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: 26
32
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Perhaps a better way to demonstrate the ridiculous accumulation of wealth would be to have a physical representation of said wealth, in note form of course, not gold bars.
When you put it into actual physical form you might have a tiny voice in the back of your mind tell you
"Hey, this looks a little much for one person alone"

Think about it, 100million dollars in note form. Where the hell are you going to store that??




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I'm not sure setting a limit would help. They could simply take money, and use it to buy things, like gold, and look as if they don't have as much money. Or they could simply move to another country, that doesn't have the limits. I think you would simply create a new reason for the rich to hide their wealth, and as such make it more difficult to find them and tax them.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Think about it, 100million dollars in note form. Where the hell are you going to store that??


A decent, on-site, warehouse would only run $100,000 or so including security.

If they have $100 million, they have more than enough to build storage facilities.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Unrealised
 


Communism the way of the future?...

Most of you who admire communism so much know NOTHING about that system. You just know a few things that were told to you by other leftwingers, many who also know NOTHING of that system.

The worst part about today's communists is that you are so willing to be IGNORANT about the history of this system that most of you are willing to dismiss and ignore the stories from people who actually EXPERIENCED the disease that is socialism/communism...

Through communism over 110 million people were murdered in less than 100 years. Millions more have been/were imprisoned because they would not accept communism.


In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.

www.hawaii.edu...

Communism has only brought suffering and death to the world, yet ignorant people who are willing to swallow every lie told by a few, and are so lazy that they can't even pick up a history book, or even read everything that Marx and Engels wrote about it, still want the world to accept the DISEASE that is communism...

Can you not understand what a PERMANENT REVOLUTION MEANS?...

People like you claim communism would bring peace to the world, but all it brings is war, suffering and death. Even Marx himself explained quite clearly that war is the way of communism.

For a true communist the bourgeoisie are not only the top 1% most leftwingers think comprises the bourgeoisie. For a true communist the bourgeoisie includes ANYONE who owns any sort of property, anyone who is not willing to give up his/her private property, and it doesn't have to be a mansion. Even REGULAR small and middle business people are part of the bourgeoisie to the communists.

This system sets up a PERMANENT WAR, that is what a PERMANENT REVOLUTION is, in which any ideology that goes against communism must be destroyed.

Even Marx himself stated, and I quote...


The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.

thinkexist.com...

This is part of the reason why communism only brings war, suffering and death, and this war is waged mainly against THE PEOPLE, or at least those who want to be different from the pack, and don't want to suffer the misery that communism brings.

BTW, in case most of you leftists didn't know Marx himself called the so called "proletariat struggle" as dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what communism is, a dictatorship against ANYONE who dares to think, or want something different than communism.

To all of you young, and not so young communists out there, let me give you a piece of advice. You want to install a global communist dictatorship? Well, it will be over my dead body, and the bodies of millions of people, and very possibly over your dead body as well.

That is what communism has brought, and will continue to bring to the world, and to the people of the world, suffering and death.


BTW, I am not from the "50s", to this day there are still communist/socialist dictatorships around the world in case some people didn't know...


edit on 28-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
BTW, to give you all an idea of the "oh so wonderful communist system". The Cuban communist regime just implemented new tariffs, and taxes on all products, including medicine and food, because most Cubans are resorting to buying what they need through the black market.

Cubans do not go to the black market to buy luxurious items, but to buy food, and clothing most of all, and most Cubans depend on their family outside of Cuba to give them money to buy from the black market, because Cubans cannot buy anything from the black market with the money they make through the socialist/communist system.

What this means is that even though things are very difficult now, and it is very hard to find food, and other necesities even in the black market, now things will cost TWICE as much as they used to...

Welcome to the "oh so wonderful communist system"...


BTW, I am a Cuban-American, born in Cuba, and who lived and experienced socialism/communism there, and still have family in Cuba, which is why I know these things.


edit on 28-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Unrealised
 

The worst part about today's communists is that you are so willing to be IGNORANT about the history of this system that most of you are willing to dismiss and ignore the stories from people who actually EXPERIENCED the disease that is socialism/communism...

Through communism over 110 million people were murdered in less than 100 years. Millions more have been/were imprisoned because they would not accept communism.

Communism has only brought suffering and death to the world, yet ignorant people who are willing to swallow every lie told by a few, and are so lazy that they can't even pick up a history book, or even read everything that Marx and Engels wrote about it, still want the world to accept the DISEASE that is communism...

That is what communism has brought, and will continue to bring to the world, and to the people of the world, suffering and death.


BTW, I am not from the "50s", to this day there are still communist/socialist dictatorships around the world in case some people didn't know...


edit on 28-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


With all due respect, the bastion of liberty and freedom, America... has brought suffering and death to the world in untold numbers. They've staged coups, supported and installed many of the dictators you claim to hate... and yet ignorant people are too lazy to pick up a history book... or notice the bombs they are currently dropping on innocent people.
I'm not supporting communism. But, to claim capitalism is a system that is not as equally destructive is incorrect. It's a system based on selfishness and greed and some fantasy that if I just do what is best for me... screw the rest... that by some magic of an invisible hand we'll all be better off. At least socialism and communism (which are not the same thing by the way) have the intention of a collective society doing what's right for all citizens even if in practice it has failed. Capitalism doesn't even pretend to have good intentions, only to offer equal opportunity to screw others and to be screwed by others. It too has failed, it's just that some are still living in the eighties.
A system that absolutely requires endless consumption, that depends on planned and intrinsic obsolescence leading to enormous waste and environmental destruction for it's very survival, that needs to manufacture scarcity to give goods and services value even if it means billions in the world die of hunger... is just not sustainable. Capitalism is approaching a stage, if it's not there already that it needs to artificially create jobs and to artificially create need to keep the cycle turning. Add to this problem that we live on a world of finite resources and we're faced with a real problem.
The right accuses the left of living in some utopian fantasy but the reverse is true. As the global population continues to explode and our resources dwindle the idea of rugged individualism and liberty is a utopian fantasy. It's a nice thing to say there should be no limits on what one person can have or do, it's another when that person(s) a hundred years from now owns 90% of the worlds fresh water and the desalination patents.
So, label it what you want... communism, capitalism, socialism, fascism... they all lead to destruction and suffering because a select few gain control of the system and use their wealth, power and influence to keep it that way. The OP made a suggestion as to how we can stop this cycle and although it's a rather simplified suggestion the point is trying to keep a select few from controlling the rest of us. Who implements it? Well, if government wasn't already taken over by these ultra rich (not the neighbourhood working millionaires the media claims the left hates), then government would still belong to the people... so the people would implement it. Unfortunately, those with wealth and power bought government decades ago, and then gave us decisions like corporate personhood and a media that insists that the problem isn't them, the rich... but the evil government which they already own. The right then turns on the one institution, government, that it has elective power over and in their home of mediocre means and fragile economics they support the rights of billionaires to do untold damage to society because the alternative, limiting their wealth would be morally unacceptable.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


And yet again you fail to offer any logic to sustain your claims that a wealth cap tramples freedom, or what freedom you would lose, or by what instrument you claim to derive the right to take more than you need.

I know you're young and believe somehow, someday, you, too will be a multi-billionaire, but let's face facts: it ain't bloody likely.

A wealth cap isn't communist, socialist, or anything political, really, it's just a sensible limit on how much we as a society are willing to allow one of us to take from that which we all must draw from.

A cap doesn't deprive anyone of anything substantive, the people it would most directly effect wouldn't even notice, for the most part, save in their ego games of who has the biggest pile. And in their ability to buy governments and spread misery throughout the world, of course.

Instead of offering emotional rants about freedoms you don't understand and can't articulate, try offering some logically sustainable reasons why you think it is a bad idea for more people to have access to more money. No one is talking about simply taking money from the super-rich and giving it away for frivolities. The premise is that those monies would be restored to productive circulation by way of good jobs that pay decent wages.

The "kills incentive" argument is plainly false: a billion dollar cap clearly would not kill the incentive for a minimum wage worker to want to do better than minimum wage, nor would it make a middle class worker say "damn, no point in trying". That argument is plainly silly on its face.

The "tramples freedom" argument is equally plainly silly. What freedom are you talking about? The "freedom" to lust after untrammeled wealth that you will never attain?

I prefer to look at the real freedom a cap would give: the freedom from hunger and want, the freedom from fear of sickness and homelessness, the freedom from sick sociopaths buying and perverting governments.

We most certainly can build a more equitable world, but it seems some among us would miss too much the ability to look down upon the squalid poor, finding emotional superiority in their distance from them.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Dasher
 


And yet again you fail to offer any logic to sustain your claims that a wealth cap tramples freedom, or what freedom you would lose, or by what instrument you claim to derive the right to take more than you need.

I know you're young and believe somehow, someday, you, too will be a multi-billionaire, but let's face facts: it ain't bloody likely.

A wealth cap isn't communist, socialist, or anything political, really, it's just a sensible limit on how much we as a society are willing to allow one of us to take from that which we all must draw from.

A cap doesn't deprive anyone of anything substantive, the people it would most directly effect wouldn't even notice, for the most part, save in their ego games of who has the biggest pile. And in their ability to buy governments and spread misery throughout the world, of course.

Instead of offering emotional rants about freedoms you don't understand and can't articulate, try offering some logically sustainable reasons why you think it is a bad idea for more people to have access to more money. No one is talking about simply taking money from the super-rich and giving it away for frivolities. The premise is that those monies would be restored to productive circulation by way of good jobs that pay decent wages.

The "kills incentive" argument is plainly false: a billion dollar cap clearly would not kill the incentive for a minimum wage worker to want to do better than minimum wage, nor would it make a middle class worker say "damn, no point in trying". That argument is plainly silly on its face.

The "tramples freedom" argument is equally plainly silly. What freedom are you talking about? The "freedom" to lust after untrammeled wealth that you will never attain?

I prefer to look at the real freedom a cap would give: the freedom from hunger and want, the freedom from fear of sickness and homelessness, the freedom from sick sociopaths buying and perverting governments.

We most certainly can build a more equitable world, but it seems some among us would miss too much the ability to look down upon the squalid poor, finding emotional superiority in their distance from them.


I agree!



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I believe there should be a limit on how stupid someone should be.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Dasher
 


A wealth cap isn't communist, socialist, or anything political, really, it's just a sensible limit on how much we as a society are willing to allow one of us to take from that which we all must draw from.


But it always ends up being political, doesn't it? This is the difference between liberal v. conservative. It is idealist v. realist. Liberals always like to think in terms of this utopian equality where human nature is absent from the equation. Like you can somehow legislate honesty and lack of greed. It is irresponsible and ignorant to think that you can place limits on wealth and expect there to be some equitable outcome for those less fortunate. You know where the extra wealth would go? To those in power. It would be concentrated at the power center, like it always is and always will be. You freakin communists just don't get it. Use the left side of your brain once in a while.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


If you had the courage to measure your own unction/actions with the same ruler by which you measure social equality, you would find yourself even shorter than the most greedy banker. And this is by your own conduct/declarations as I have no bias or angst against you except that you continually make condemnations about my conduct without knowing my conduct.

I do not dream of being a billionaire, and for you to presuppose such a thing, along with your other continuous, entirely false, and corrupt condemnations, your lack of wisdom is manifested and brought to a sickening head. I am sure you will tout this as some kind of victory on your part, but I assure you, your condemnation of me is a weight only around your neck. I hope that you will remove it, but while it drags you down further, I do not wish to keep bending over to suggest as much.

And one thing I have never been called is inarticulate. That, of all your judgments, is my favorite to wonder about. Please leave me in peace. I've simply got too much work to do trying to "be a billionaire" (read: taking care of my responsibilities).



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Careful, this thread has been like peeing on a forest fire of confusion and hypocrisy.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I argee with this,it would be nice if everyone in the world had a price cap on what they can earn. But, if they did that then some jobs would be left undone because,people would not want to do them because, they wont get enough money for a job that is hard to do and needs a lotof school.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
But it always ends up being political, doesn't it?

I think you missed the point. Just think of it as mandatory retirement once you reach a certain amount instead of a certain age. That exists today and it isn't political.


edit on 28-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Think about it, 100million dollars in note form. Where the hell are you going to store that??


A private investment bank where it should be?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by maestromason
 


Please tell me your omnipotent highness, sovereign grandmaster of the temple of darkness, ...........

why must you believe in a supreme being and be financially wealthy or have a good job,

to become a mason, with childish handsignals and ear whispering secrets.......

To be right wing means taking religion seriously as well as being a capitalist, so maybe...just maybe

masonry is all about protecting global capitalism and the masonically sought after one world government...

or maybe it has to do with aliens


Your friend,

EarthCitizen



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Karl Marx was an idiot. Why must you denigrate socialism with his name attached to everything socialistic?

Canada and western europe does not believe in karl marx, yet they have enjoyed prosperous economic conditions for decades and still do to a lesser extent.

The nazis and facists were not marxists either since they hated communism, gypsies and jews.

Marxism does NOT equal socialism!!!!

Get it:yet???



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by maestromason
 


Please tell me your omnipotent highness, sovereign grandmaster of the temple of darkness, ...........

why must you believe in a supreme being and be financially wealthy or have a good job,

to become a mason, with childish handsignals and ear whispering secrets.......

To be right wing means taking religion seriously as well as being a capitalist, so maybe...just maybe

masonry is all about protecting global capitalism and the masonically sought after one world government...

or maybe it has to do with aliens


Your friend,

EarthCitizen



There is a time and a place for all things under the Sun, and this forum is neither the place nor is this the appointed time for such a discussion. Please feel free to use the search feature here on ATS to find the answer to your questions for I am sure in the Freemasonry forums your very same questions have been previously answered.

I personally like being engaged in global business affairs, so I choose to place my firm's interests and assets in emerging markets and the like. There is nothing ethically wrong with amassing wealth or keeping it in flow as it should always be. Wealth should never be static and stagnate. Wealth has a dynamic nature and should be used to create more wealth in due time if properly handled and nurtured.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Thank you for speaking out. People really need to hear this. There are intellectuals who really believe in this communist lie, but if they were to really live under communist rule, they would change their tune pretty fast. I hope it doesn't come down to that in the States though.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Karl Marx was an idiot. Why must you denigrate socialism with his name attached to everything socialistic?

Canada and western europe does not believe in karl marx, yet they have enjoyed prosperous economic conditions for decades and still do to a lesser extent.

The nazis and facists were not marxists either since they hated communism, gypsies and jews.

Marxism does NOT equal socialism!!!!

Get it:yet???



Because he was the "father of communism", and also he wrote the communist manifesto. Marx and Lenin both said socialism was the bridge to communism.




top topics



 
32
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join