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.

 

Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

page: 11
28
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
So would you have it distributed equally to every man woman and child on the planet? In which case we'd all get what 1000 bucks? woohoo, or just a select few?

I guess that would be the big problem with that whole concept.
The Doctor saves lives, I just weld metal and build buildings so he should get more than me. But he has more than I do so I should get more. But now thats greedy isnt it?

You can talk and argue/debate it all you want because it will never happen. never ever.and it shouldn't.




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

spiritualzombie

beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan
 


You both seem to equate greed with a mental disorder.

greed (grēd)
n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth


What the sticking point becomes. . . is WHO determines what one needs


Beezzer, I think you skip over the main point. Greed is an illness. It is like a cancer that eats away at a nation and destroys it.

This 1% buying government, controlling everything, creating laws to benefit only the powerful, is an abomination of democracy
edit on 30-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


YOU define greed as an illness. I defined it by using the dictionary.

I could also define liberalism as an illness. But that doesn't make it accurate.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

No, actually they don't get more then they pay in, they actually get less.
79 is the average life expectancy, so 50% never collect everything they put in.
the other 50% may make it past 79, but not by much.
There aren't too many 100 year old's walking around out there.
If the system hadn't been abused it should be running at a slight profit.

Okay, how about this...
A soldier is wounded in Iraq after his first year in the military, and has to spend the rest of his life on disability.
Would you consider that to also be welfare?

You know that the numbers you are showing include him as well, he is on an “entitlement” by the definition of the “debt” calculator you're using.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

tinner07
So would you have it distributed equally to every man woman and child on the planet? In which case we'd all get what 1000 bucks? woohoo, or just a select few?

I guess that would be the big problem with that whole concept.
The Doctor saves lives, I just weld metal and build buildings so he should get more than me. But he has more than I do so I should get more. But now thats greedy isnt it?

You can talk and argue/debate it all you want because it will never happen. never ever.and it shouldn't.


I'm talking about supporting changes in policies where rich pay more than they pay now, the working class take more home, able to buy more, live more....

I am not talking about the end of wealth as we know it. I'm talking about bringing it down to a level that doesn't feel so completely corrupt.

Definitely money out of politics.

The medical industry is full of excess. It's not just about doctors getting paid more to save lives. It's about "how much is your life worth to you?" and gouging the F*ck out of you for it. It's about spending 4 hours in an emergency room, WITH health insurance, seeing a doctor for 5 minutes who tells you just to drink more water--- and then later getting a bill for $15,000. That is reality. That is the health system that many say is the envy of the world. That is greed, my friend.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





No, actually they don't get more then they pay in, they actually get less.


HOW ?

In gods name how ?

Since people PERSONALLY contribute less than the benefits received ?

In fact people come out ahead.




A soldier is wounded in Iraq after his first year in the military, and has to spend the rest of his life on disability. Would you consider that to also be welfare?


So we are using the military as political props to prove our political points ?

Unlike the majority of Americans he actually did something for it that can't ever be repaid.

Service to this country, and went and got shot at, and wounded in the line of duty.


edit on 30-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   

beezzer

AlwaysIdeaMan

beezzer

AlwaysIdeaMan

beezzer
reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan
 


You didn't answer my question.

Who then determines what someone "needs"?

Who determines what someone "wants"?


If we all can get what we ask for, who needs to define "needs?" That was my point. And clearly the one wanting something is the one who gets to define wants for himself (herself).

So if an individual wanted more than someone else, that would be okay?


Sure. Why would it be a problem in a world that has much more than we all could use? It would not take from others, so...I figure we all could have as much as we want. Some will want more, and others less. Who would care and, if any, why?



Because right now we have people that want more, create a system that provides for them, so they can obtain what they want.

You call that greed.

We also have people who have less, yet want more, but they call that "wealth redistribution".

(this is my confused bunny face)





Yes, as things stand NOW, with a system of money (promoting the psychopathic) that by its very nature allows a few to hoard the goods and require human energy input to give accounting tokens to use to "buy" things from the hoarders (enriching them more), greed is a factor.

With no such system, with all having the ability to get what they want by asking for it, there is no such thing as "wealth" as we know it today. Wealth is measured in character, in friendships, in accomplishments, in fame, in appreciation - in social currency, in other words. Greed is meaningless.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

beezzer
Because right now we have people that want more, create a system that provides for them, so they can obtain what they want.
You call that greed.
We also have people who have less, yet want more, but they call that "wealth redistribution".

(this is my confused bunny face)

You have corporations out there that want to pay no taxes, have no rules, make tax payers pay for their employees benefit packages, get big tax breaks and tax credits, and be bailed out by tax payers when they fraudulently 'cooked the books'.....
And call that capitalism.....

But when they are asked to pay taxes, contribute to their country, or their fellow citizens in return....
Start screaming socialism and communism....


edit on 1/30/2014 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

neo96
HOW ?
In gods name how ?
Since people PERSONALLY contribute less than the benefits received ?

Because they DON”T pay less, and 50% them pay MORE...
I just showed you the math....


neo96
So we are using the military as political props to prove our political points?

It's the exact same thing, and the soldier actually contributed fewer years of labor and payments into the system compared to the cost of the care its going to take for him for the rest of his life. I'm trying to show you how ridiculous this argument you're making is.

Your “clock” that you love to quote to us also includes him...



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Human behavior is regulated, as everybody knows. You have to pay taxes, you can't murder people, you have to go to school, and you can't drive past the school at 100 mph--in countless ways we work to curb our worst impulses. Greed is a normal impulse (fortunately not universal, but commonplace). Just like violence, it has to be channeled and managed.

Our old income-tax tables did a pretty good job. In 1944, while we were engaged in WW2, if you made over $200K, you paid a 94% income-tax on it.

Ronald Reagan, more than any recent president, reduced that drastically, and our society has suffered since. The astounding prosperity we knew after WW2 ended forever under Reagan, with a few sharp blips up and down the graph along the way.

You deal with greed by dealing with it. The first line of battle is taxes. I'd argue that it should be the classroom. Kids tend to behave as they are taught (I know, I know: with a million exceptions). If they're taught that greed is anti-social and harmful, that it reflects poorly on you, your upbringing and your family, it will reduce the "I gotta have it" and "me first" impulses.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Your heart is in the right the place. I have to ask though, what will keep such a massive migration of money floating to the top again? Wealth isn't wrong, being a boss isn't wrong... so what exactly is wrong? Exploitation is what's wrong. The ultra rich (beyond the 1%):

don't pay taxes
don't pay fair wages (foreign slave labor)
they don't pay import tariffs
they buy themselves out of environmental laws or hold operations in countries that have little to none
they lobby to get everything tilted in their favor including lobbying for laws they themselves don't have to follow so that it's extremely difficult for small businesses to grow

Let's change that, not punish the largely innocent for the evil of a few.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

AlwaysIdeaMan
Yes, as things stand NOW, with a system of money (promoting the psychopathic) that by its very nature allows a few to hoard the goods and require human energy input to give accounting tokens to use to "buy" things from the hoarders (enriching them more), greed is a factor.

With no such system, with all having the ability to get what they want by asking for it, there is no such thing as "wealth" as we know it today. Wealth is measured in character, in friendships, in accomplishments, in fame, in appreciation - in social currency, in other words. Greed is meaningless.


So you want to eliminate money, thinking that it will eliminate greed and inequality?



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Nah here is the math.

A person for instance who makes $45,000 a year pays Personally paid in $2,790 bucks at 6.2% towards their SS benefits.

Their employer matches that contribution at another $2,790 bucks for a grand total of $5,580.

Keep in mind that the AVERAGE SS benefit check is $1,000 per month plus of minus which comes to around $12,000 per year.

So a person only personally paid in less than $3,000 grand gets $12,000 grand in return that other people from the employers to everyone else is paying.


edit on 30-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

defcon5

beezzer
Because right now we have people that want more, create a system that provides for them, so they can obtain what they want.
You call that greed.
We also have people who have less, yet want more, but they call that "wealth redistribution".

(this is my confused bunny face)

You have corporations out there that want to pay no taxes, have no rules, make tax payers pay for their employees benefit packages, get big tax breaks and tax credits, and be bailed out by tax payers when they fraudulently 'cooked the books'.....
And call that capitalism.....

But when they are asked to pay taxes, contribute to their country, or their fellow citizens in return....
Start screaming socialism and communism....


edit on 1/30/2014 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


That's why I support a flat tax with no exemptions or exceptions.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by defcon5
 

A person for instance who makes $45,000 a year pays Personally paid in $2,790 bucks at 6.2% towards their SS benefits.
Their employer matches that contribution at another $2,790 bucks for a grand total of $5,580.
Keep in mind that the AVERAGE SS benefit check is $1,000 per month plus of minus which comes to around $12,000 per year.
So a person only personally paid in less than $3,000 grand gets $12,000 grand in return that other people from the employers to everyone else is paying.

$5,580 * 47 years = $262,260.00
Average years collecting SS is 12.
$262,260.00 / 12 = $21,855.00 / year
If someone is only getting $1000.00 / month as you state, the government has made $9855.00 in profit from them per year. They paid more then they got back....

The actual $21,855.00 / 12 payments would = $1821.25 / month.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

beezzer

spiritualzombie

beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan
 


You both seem to equate greed with a mental disorder.

greed (grēd)
n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth


What the sticking point becomes. . . is WHO determines what one needs


Beezzer, I think you skip over the main point. Greed is an illness. It is like a cancer that eats away at a nation and destroys it.

This 1% buying government, controlling everything, creating laws to benefit only the powerful, is an abomination of democracy
edit on 30-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


YOU define greed as an illness. I defined it by using the dictionary.

I could also define liberalism as an illness. But that doesn't make it accurate.


Greed destroys the hearts and minds of men, greed inflates its own self worth, and reduces the importance of less fortunate. Greed seeks the pursuit of itself, it is never satisfied, always needs more... It even deifies itself calling itself a Creator. A Job Creator to be worshipped.

Children need to be educated on the dangers of greed, in the same way they are educated on gang violence, drugs, and alcohol. They need to have the skills to identify people who suffer from greed vs people who have risen above it. They need this moral compass for the betterment of mankind. It won't save them all, but it will be a good start.



edit on 30-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

Your math only works if your drawing SS for the same number of years that you are paying into it.
That is NEVER the case, they adjust your benefits according to how much you paid into the system.
So your 47 years of paying in is covering about 12 years of drawing out.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





If someone is only getting $1000.00 / month as you state, the government has made $9855.00 in profit from them per year. They paid more then they got back.


Key words there average and plus or minus not everyone gets the same take:

And for the record:

Average SS check $1269

$1269.

Wouldn't think for one second the US federal government doesn't profit from that ponzi scheme.
edit on 30-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

defcon5
reply to post by neo96
 

Your math only works if your drawing SS for the same number of years that you are paying into it.
That is NEVER the case, they adjust your benefits according to how much you paid into the system.
So your 47 years of paying in is covering about 12 years of drawing out.


Actually their math is the one that isn't working.

Since they are running deficits, and have to cover the spending shortfalls by taking more money from other people, and various ways.
edit on 30-1-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

beezzer

AlwaysIdeaMan
Yes, as things stand NOW, with a system of money (promoting the psychopathic) that by its very nature allows a few to hoard the goods and require human energy input to give accounting tokens to use to "buy" things from the hoarders (enriching them more), greed is a factor.

With no such system, with all having the ability to get what they want by asking for it, there is no such thing as "wealth" as we know it today. Wealth is measured in character, in friendships, in accomplishments, in fame, in appreciation - in social currency, in other words. Greed is meaningless.


So you want to eliminate money, thinking that it will eliminate greed and inequality?



LOL! You are trying to place scarcity expectations on abundance. I don't "think" it will eliminate greed. I know it will make greed MEANINGLESS. And "inequality" too becomes meaningless. All may have what they want. What skin off your nose would it be if you're happy with a 3 bedroom house and Joe Blow over there has a 5 bedroom house? Why would you care? If you WANT a 5 bedroom - or 6 or 12 - house, you can have one. But when it no longer is a "status symbol," why would you, being happy with your 3 bedrooms, go get a bigger one?



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Wholesale "mass redistribution" of wealth is not the answer here. That is communism.

The answer, is to level the playing field by affording the same tax breaks and deals to the 99% that the 1% enjoy. Or rather, make the 1% actually PAY their DAMNED DUE and be a part of this society.

I'm a firm believe in the flat tax proposition.

I'm thinking 15-20% across the board, one figure in that range that EVERYONE pays. Now, that, IMHO, is fair.

And this crap with escaping estate taxes by essentially giving the money to themselves? Yeah, screw that. We can't do it, why should they.

The problem isn't that they hold the vast majority of the wealth. The problem is that they've influenced the Gov't to allow them to keep it.

Make the system truly fair, give everyone the same chances. No privileges because of family or donations.

That's all I want to see.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join