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: 16
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Flatfish

Antigod

It's not BS. You seriously think that the guy who designed the Ipod is broke? That Steve Jobs was broke? Why shouldn't he have profited from his creativity?

The point is it requires the 1% er to set up the business in the first place, as cooperative groups of workers setting up thriving co-op businesses are rarer than hens teeth.

People with the drive and organisational abilities to set up a big business (and keep it afloat long term) and statistically uncommon. Worker drones are common.


No, the guy who designed the ipod is not broke. He's not a 1%er either.

Yes, Steve Jobs was broke. That why the first Apple was designed and made in his garage.

No one ever said that he shouldn't profit from his creativity.

It does NOT take 1%ers to set up business in the first place, that a total fallacy and the fact that Steve Jobs was indeed broke when invented the Apple proves it.

In order for Steve Jobs or anyone else to perpetuate the business model he has built, it requires that he take advantage of infrastructure that's already in place. Taxpayer funded infrastructure, like the internet he uses to market his products or the highways he uses to distribute them nationally. Or how about the taxpayer funded airports and seaports he would utilize for overseas transport and distribution. Not to mention the Customs inspectors who insure that his products, along with others, enter this country safely and devoid of contraband.

The point is, he didn't acquire what he has all by himself and/or without the help of others, I doubt it's even possible. This is exactly what President Obama was talking about back when he made his famous statement; "You didn't built that."

Everyone is entitled to profit from their creativity, just don't forget that in order to have a system where that is even possible, you have to return a certain portion of the proceeds to the system for maintenance and upgrades. Return too little and the system falls apart.


Sigh, your missing the point. He became part of the 1% as a result of effort and creativity.

Other people sure did contribute (for which they were paid), and he paid for his share of state resources via his taxes. The point is that the 1% tend to be the lynchpins that are crucial to making these things happen at all.




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


And everyone pays taxes on their way up. It's disingenuous to suggest that they don't and that somehow some owe more than others.

But if everyone paid a flat percentage of what they made, then some would pay more than others by the very nature of math. And it would be fair.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


So, by your logic and the president's, because there is infrastructure, there is business. It just naturally happens even if no one is inclined to create it?

Without Steve Jobs, there would be no iPod.

Without the Fiorella family, there would be Fiorella's Jack Stack BBQ. Without Arthur Bryant, no Arthur Bryant's ...

Are you going to tell me that without the people who created these unique BBQ recipes and put together their restaurants that the empty infrastructure alone would pop them up out of empty cloth?

You need the entrepreneurs to create. Without them, all you have is your empty infrastructure of dreams. Why do you think China has to steal from other countries that do allow innovation?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by Flatfish
 


And everyone pays taxes on their way up. It's disingenuous to suggest that they don't and that somehow some owe more than others.

But if everyone paid a flat percentage of what they made, then some would pay more than others by the very nature of math. And it would be fair.


A flat tax is anything but fair. Not only that, it wouldn't even work. Ever heard the old saying; "You can't squeeze blood from a turnip?" Well, you're not going to be very successful trying to collect money from those who don't have any to give.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take this power away from them, and all the great fortunes disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control credit. "

Wealth redistribution is a collectivist scam to destroy the middle class. The only way to get rid of the 1% is to totally eviscerate our financial system. Period.
edit on 31-1-2014 by OMsk3ptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I never said that jobs and/or businesses are the result of infrastructure. What I said is that those businesses would not prosper to the extent they have, without the infrastructure put in place by taxpayers.

When it comes to opening a new business, you always hear "location, location, location." What are they talking about? Location for what?

I'll tell you for what, location within the available infrastructure that will allow for the public to best access your product, that's what.

If you're making so much money that your tax rate is just getting your goat, quit! I'm quite sure that someone else will come along and fill the gap you left and be more than happy to pay the taxes. I think it's called supply & demand.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Antigod
The point is that the 1% tend to be the lynchpins that are crucial to making these things happen at all.


That's the lie they've been selling and apparently you've bought into it, hook, line & sinker.

Under your premiss, the slaves of yesteryear should have been grateful to the plantation owners for making their lives possible at all. Please!
edit on 31-1-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Flatfish
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I never said that jobs and/or businesses are the result of infrastructure. What I said is that those businesses would not prosper to the extent they have, without the infrastructure put in place by taxpayers.

When it comes to opening a new business, you always here "location, location, location." What are they talking about? Location for what?

I'll tell you for what, location within the available infrastructure that will allow for the public to best access your product, that's what.

If you're making so much money that your tax rate is just getting your goat, quit! I'm quite sure that someone else will come along and fill the gap you left and be more than happy to pay the taxes. I think it's called supply & demand.


Thereby collapsing all the necessary buinesses as the top fraction (who generally do critical organisational and creative jobs) end up on a remote beach living the simple life when they refuse to pay ludicrous tax rates. Plunging our civillisation into a collapse.

You suffer the same basic misunderstanding Marx did. Neither of you grasp the critical role capitalists play in organising our trade and infrastructure and in creating wealth. You also seem to be under the delusion there's a set amount of wealth, and that the 1% get an unfair share. They actually create wealth, way more than they end up owning usually via support busninesses and service staff who take care of their workers.

I suggest you read some good books on economics. Friedman is agood place to start.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Flatfish

Antigod
The point is that the 1% tend to be the lynchpins that are crucial to making these things happen at all.


That's the lie they've been selling and apparently you've bought into it, hook, line & sinker.

Under your premiss, the slaves of yesteryear should have been grateful to the plantation owners for making their lives possible at all. Please!
edit on 31-1-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)


Actually it's based on observation, and a good understanding of economics (which you lack) and smart fraction theory of the wealth of nations.

Just take a trip and visit a communist country to see whast happens when 'redistribution' is implemented. The entrepeneurs just do nothing (what's the point), the standard of living plummetsd the govt ends up corrupt and controlling. As a system of govt it's been dropped because not even the very bright Chinese could get it to work properly.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Flatfish

I've got an even better idea, how about I just have them send your check to me?



That works for me. I don't care how you get it, because I don't want it.





The cancellation of debt is the exact same thing as wealth re-distribution. If 1% of the population holds the wealth which includes the banks and their loans, when those debts are cancelled, you have effectively reduced the net worth of the 1%er and increased the net worth of the guy who no longer has any debt. I think that would qualify as wealth re-distribution. Oxymoron, anyone?



Uh, no, it isn't. You could cancel all debts owed everywhere at 9 am tomorrow morning, and I would be no richer. Your wealth (nor anyone else's) would not have been "redistributed" to me in any form or fashion. It would neither give me a windfall, increase my earning capacity, or decrease the "1%'s" earning capacity. In a best case scenario, it' nothing more than a reset, not a "redistribution".




I doubt there are any 1%ers making ipods today. If I'm not mistaken, they're more than likely being manufactured by child labor in sweat shops spread across Asia.



Cut out the 1% and buy direct then. If they're not doing anything for or to you, why are you so concerned about them?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I've decided to crash course you in economics.

Wealth is two things, stuff and work. Of the two work is the critical one, as stuff (manufactured) requires many hours of work to manufacture, plus raw materials (basic stuff).

The crucial thing is to organise the work so as much manufactured stuff is created as possible for the least possible man hours (reduces cost) and to make non stuff producing work as effective as possible.The more effective these systems are the richer all people are.

The number of people who are capable of this organisational skill is limited. It has a correlation with intelligence, but also requires creativity, practical mind and drive, and willingness to take risks. Frankly most people don't have the smarts or drive to organise others into a well functioning work force. That is basically what a capitalist does. He sets up a complex system to create wealth which wasn't there before (everyone was sat on their ass, raw materials unused).

As well as the direct wealth his system (business) creates, his employees spend money that supports other people, and so on. The actual percentage of the wealth created by his actions that he keeps is a minority.

Your're suggesting that the producer organiser should not benefit particularly from his work more than an employee. Why bother setting up the business then?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


I was following you 100 % right until you mentioned this line. " Bring a demon possessed baby to a church." Nope, you lost all credibility and I'm now finished reading this thread.

That's complete bull#, you have some right ideas, but religion is just as bad as the whole system the 1% exists in. Religion is the pacifier in this system, something for the lesser man to have hope and faith in. That's it, it's a set of rules for the lesser man.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Flatfish

If the quote you pasted in this post is an example of your argument against social justice, I think I'll just reserve my time for looking into things that actually make sense.



Where, in the entire history of Earth and humanity, has "social justice" EVER existed? This is a serious question - I don't even know what "social justice" IS, other than a cute catch phrase for have nots who want to steal from haves. In that sort of "justice", some of the animals are more equal than others, since they can take by legislative fiat what is not theirs from those whose it IS.

Does "justice", "social" or otherwise, apply unequally?

"Social justice" actually IS an oxymoron (defined as two contradictory terms conflated into a single term, like "military intelligence" and "social justice"), because justice can never be applied evenly socially. "Social justice" is an INjustice to the folks who get their stuff taken away to be given to others.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Antigod
Your're suggesting that the producer organiser should not benefit particularly from his work more than an employee. Why bother setting up the business then?


You see, I never said that.

On the other hand, the organizer shouldn't have the right to take all the profits from the venture while those in his employ live in poverty and are sustained on the taxpayers dime via the social safety net.

Maybe that's not what's happening but I think I read somewhere, just the other day, that the world's 85 richest people have more money than half the global population.

I hear what you'r saying though, "Why buy the plantation if I have to pay the slaves."



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

AlwaysIdeaMan

Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to grasp the fact that "success" is mostly a matter of LUCK. Right place, right time. If you think we all have equal opportunity, you are kidding yourself.

Rather than "redistributing" wealth, redefine it. Remove the barriers to survival (exchanging products of human energy to survive) and eliminate money, defining wealth as good character, friendships, accomplishments, and other social currencies. (See my post, page 8, bottom post.)


NO!

Let's NOT do that!

I say that because some sonofabitch will come along and try to "redistribute" my wealth, which I have scads of under that definition.

I wanna keep it. I'm the one that worked for it.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Antigod

You can't eliminate money, the token system is the only thing that makes a large complex trading culture possible.

Wealth is housing, food, shelter and a bunch of necessary stuff as well as toys like ferraris. And what do you do if you have problems making friends?


They can pass another law to accommodate "social justice", allocate friends to the friendless.... maybe take away some of my friends or yours, and give them to the friend-challenged.

They could call it "redistribution of friendship"... or just "redistribution of wealth" as a nice catch phrase.

What I want to know is - what happens when you start looking at the other guy's wife funny? Maybe his is better than yours. Are they going to redistribute those, too?





edit on 2014/1/31 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Flatfish

I think John Boehner said it best the other day when he said; "A leader must have followers in order to be effective, because a leader without followers is really just a guy taking a walk."



And followers without a leader are really just a random mob looking for trouble.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Flatfish

Antigod
Your're suggesting that the producer organiser should not benefit particularly from his work more than an employee. Why bother setting up the business then?


You see, I never said that.

On the other hand, the organizer shouldn't have the right to take all the profits from the venture while those in his employ live in poverty and are sustained on the taxpayers dime via the social safety net.

Maybe that's not what's happening but I think I read somewhere, just the other day, that the world's 85 richest people have more money than half the global population.

I hear what you'r saying though, "Why buy the plantation if I have to pay the slaves."


The employee is perfectly free to start up his own business, or get retrained for a skill and become self employed. The employees aren't slaves, and they get paid wages relevant to the level of their contribution. If this system is abolished, no one will bother to spend years skills training as they'll not get any benefit from it. Like I said, why bother puttting masses of effort into something if you get the same payout as an employee.

FYI, the top 1% at least in the UK already pay about 1/3 of all taxes. They and the other top 9% essentially pay for half the welfare system and everything else.

Half the global population are subsistence farmers that don't create any wealth. Not the responsibility of the wealth creators. Why should they be responsible for the whole planet?

As I said before, you suffer from a basic defect in understanding. That 1% mostly CREATE WEALTH. Got it? That aren't taking an unfair share if it's something they are making.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Antigod

AlwaysIdeaMan

zeroBelief


I've been reading about "all those awful people with MONEY" and about how we should all be warned of the "evils of greed"...

Funny, I was raised in a Capitalist society.

Everyone has the same chance (with the exceptions which we as a culture are working on, such as Obama using equal pay for women as a stomping point) to make a living here in the US as everyone else.

I am a HS dropout. I have a GED. I have 45 college credits under my belt. I earn a good living for my family. Why?

BECAUSE I WASN'T SATISFIED WITH THE OPTIONS I HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR MYSELF.

So what did I do? I CHANGED my options.

I'm hearing alot of young folks today chanting about how evil greed is. How we should redistribute wealth.

What utter BS.


Of course, greed, in as much as going so far as not doing your part socially, is bad. But, wanting more for you, yourself, and your family? MAKING something out of yourself?

No, this is an altruistic pipe dream that leads right into the hands of socialists and communism.

Redistribution of wealth? Are F$%ing kidding me?


EQUAL share of the pain. We all pay the same tax percentage. We all get the same legal opportunities.


Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to grasp the fact that "success" is mostly a matter of LUCK. Right place, right time. If you think we all have equal opportunity, you are kidding yourself.

Rather than "redistributing" wealth, redefine it. Remove the barriers to survival (exchanging products of human energy to survive) and eliminate money, defining wealth as good character, friendships, accomplishments, and other social currencies. (See my post, page 8, bottom post.)


You can't eliminate money, the token system is the only thing that makes a large complex trading culture possible.

Wealth is housing, food, shelter and a bunch of necessary stuff as well as toys like ferraris. And what do you do if you have problems making friends?


I say you're wrong. I say adding free energy - since all money accounts for is human energy - means that we can get rid of the accounting for energy. If products are available on the web, and can be ordered for free by anybody anywhere, what do we need TRADE for? Trade too is an accounting of human energy.

Yes, we presently define wealth in these terms, all representations of what we used our human energy to acquire.

If you have difficulty making friends in a world of abundance, go do what you love to do as long as it does no harm. Or alter your behavior if you want friends. You don't have to be socially rich to live richly in abundance.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

AlwaysIdeaMan

zeroBelief


I've been reading about "all those awful people with MONEY" and about how we should all be warned of the "evils of greed"...

Funny, I was raised in a Capitalist society.

Everyone has the same chance (with the exceptions which we as a culture are working on, such as Obama using equal pay for women as a stomping point) to make a living here in the US as everyone else.

I am a HS dropout. I have a GED. I have 45 college credits under my belt. I earn a good living for my family. Why?

BECAUSE I WASN'T SATISFIED WITH THE OPTIONS I HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR MYSELF.

So what did I do? I CHANGED my options.

I'm hearing alot of young folks today chanting about how evil greed is. How we should redistribute wealth.

What utter BS.


Of course, greed, in as much as going so far as not doing your part socially, is bad. But, wanting more for you, yourself, and your family? MAKING something out of yourself?

No, this is an altruistic pipe dream that leads right into the hands of socialists and communism.

Redistribution of wealth? Are F$%ing kidding me?


EQUAL share of the pain. We all pay the same tax percentage. We all get the same legal opportunities.


Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to grasp the fact that "success" is mostly a matter of LUCK. Right place, right time. If you think we all have equal opportunity, you are kidding yourself.

Rather than "redistributing" wealth, redefine it. Remove the barriers to survival (exchanging products of human energy to survive) and eliminate money, defining wealth as good character, friendships, accomplishments, and other social currencies. (See my post, page 8, bottom post.)


Luck. Sure.

Luck that I *MADE*.

Had I not cracked a book. Had I not accessed everything I could on the early stages of the internet. Had I not spent hours working on a program and shown a friend the problem I was having...he NEVER would have been impressed enough in my abilities to go talk to the President of the company he worked for and get me an interview.

Luck, is BS. We MAKE our own luck.

Luck is walking down the street, and stumbling into someone who says "Hey, would you like to interview to be the next Justin Beiber?"

And guess what, that doesn't happen.


So, you go ahead. Believe that luck is "just going to happen, or not happen to you". We'll see how far you and others get in life.

I have a family and we're comfortable.

Because I *MADE* my own luck.



Oh, and good luck with your commune ideals on "personal wealth" and trade based off of strength of character. It's worked out SO well in the past, SO many times whenever it's been tried.

Go right on ahead.
edit on 31-1-2014 by zeroBelief because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join