cut. Just because they take the time to take care of themselves better than the common man is no excuse for anyone to have better hair than the majority.

What about skin color tints for caucasians? Tanning restrictions for those that choose to take the time to tan!


That argument is very played out and does not work. If I grow out my hair, does it cause you to become bald? Will my excess hoarding of hair cause the hairdresser industry to print more hair? Probably not.


Yet this is the logical conclusion of AUTHORIZATION by the COURTS once the nose is under the tent with a case presedent. That was the point of my post. It had nothing to do with hair or level of tans.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by s12345
 


In my view, there is sense in what you say in your OP.

We have become so insecure that it is not enough to provide for the next year, the rest of your life, the rest of your spouse's life, the rest of your children's life, the rest of your grandchildren's life and their childrens lives...

It is the disease called: IT IS NEVER ENOUGH, I AM DEEPLY INSECURE AND GREEDY.

Little do they realise that it is a lack of trust and an insaturable need for security that drives them. Not very clever, content or cool in my view.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Accumulating wealth is like a snowball rolling down a snow covered hill, the bigger it gets the more it accumulate.

Caping wealth generating is to kill industrious incentive, it will cripple an economy that says you can't advance beyond GO and collect your hard earned money anymore. It's not a very sound logic base.

Cutting free aid to uninspired work avoiding people would be a better logic. Like it used to be. You don't hunt you don't eat, get off your ass and work for a living.


What about cutting foreign aid, corporate welfare, increasing import tariffs and leaving social services alone since it is/was the government and big business screwing the working class in america to begin with. Maybe we should increase social services as a benefit/penalty to the status quo for being so short sighted.

You have an upside-down perspective in life which will ONLY DESTROY america and the rest of the world!



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Okay put it this way.................

Let's say you are a billionaire and your nine year old son needed a heart, lung or kidney.............you could get one for him easy and fast.

Let's say you are poor and you have a nine year old son or daughter that needed a heart, lung or kidney. You would be put on a waiting list, a long one and probably before your son or daughter received one you would be burying them.

Or if your son or daughter didn't need one and was healthy, and you were not one of the 1% and didn't keep a close enough eye on your child they might end up "disappearing".

Scary, yes..................true justice, true equality for all is scary to some.

And no I am not saying a heart surgeon should make the same as a janitor but our actors and singers are not worth the billions and tens of billions they have made.

Read the article below: Most ATSers think this greed is just fine and dandy........so be it. Bunch of slaves.

Source of article www.dancewithshadows.com...


How top US celebrities spend

28 November, 2007

BY OUR CELEBRITY REPORTER

A survey published by Forbes.com has brought to light the buying and spending habits of top celebrities in the United States.

The survey was conducted by wealth-research firm Prince & Associates, of Redding, Connecticut, the United States, which recently polled 92 business managers representing 288 actors and musicians by asking them about their clients’ shopping plans for the holiday season.

It was found that pop star Britney Spears, who is going through troubled times after her divorce with Kevin Federline and the ongoing custody battle for their two children, spends an average of $16,000 a month on clothes alone. She spends about $4,758 on eating out, $10,250 on utility bills and $17,000 on automotive and other transportation costs.

What is more, Britney spends an average of $102,000 a month on “entertainment, gifts, and vacation,” according to court filings in her child custody battle.

The celebrities covered by the Prince survey plan to spend an average of $47,700 on wine and liquor alone. Most of them go for costly booze, like, for example, Chateau La Fleur Petrus, a red wine from the Bordeaux region of France – this wine costing over $17,000 a bottle, depending on the vintage.

As for entertaining guests, the average projected bill came to $52,300. Forbes.com says this amount is not surprising, considering the cost to throw a New Year’s Eve party “at a ski resort and pay the resort to make snow,” as one celebrity plans to do.

The survey revealed that about 48% of the celebrities plan to stay at a hotel or resort, at an average projected bill of around $89,300, and 17.4% plan to spend an average of $78,000 on villa or house rentals.

The celebrities also plan to spend an average of $74,400 on attire and accessories, $86,300 on wristwatches, and $114,500 on jewelry.

Martin Katz, owner and designer of Martin Katz Limited, a high-end jewelry store in Beverly Hills, told the survey that celebrities look for rings, necklaces, and earrings that are both beautiful and practical so they can be worn “on a regular basis.”

The other celebrity extravagances unearthed by the Prince survey are: over 80% of the celebrities plan to spend an average of $64,100 on spa services and trainers, and 13% expect to spend an average of $1.3 million to buy fine art.

The celebrities surveyed were at least 25 years old and had a minimum net worth of $10 million.

Hannah Grove, managing partner of Prince & Associates, was quoted by Forbes.com as saying: “Once someone has a net worth of more than $10 million, that’s the point over which people feel free to spend. There’s very little, barring major catastrophe, that would cause them to curtail their spending.”

Britney Spears spends an average of $241,020 a month, which is nearly five times the $48,398 that an average household in the United States spent in all of 2006 (as per the US Bureau of Labor Statistics). The average household in the European Union, where per-capita consumption was about 45% lower, spent even less.

Income level, according to Martin Katz, is a better indication of how much a celebrity will spend than net worth. This is a rule of thumb, he thinks, that applies to all purchases since “long-established celebrities may have much of their wealth tied up in less liquid assets, like real estate, which can constrain their ability to throw around cash.”

edit on 26-12-2011 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by nawki
 


The extra income can go right back to the employees.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by apacheman
 


Your post is completely irrelevant to mine.

It is unlawful to steal a free man's wealth against his will, it is against the rule of law. PERIOD.

No matter how much you talk about OWS or socialism it will never change that fact.

If you are against a man's freedom to volunteer his good will then you are surely against freedom.


That is why true freedom is unattainable. Because when too few people approach freedom that means too many others are losing bare necessities and respect in life. The government SHOULD be above everything else in any sovereign nation.

Right wingers are unable to comprehend this SIMPLE yet anti-selfish principle because they are selfish. Individualism is selfishness, plain and simple, and should never be confused with eccentricity. You can think whatever you like but when you start hogging resources that is a fine line that should never be crossed for society to maintain and improve itself.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
we are not on this earth as workers. we are humans. are life goal is not to work but to enjoy this wonderful world.
where did most of you lose your way?



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


The trickle down theory doesn't work.

If you have to work (and are lucky to have a job) you are one of the 99% and being taken advantage of and not even aware of it.

WTFU

A slide show overview of the ways in which America's tax system and socioeconomic arrangement does not work for the majority of the American people



Be sure to stop at 1:17 and 1:42 and read these statistics, do the research - they are correct.


The next video is highly important for you to get a over view of how the trickle down theory does not work for Americans.

he National Debt went up under: Carter 41%, Reagan 186%, Bush Sr. 53%, Clinton 40%, Bush W. 77%.

Do Republicans want to have the Chinese take over greater parts of America by skyrocketing our debt just to give the rich a new Mercedes every year with OUR MONEY?!? Trickle down doesn't work. Bush was proof of that, having created less jobs than any President since Herbert Hoover. That's right FDR created more jobs in his 1st term, before the WWII & during the Great Depression! Rich invest their money overseas, places like...China!



Is the average American better off than a decade ago?

No, I volunteer at a homeless shelter and guess what?

We're seeing more and more people that are now homeless that just a few years ago were considered Middle Class.

Really watch the second video closely, it's only 8 minutes and 27 seconds.

You're replies shows me you have not researched this subject enough.

Why Reagan video, it's old history.................The policies enacted today affect us decades later.

The taxing system is one of the biggest scams.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Sure you have a point there but when I said wealth, I meant anything a free man earns or creates out of his living energy and efforts.

Say a man earns apples for his work on fixing the neighbors swing set. Are you saying the man is a slave to the apple?

No, he absolutely isn't. Is he a slave to the owner of the swing set? No, they made a contract to trade energy/effort for apples.


Man should not make contracts for it shows motive to profit off of another.

Rather, the man should fix the swing set because it needs fixing and he is capable, and the other man should give the apples because they are needed by the first.

Expectation of a return for good deeds, does not make a good deed, but a selfish one.

With Love,

Your Brother


Profit is not necessarily evil. It depends how you make it and how much, all of which are subjective concepts open to personal interpretation. Ethical versus unethical. We all have our views and the government has its own.

Most people would agree making billions of dollars a year by having insider knowledge in the stock market is very unethical and even the law would agree but the SEC and federal government look the other way because congress itself rellies on insider information.

So in essence we have the elite-connected investors preying on everyone else. No tariffs means global "free market" for the connected and controlled markets for everyone else because they can't accumulate enough capital to make the necessary transitions. They are stuck with a small business perpetually and if they try to expand someone will eventually buy them out.

Capitalism has always been rigged and that is why it is free!



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by s12345
I believe that there should be a limit on how much wealth one person could have: this would solve some of the worlds problems, it would mean too much power could not be in the hands of one person, help to solve inequality, and increase social mobility, less wealth at the very top would only be a good thing. Although this would be difficult to enforce I think it would be a good thing for the world. How about a maximum wealth of 100 million pounds worldwide for any individual?


You believe someone who is brilliant enough to come up with a novel idea, patents that idea, builds a company with that idea, creates thousands of jobs thanks to that invention, should only have X amount of money in their bank account? This is illogical, it is clearly a jealous mindset, because you cannot come up with a brilliant idea and create jobs for others you want to punish those who can? I understand you are likely 'anti-corporation' and 'anti-capitalism', but in cases I outlined above, thanks to capitalism and corporations, free enterprise more jobs can be created and more people can have a better life.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join