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.

 

U.S. should copy Switzerland and consider a 'maximum wage' ratio, too

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Sears lost half a billion $ in just 3 months this year.
Nobody has money to spend.
The middle class is being squeezed out of existence between inflation, stagnant wages and a stilted tax code.
The race horse of the American economy has a hobbled leg.




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 




There have been many people throughout history that have espoused the idea of the redistribution of wealth..

Thomas Jefferson also espoused the idea of the redistribution of wealth. In letters he wrote to Madison he said the wealthy should be taxed for every cent they could get out of them to pay for social programs. Are they on the same level as Stalin or Mao? The wealth gap in this country would make the founders puke.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

TheWrightWing
reply to post by crazyewok
 


You forgot the important bit, didn't you? They were Forced by Penalty of Law to do so.

And they were bailed out handsomely by taxpayers, both courtesy of one particular side of the aisle.

Can you guess which? Who doesn't give a flying F, again?

The same folks who's law resulted in 5 million folks with cancelled insurance policies, many of which are in chemo treatment for cancer.


You need to brush up on your history.

They made the banks have funds available for loans it's was the banks idea to create a pyramid scheme with toxic derivatives. Something the republicans refused to allow to be regulated.

And the bank bail out happened on Bush's watch not Obama's. And Obama didn't cancel the policies the insurance companies did.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I want to point out that there is a difference between more equal distribution of wealth vs a redistribution of wealth. A redistribution of wealth involves taking money from the rich and redistributing it. This idea doesn't involve taking existing wealth from the rich, it puts a limiter on how fast they can get even richer by limiting their incomes.

The problem is that a government should not be able to tell a person how much wealth they are able to accumulate in any given time. If I happen to dig up a large diamond stone in my backyard, I should be able to sell that stone for its full value and keep all the profit. Or if I invest wisely in the stock market and make a lot of money, it's the same thing.

Now this is not to say there isn't a terrible degree of wealth inequality in the US, there clearly is a very big problem. It's just that force never solves anything, people need to create businesses which reward the work of their employees fairly without being coerced into it. It's possible to create a business like that but most business owners never consider it.

Most business owners like to delude themselves into thinking they deserve the huge income they make, but you can't blame them because they are raised in a world which promotes that sort of relentless capitalism which teaches them to treat employees as human assets which need to be exploited at the cheapest possible cost.

Wal-Mart to Employees: Donate Food to Coworkers Without Enough to Eat
McDonald's Advice To Underpaid Employees: Break Food Into Pieces To Keep You Full

Those are two disgusting examples of how employees are exploited and paid slave wages, and then shown absolutely no remorse by their employers who make an absolute killing. The Wal-Mart family alone owns more wealth than the poorest 30% of Americans... the ratio on what they earn compared to their employees is absolutely so far off the scales it should boggle your mind.
edit on 21/11/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

I have gone into business three times...with partners.
Each time, I thought I knew "the partner" well enough to believe they would agree that - the only HONORABLE way to build a winning business...is to pay (and treat) employees far better than anyone-else is paying (and treating) for comparable work & skills...and to give them a stake in the success (or failure) of the company.
And... ... ... ...EVERY TIME... ... ...once we got into the business.........they balked, and threw fits and tantrums and...we came to verbal blows, and - the business/es were each shut down.

If anyone thinks they've built it by themselves (unless, it is a one-man operation, and they did not rely on friendship/s, relationship/s, or 'having the goods' on someone-else), they are buffoons...IMO

I understand and recognize the principle of "reward" that should accompany "risk"...
And, I understand, recognize and concur with the principle that those who spend years of blood, sweat and tears, toiling and risking and working their fingers (& minds) to the bone, should be allowed to reap the BONUS, if one ever comes around...
But - to stand over the slaves, cracking the whip...to keep those dollar bills rolling in, is so detestable to me...that I don't care what investment preceded the reward...I hope and wish...with every ounce of my being, that THEY...LOSE IT...ALL.

What's wrong with saying 'socialism'? Is there something sacred about capitalism, or democracy? Without some degrees of "socialism" engrained into the very structure of government...we would have no society, culture or progress...to be concerned with missing-out on.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   

TheWrightWing
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Slaves are forced, you know,


Yeah, because, you know, people don't die if they don't eat, right? People don't die because they don't have a home, right? People don't die because they can't afford medical care, right? Do you think people have a right to live? If you are a "pro-lifer" but also don't think people have a right to live, after they are born, you are quite the hypocrite. So which is it, I am seriously asking? I really bet you'll ignore the question, people don't like their hypocrisy exposed.

Your ignorance is just astounding. You evidently are totally and wholly disconnected from the reality of the world you live in. Keep thinking nothing is wrong, and people are only poor because they are lazy/stupid/druggies/etc. Would you go back to the great depression and tell people how they are just lazy freeloaders? Goi around high and mighty, declaring how everyone out of work was only that way due to their own problems.

Our current situation is WORSE than the depression, the only reason it doesn't seem like it is BECAUSE of all these evil socialist helping hands you keep raving about.

I always feel like a LOT less of an a-hole after reading your peoples posts, makes my own opinions far less ridiculous by comparison.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Interesting idea. However, I just wonder about it even being a viable to happen as income equality when men in America overall are still paid more than women in the same employment.
edit on 22-11-2013 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Don't forget that much of what you should have has been taken by force of government and given to banks through the TARP program, far more than what went to social programs.

You have been a victim of wealth redistribution all along.
And the media the rich own is more than happy to make you blame those on the bottom end of the economic scale instead of the far greater guilt they bear for bleeding the economy dry.

The more money the bottom 99% have the better the economy does and the better life is in general.
Making the 1% richer does nothing but give them even more power over the rest of us.

Despite everything you've done to improve your education and your dedication to your work you know it was still a close thing and there was no guarantee of finding another job. Nearly all of us can be made penniless these days through no fault of our own.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I agree WT... SF


To those of you calling this wealth redistribution... it is not. No one is asking that these wealthy CEO's give away any of the money that they have. All this proposal suggests is that a CEO not make more than 12% higher yearly wages than their lowest paid employee. It ends exploitation. It doesn't limit how much money a CEO can earn, they can still earn millions per year but they will have to learn how to do it without cutting into profits and without exploiting people.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
This is a big grey area I have to admit.

In one instance im loath to accpet the goverment setting a rule on how much one can earn.
There are rich people that honnestly earn there money and even pay there employers a good wage. I have no issue with them takeing a huge pay check. I even repect people like richerd Branson and I loath to admit this bill gates (I just threw up in my mouth abit) they gave the world some good idea, helped advanced the human race and created good jobs .


Then I see the banking clans. The epitome of evil and I just want to see the scum bleed. I want to see the banking clans broken up and lose all there power..........



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

TheWrightWing

wildtimes
So, the fed gov required them


Leftist ideas.... so good They're Mandatory!

How is it the leftist utopia can only be realised by compelling free people, by force and penalty of law, to do what some clueless politician thinks is 'right'?



When the people rose up against the royals in Europe because while they starved the royals were tossing out food in your eyes that was leftist ideas? How about they were survialist ideas. A small group of people can not continue to use thier money and power to keep taking from everybody else because it will reach a point where people will react. That is not leftist, in fact it is not any political philiosiphy beyong survival. Through out history we see this happen and it always ends the same way. People begin to see that the power the rich have only exists when enforced by the poor and when something lights the fuze that power comes to an end. This is also not just an American issue, it is now global. Political stands become quickly blurred when people feel they are being crushed under the boots of others. If nations do nothing then the people will. Anyone who does not see this is fooling themselves.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


The real problem here is the fact that there is no backing for the money system, all they own is our debt first of all, second there isn't even exactly the amount of paper money to support the incomes of these (and apparently not even enough debt ) to back their money because if there were, we wouldn't be 16 trillion dollars in debt as a nation (which is owed to God only knows who) but if they owe this national debt (which they do) as well as do the rest of American Citizens, then they actually don't have money at all, all it is is 1's and 0's on a screen that they're plucking out of nowhere, if we paid off the national debt those people would be broke (That's why it's NEVER paid) but so would us normal citizens but we're not the ones crying about the national debt not being paid, corporate lobbyists are the ones crying not to pay the debt cause they know they'd be left with nothing. Because there's not even enough money if you took all the 1's and 0's and added all of them together to pay the debt. Do you see the issue here? Those people are living in fantasy land, claiming they have more wealth than us, when really it's just the Government letting them think that, I sure hope that the government will pull the rug out and pay off the debt and what they can't cover with all of the nation's 1's and zeros they can take those at the top who sold their soul to have these privileges that normal Americans aren't gifted, and sell them to slavery to cover the rest. That would be optimal.
edit on 22-11-2013 by ldyserenity because: wrong wording.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Speak for yourself. This obsession with making absolutely everything exactly the same just seems really bizarre and creepy if you ask me. But there you go. Sounds exactly like some kind of utopian liberal crap.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 



This obsession with making absolutely everything exactly the same just seems really bizarre and creepy if you ask me.

Sorry, who are you addressing with this post?

I haven't read anyone saying "we should make absolutely everything exactly the same." Who said that? Not one person in this thread has proposed leveling the "living field" so that every person has exactly the same life. That is like prison.

We are discussing the possibility of stimulating the economy by ensuring that enough profit is redistributed into the system, so that there is money to spend. Some money for everyone, and no one said that CEOs should receive the same wage as the overnight janitorial staff....no one has said that.

So many are so quick to jump to absolute communism when people suggest ways of making the 'budget' fit the situation - like any functioning household. Everyone does some of the work, and everyone gets enough to eat, clothing, shelter, and safety. Not just the 'bread-winner'. In a household of more than one person, the domestic executive (now my job) makes decisions with the INPUT of the bread-winner. The baby is not tossed out because he causes more work, or is a drain on the finances (well, some are given up for adoption)...but in a household where the children are welcome, it means having them invest in the household's smooth running as soon as - and to the ability of which - they are capable.

I don't understand how the OP premise got turned into Communism. It isn't. NOR is it Socialism or Fascism.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Can we copy this plan also? They go hand in hand. The population in Switzerland is much lower than the USA.




world.time.com...


Switzerland has avoided much of the turbulence that roiled Europe over the past century — from wars to economic strife. But now its ability to remain neutral about the fate of the rest of the continent is under threat. Rising unemployment in the euro zone and the wider E.U., in stark contrast to Switzerland’s own prosperity, has pushed immigration to unsustainable levels — about 80,000 new immigrants from the E.U. every year, according to Swiss authorities. Last week, the seven-member Federal Council, which serves as Switzerland’s collective head of state, announced that starting on May 1 it would introduce quotas on long-term residence permits to make immigration “more acceptable to society and compatible with its needs.”

Read more: Switzerland Builds New Barriers Against Immigrants | TIME.com world.time.com...


www.dailymail.co.uk...

From January 1 next year, the 25,000 cap on the number of low-skilled workers from the two countries who can get jobs and claim benefits in Britain will expire. The move by Switzerland to limit EU citizens from working comes ahead of a change to the number of Romanians and Bulgarians who can come to the UK. EU-wide work restrictions were imposed on the two countries when they joined the union in 2007. There were fears that mass immigration would swamp other EU countries as people left their home countries - among the poorest in Europe - to seek work elsewhere. From January 1 next year, the restrictions are lifted. In the UK, this means the 25,000 cap on the number of low-skilled workers from the two countries who can get jobs and claim benefits here will expire. The minimum wage in Bulgaria is only 73p while it stands at 79p in Romania. In Britain the minimum wage is £6.19, rising to £6.31 from October.

There are about 130,000 Romanian and Bulgarians living in the UK.


Current rules mean they are only allowed to work here if they are self-employed, investors, or if they take on short-term contracts for jobs such as fruit picking.
.
Switzerland's move will increase pressure for other nations to follow suit.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



edit on 22-11-2013 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

onequestion


If you want to use the word socialism then describe what it means when you use it instead of throwing it out there.


Another example of the "No one can possibly know what words like Socialism, Communism & Marxism mean, so stop using them to accurately describe what a particular American political party is working towards" defense.

Perhaps you might offer what you think Socialism means, and is, and let's examine how it applies to the agenda of a particular political force in the US?

Unless, this is yet another example of changing the name of something in order to pretend that a rose is anything else but a rose?



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

MrSpad

When the people rose up against the royals in Europe because while they starved the royals were tossing out food in your eyes that was leftist ideas? How about they were survialist ideas. A small group of people can not continue to use thier money and power to keep taking from everybody else because it will reach a point where people will react. That is not leftist, in fact it is not any political philiosiphy beyong survival. T


Royalty; elitist rule beyond questioning or challenge; ruling from a centralised source is absolutely leftist.

I hear time and time again, members of a particular political party demanding the current leader rule us by fiat and to eradicate all avenues of opposition.

In fact, that particular political party just eliminated the filibuster rules in what is traditionally the best deliberative legislative body in American federal government.

There is a sort of people who demand to be ruled over, by a strong and powerful, charismatic ruler.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   

James1982

TheWrightWing
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Slaves are forced, you know,


Yeah, because, you know, people don't die if they don't eat, right? People don't die because they don't have a home, right? People don't die because they can't afford medical care, right? Do you think people have a right to live?



Again, you can thank your like-minded progressive left elect who write disastrous legislation for the lack of employment opportunities.

Ideally, workers who are not satisfied with their employment can, of their own free will, seek other employment.

The advantage of collapsing and economy is producing millions who are newly dependent on government 'benevolence' thus guaranteeing job security for the ones who created the disastrous conditions who promise ever more scraps from the table of the ever expanding ruling class.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
And the real beauty is - if they want a raise and they are making the top level 12% everyone else would have to make more - it is beautiful.

My CEO back in the 70's was making about this much more - but then somewhere these CEO's started thieving and thinking they were worth these big bucks - when I have never seen any decision that raised stock value or was worth more than the a $10 cigar.
My CEO is a convicted criminal - name withheld - hint: head of a telco.

As my son would say - I'm down - let us know how the vote turns out.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   

buster2010
They made the banks have funds available for loans it's was the banks idea to create a pyramid scheme with toxic derivatives. Something the republicans refused to allow to be regulated.

And the bank bail out happened on Bush's watch not Obama's. And Obama didn't cancel the policies the insurance companies did.


"They made the banks have funds available for loans " and the outcome of government force in the free markets is a surprise to no one, but useful low information voters.

Can you blame the banks for trying to find a way to make destructive social-justice legislative nonsense at least profitable? Of course, some people will blame them, because banks are evil, greedy meanies who should be looted and all their wealth should be redistributed to the proletariat (via passing through the hands of the ruling class elite first, of course...)

The ACA law, by design and compliance, eliminated those insurance policies by deliberate design to flood the exchanges with customers and to make the premiums of those former policy holders skyrocket to fund (redistribution of wealth) the policies of other people.

Again, calamitous consequences are dependably expected by leftist interference in the free market and the personal lives of a once free people.

Obama owns his law; Obamacare, he embraced it, it is his 'shining achievement' and all the elected officials of his party who perpetuated the disgusting lie "If you like your Dr and Insurance, you can keep it!" to fool enough low information voters into re-electing a disastrous incompetent like Obama, are likewise stained and deserve the wrath of the constituents they betrayed and hurt.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join