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: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Agreed. I have family that is well off. She is going on 90 years old and has enough money to do as she wishes. She is growing older. The other day, while visiting with her, she tells me that she now takes two days a week to clean her home instead of one because she is becoming unable to do it as rapidly as she would like. She is generous, hard working, and has an utterly gentle spirit. But in business, she is wise and "makes it happen." She has been a great inspiration. I, myself, am below the poverty level, but I am striving to gain momentum. And I intend to do so with the same consideration and wisdom which she expresses. If I lose any of what I have, I will be thankful for whatever I have left.




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by s12345
 


Rather like communism then?


Basically yes. Communism >



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
if you were right.
and assuming that some people here have read the commie manifesto (which it does not look like it at all due to the support to the idea here), what politician do you or can you trust to be put in charge of that?
how much money/ political royalties would he receive?

what would your "law" do to people who want to go above and beyond?
what do you think your law would do to work ethic? why work hard if you can only go so far?
why should we allow the government to have that much reach and power?

judging from whats going on around the u.s., your post is what is happening right now, how does it look?[yvid]



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


So you are claiming that all poor are poor because they make poor decisions?

That a lack of opportunities has nothing to do with it?

And that a cellphone is not a necessity in the modern world?

That a reliance upon equations, by which I presume you mean financial "investment" tools, i.e, sophisticated gambling aids, is the equivalent of actually creating a product? Or are you producing something actually, physically tangible that holds worth for more than a few months?

A day trader or "investor" is simply a modern euphemism for a gambler. They produce absolutely nothing in and of themselves, but rather leech off of the sweat and productivity of others. Too many of such "investors" will collapse any economic system, which is what is currently occurring.

Get a clue: if you are doing well, it is mostly because you got lucky, not because you are inherently superior to anyone, which seems to be the subtext of your argument: that the rich are rich because they are morally superior, work harder, and are more intelligent. The plain fact is that most rich are rich because they were born into it, had opportunities unavailable to most, took unethical advantages of the system, broke laws getting there, or just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Hard work, skill, and intelligence actually have far less to do with success than luck does.

Most of the honest rich I've known in my life have acknowledged this, confiding that, if circumstances had been slightly different, they would not be in the position they were.

Your argument is the disingenuous one, it reeks of arrogance.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by phoenix0714
 


This idea makes sense initially. However, those who strive pridefully will find a way around that too.

The national (large scale) law should be natural and "Capitalist," but it would be a very "high order" form of expression if we, in liberty, tend to run businesses as "employee owned" (which is directly related to what you are suggesting). So again, while the failure of Communal/Social Systems is apparent in many places in history, the truth that expressing Charity freely under a Natural System (Capitalism) is highly "civilized" cannot be denied.

Capitalist by law because it is natural.
Communist by heart because it is spiritual.
In this we would all profit.

Communism by law is not communism, it is Imperialism.
Capitalism that is regulated is not capitalism, it is Imperialism.
Imperialism is entranced with building a great kingdom to the heavens.
But the wise children understand what is natural and express what is supernatural.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by s12345
I believe that there should be a limit on how much wealth one person could have:

I believe that it's none of your business how much money someone has or doesn't have.
I believe that a person has a right to keep what they earn, no matter how much or little it is.
I believe it's jealousy and theft to take from others simply because they have more than you.
I believe history has proven that socialism and communisim do not work.
I believe that putting a limit on what a human can achieve or earn 'dumbs down' humanity.
I believe that you are pushing your version of morality on others ....
.... like what the pro-choicers claim the pro-lifers are doing.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 





The plain fact is that most rich are rich because they were born into it, had opportunities unavailable to most, took unethical advantages of the system, broke laws getting there, or just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Hard work, skill, and intelligence actually have far less to do with success than luck does.


I think it is interesting that people who feel successful think it was their hard work, skill, and intelligence that got them there, while people who feel unsuccessful think it's because of the successful people taking advantage, being unethical, breaking laws, or being lucky.

Personally, I'm sure there ARE successful people who take advantage, are unethical, break laws, and are lucky...but to say that's the main way people get successful sounds like whining.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 



Thank you for that response, and there is no arguing against your points. Though I am confused again a bit, and wonder if what you are saying is that what we need to do is get back to just not allowing any corporations to become too big to fail, while at the same time try and lead by example. In effect creating an environment where companies are concerned more with the greater good when it comes to their employees as well as their communities. Maybe the burden is on our shoulders to lean on the companies that are driven by greed, and leave the governments out of it? Hence the movements such as OWS or others like it.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
If you give the govt. the power to control the behaviors of someone that has a large amount of money, you set the COURT PRESEDENT that gives the power for the govt. to control the behavior of poor people and the middle class. [what they can eat, buy, where they can travel, what jobs they are required to hold at salaried exempt (which is slavery)].

Notice COURT PRESEDENT. This is the current agruement about Obama-care. Once this becomes law, anything to force behaviors will then be unchallengable in COURTS.

Today, everyone must wear only blue clothes you are required to purchase from the govt. authorized manufacturer that happens to donate to the political party of those currently in office.

You people never played chess and took the time to think more than a whole one move ahead, huh?

edit on 24-12-2011 by tkwasny because: Typo fix

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



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I will give my take, then I will respond to some of the posts:

If you take all the money from all of the people in all the world and distribute it equally among all the people in in all the world, within one week, the people who had the money before will have the money again...think about it...

reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Chadwickus has it right, despite your protestations...it is quite simple...The issue of work and results...it does not matter if the results are lower times in the 100 meter or more money in your pocket...

reply to post by apacheman
 



False analogy.

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


Circuitous argumentation. If I have money, I do not stop anyone else from going to get their money and improving their lot in life...

reply to post by apacheman
 



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.


So Bill Gates will no longer be able to freely support educational systems with his wealth...

reply to post by ofhumandescent
 



The planet is run by psychopaths, people who simply only think of themselves.


If you do not think of yourself first and foremost, then you cease to exist...it is called preservation of life and it is the most fundamental instinct of any creature...



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


But we can identify them and so limit the damage the cause.

For a fuller discussion see these threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another relevant thread, although slightly divergent:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
So you are claiming that all poor are poor because they make poor decisions?

Obviously I did not say that. Again, you are being exceedingly disingenuous.


Originally posted by apacheman
And that a cellphone is not a necessity in the modern world?

That is a very hyperbolic way to view my statement. I have a $20 phone, with no contract, and pay $35 a month for what I need. It's not flashy or catchy, but it gets the job done. I am 100% certain that most people with iphones do not actually use them in such a way that equals their potential usefulness. And I am a programmer, so tech is integral to what I do. Being wise and understanding how to be profitable in every decision are traits of a healthy animal and good judge. Complaining that we must make sacrifices in order to move forward is a trait of an unhealthy animal (that is not directed at you particularly, so please do not receive that as an attack).



Originally posted by apacheman
That a reliance upon equations, by which I presume you mean financial "investment" tools, i.e, sophisticated gambling aids, is the equivalent of actually creating a product? Or are you producing something actually, physically tangible that holds worth for more than a few months?

Simmer down...
There are physical products which are a waste to produce, just as there are financial products which are a waste to produce. Categorizing in the way that you have would result in economic constipation faster than our false capitalist system. Is the financial product only serving you? Then it is rather shameful. Is it serving a healthy purpose and bringing progress? Then why cast it out because it is not physically tangible? Likewise, think of all the plastic trinkets that are manufactured in the world that cause pollution, both in their manufacture AND disposal. That is far more shameful than even a selfish financial product.




Originally posted by apacheman
A day trader or "investor" is simply a modern euphemism for a gambler. They produce absolutely nothing in and of themselves, but rather leech off of the sweat and productivity of others. Too many of such "investors" will collapse any economic system, which is what is currently occurring.

I understand. And I don't fully grasp "day trading." But, what I do understand is that insurance is also gambling. However, quite often, it benefits a person who would, otherwise, not be able to bear the weight of the dilemma. And in that, I can see some good enough to not entirely despise this immaterial financial product. In honesty, insurance has always bothered me, but again, you can't dispute that it does bring SOME grace to those who may need it.



Originally posted by apacheman
Get a clue: if you are doing well, it is mostly because you got lucky, not because you are inherently superior to anyone, which seems to be the subtext of your argument: that the rich are rich because they are morally superior, work harder, and are more intelligent. The plain fact is that most rich are rich because they were born into it, had opportunities unavailable to most, took unethical advantages of the system, broke laws getting there, or just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Hard work, skill, and intelligence actually have far less to do with success than luck does.

Whoa. That is not the subtext of what I am saying. I know many honorable people who work VERY hard and are not rewarded as we might wish them to be. However, for those who are moral, the reward is not monetary, it is the progress/process itself. Rocky was more wise than he seems: "The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place. It will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me or nobody is going to hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!"



Originally posted by apacheman
Your argument is the disingenuous one, it reeks of arrogance.

I disagree and am sorry that you receive it that way. I value my time and, if I saw myself in such a light as you view me, I would not give you any of it.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


The government, as usurped by corporate interests, already has those powers.

Or have you not had to pee in a cup for a job, get fondled by the TSA to fly, or had your food and living arragemnet decisions dictated by whether you are on welfare?

Capping wealth would have very little negative effect upon anyone, not even the wealthy. How would they notice a diminishment when they would still have vastly more than they could spend in a lifetime? On the other, massive benefits would accrue with the release of unproductive hoarded wealth into the economy to allow it to flourish.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by phoenix0714
 

We (the United States) entered the world market as a Capitalist system. We rose up incredibly fast. Some very shrewd men sought to control that movement by "capturing" it. That was done by regulation and corporatism.

If you look to very modern markets (portions of the Pacific Northwest are a good example), you will see many socially/communally-minded people running business under what they assume to be a Capitalist system (obviously our system is a false capitalism). So then, in an economically free system, there is a place for the "conscious" to express their business conduct through considerate means such as employee owned companies, and there is a place for privately owned companies.

The great regulator is the consumer. Between a failing education system and failing/corrupt regulations, our system is decaying, but the principle remains. So, improve education, remove regulation and regulations which endow organizations with human rights, and let us, in wisdom and liberty, strive to organize ourselves in considerate and gentle and profitable ventures.

If an employee owned company becomes corrupt and inconsiderate, stop buying from it. Just as a privately owned company should suffer the same isolation.

Does that help to frame my statements better?
edit on 12/24/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   



There is enough wealth for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed. We all want prosperity, but sustainable prosperity for everyone is not possible without some rational and ethical limits on wealth accumulation. Extreme inequality has been the precursor to our current social and economic crisis. Therefore, it is morally and economically imperative that we reduce the gap between rich and poor. By means of a wealth cap that can be adjusted upwards, together with an expanding economy and a rising minimum wage, we can ensure a stable, sustainable and socially acceptable path to prosperity for all.

A Wealth Cap can take on many different forms: a progressive tax policy, a maximum wage, a ratio linking executive salaries to that of the lowest paid worker, or a limit on the total wealth a single person can amass. Whatever the proposal, the idea is that we need to change our society's values and priorities from supporting greed to supporting everyone's need.

Optimum Wealth by Peter Jadinge
A funny (tragic, really) thing has happened in the US and many other western formerly rich countries: The super rich in an effort to get even richer engineered ways to avoid tax and have starved the nations they are based in of funds for social and infrastructure needs. They did it by channeling profits to tax havens and lobbying (bribing. Let’s call a spade a spade shall ve?) politicians for immunity, tax breaks and bail outs.
These countries deprived of taxes from the most wealthy have had to borrow money to keep going, but now they can’t borrow any more without going bankrupt. Because they can’t keep borrowing they start austerity for the people, or sneaky devaluation by printing loads of money to bail out (you guessed it) the rich.
The people demonstrating in the Occupy Movement, and also in the Arab Spring movement have been, or seen people being absolutely broke, finding it impossible to provide food, shelter, clothes, medical care and education for themselves and their family. People were willing to hack it and scrimp and save to get along for as long as humanly possible. But the day came when the last straw broke peoples backs. Caution was finally rejected and replaced with open vocal street protests.
The financial set-up of the modern free market world is unraveling. The wealth of the super rich is depending on it, so they are scrambling to keep it going. Countries who can’t print their own money try to get bail-outs, which is simply more loans on top of the existing ones! They have to push the middle class and the poor into more austerity which brings more and more people onto the streets and into protests. It’s just not a tenable situation.
The countries who can print their own money print as if there is no tomorrow (so called quantitative easing). Does this extra money trickle down? No, it goes to the too-big-to-fails and gushes up to the richest 1% who can be seen celebrating with champagne on their luxury yachts. No wonder the protest movements and the occupations are growing and intensifying.
Let’s face it, the formerly rich West is not going to go back to growth. Why? Because it is lumbered under mountains of debt. It is also hampered by the pernicious dogma that even mentioning taxing the super rich according to ability, closing the tax loop-holes for large corporations, and diverting support away from the military industrial complex is a sin that will have you burn in hell. It is an intractable situation which is ending as we speak in a slow motion train wreck.
What is the solution to all this? The solution is optimum wealth. We have seen very clearly today that maximum wealth (i.e. for the few) is not sustainable. We have also seen that the absolute curtailment of wealth, as in the communist system, leads to absolute failure. We need optimum wealth.
How can a society generate optimum wealth? Simple. Write a constitution and enact laws that
1) encourage business start-ups and support local cooperative ventures
2) require banks of any size, and businesses above a certain size to be run as cooperatives
3) require businesses dealing with raw materials, infrastructure and utilities – including reserve banking – to be run by the local elected government on a no profit no loss basis
4) establish economic zones on the basis of economic potential within which the economy will be protected by
a) exporting only value added products, not raw material
b) not allowing outside corporations to operate
c) right of way to employment for people from within the zone
d) protecting against cheap imports by import tariffs
5) guarantee work with a living wage, adjust wage scales depending on social value, and prohibit the accumulation of wealth above a certain limit
Economic progress will be sustainable and will benefit all, not just a small financial elite or a far away industrial heartland. The availability of purchasing power amongst the great majority of the society will make it easier for entrepreneurial people to start and run businesses. Special support to the co-operative business model will enable many many people to gain more control over their economic lives as members of producer’s and consumer’s cooperatives. Private corporations will not be allowed to grow in power and influence to hijack the political system. This is real democracy – economic democracy.
(The solutions above are drawn from PROUT – Progressive Utilization Theory by P. R. Sarkar. See www.proutglobe.org...)
Source: www.thewealthcap.org...



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


That is a specious argument, but what say we try it?

If the same people truly think they'd have the wealth back in a week, where's the problem in giving it back?

How would a cap prevent Gates from supporting education? That argument is just silly. Plenty of non-billionaires support education every day. If he genuinely wanted to support education without having an agenda for doing so, he would continue with a cap in place.

Self-preservation doesn't require having more than you can spend in a hundred lifetimes, so that argument doesn't hold water either.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by tkwasny
 


The government, as usurped by corporate interests, already has those powers.

Or have you not had to pee in a cup for a job, get fondled by the TSA to fly, or had your food and living arragemnet decisions dictated by whether you are on welfare?

Capping wealth would have very little negative effect upon anyone, not even the wealthy. How would they notice a diminishment when they would still have vastly more than they could spend in a lifetime? On the other, massive benefits would accrue with the release of unproductive hoarded wealth into the economy to allow it to flourish.


We do need to repeal an awful lot of laws to get to REAL freedom. Then make new constitutional amendments prohibiting the govt from such intrusions. How is adding even more regulation upon people going to improve anything? Just because it's "not you" does that make it right?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Why should they give up what they have, is the real question... and one which you cannot answer honestly...

Furthermore, more argument is not specious...I have proof POSITIVE of my position, as those people who have the money now have ALREADY OBTAINED IT...
edit on 12/24/2011 by jeichelberg because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


We do need to repeal illegal laws. But once that is done, we do not need to amend much, if anything. We simply need to honor the law as it was established instead of bending it to the will of the fascists.
Starred.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 46ACE
 


What are you talking about? A sensible business will grow only as fast as it can afford to grow with the profits being used for whatever upgrades or expansions. No, I would not ask my employees to fork over any money. I would use the PROFITS from the business, use what I had to BUDGET wages, improvements, etc.

"What am I talking about"????????How the real world works.(not some 10 year olds Idea of Utopian economics).

If a company wants to make a major capital investment (say upgrade machinery or a new vehicle fleet purchase); they raise the capital by offering stock. Because they need that 50million dollar chunk of change to write a check today. That stock "loan" is paid as they go by paying the stockholders interest or "dividends." The corporation shields the employees from the risk of having to invest their personal cash and taking on the risk of failure.


Originally posted by wildtimes
It is possible to run a business within one's means, just like household. Asking strangers to "give you money" on the OFF CHANCE they might get it back plus??? Whatever. That's asking others to gamble on your idea.


exactly.. That's why the "stock market" and corporations exists..( which somebody advocated banning)

Originally posted by wildtimes

Why is everyone so hell-bent on borrowing and using other people's money? THAT is the avarice that has created this whole mess to begin with. If you don't have enough money to hire a bunch of people, don't hire a bunch of people. If you don't have the money to "upgrade" your "machinery", then use the "machinery" you have until such time as you CAN afford it without going into debt.

How does that CONFUSE you!? What is so bloody hard to comprehend about it?
If you don't HAVE the money, you don't SPEND the money! You flipping MAKE DO!!

If you don't have the resources on hand to run the company, then find something else to do with the things you DO have.

Oh, sorry, that's the poor-man's way of doing business. Using what you HAVE to create things that can help you sustain yourself and try to turn a profit if not just break even. If that means you have one employee, 5000 employees, or NONE, and you do the work yourself.


We agree on far more than you would believe.(I live beneath my meager means[ always have).

Your contemporaries above are all advocating disbursing the companies profits among the "workers" (which doesn't seem to include "management" or the "investor class".


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

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



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join