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: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

defcon5

mwood
So, If we take the 100 Million that one guy has and give 100 people a million dollars then everybody is a millionaire.

The problem is debt.
If we took all that money and gave it to others, by the time they pay off their debts they really aren't much ahead, and all the money just went back into the hands of another wealthy debtor. So lets say we take $100,000 from some billionaire, and we give it to Joe Average, by the time he pays off his $150,000 house mortgage, he is still in debt to the banker for $50K. All that $100,000 went from the billionaire to the banker, all you did was transfer wealth from one rich person to another. And...If you give that wealth to someone who is not in debt at present, I guarantee they soon will be.


I can agree with this but I challenge your problem being "debt" to instead being one of "education" and "mentality"....no one is forced into debt...its a choice people willingly make and sign contracts with...a lot of times completely ignorant of what they are truly doing and usually by no fault of their own other than they weren't properly educated on finances.

The underlying issue I personally feel is lack of certain education and over/underlying mental perspectives on finances that hinder people in that context.




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   

beezzer
What happens after the wealth is redistributed?

The whole mess starts again.
It will all slowly creep its way back to the top.
But that it happens slowly is the important part, as the playing field levels for a time.
Again, Wars and Revolutions are what kept this in check in the past.
Its happened before, it's just never gotten as unequal as it has now.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   

defcon5

beezzer
What happens after the wealth is redistributed?

The whole mess starts again.
It will all slowly creep its way back to the top.
But that it happens slowly is the important part, as the playing field levels for a time.
Again, Wars and Revolutions are what kept this in check in the past.
Its happened before, it's just never gotten as unequal as it has now.


Eventually maybe we learn from our mistakes. Eventually maybe we read the words of wisdom from the greatest spiritual teachers and actually take it to heart and apply it to policy.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

defcon5
The whole mess starts again.
It will all slowly creep its way back to the top.
But that it happens slowly is the important part, as the playing field levels for a time.
Again, Wars and Revolutions are what kept this in check in the past.
Its happened before, it's just never gotten as unequal as it has now.

Slowly is out of the question.

The rate of change in wealth inequality has never been driven by the actual wealth inequality.

It has, and always will be driven by the speed of the market.

Thanks to modern communication and logistics, that speed has, and will continue to increase.

edit on 30-1-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Why don't you offer a solution? I think anyone who believes in equality doesn't have an idea how the world works.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Wealth is not evil.

You have the peculiar idea that this one percent haven't earned their wealth. Most of them have you know.

Like I said before, there isn't some pre existing pie this one percent is taking an unfair slice from. They are in effect making new pies, through inventiveness and organisation of labour and risk of thier capital .Large organsations are quite critical to the manufacture of modern goods and our standard of living, and there's a limited number of people who can and will run them effectively.

You need to study economics a bit.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I don't know, but I would guess that I'm in the 50% bracket. And I am happy with that. I'm just barely out of the poverty bracket, but I only have myself to care about, no family or kids. What I have allows me to continue this adventure called life and I'm ok with that. There are probably people on this site that wish they had the money I made.

As for changes in societies way of thinking?, yes, I think it should happen, but let’s be honest...it won't. And it never will. It’s a dog eat dog world. Maybe…just maybe if aliens invade, we may get our act together. But I doubt it.

In the meantime, I'm going to continue to meander, mosey and gimp my way through life trying to enjoy my last years on this planet.

edit on 30-1-2014 by TDawgRex because: Spelling and a ETA



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

neo96
No it isn't as per the definition:


wel·fare (wĕl′fâr′) n. 1. a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. b. Prosperity. 2. Welfare work. 3. a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need. b. Corporate welfare. Idiom: on welfare Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.


Specifically in the US:


so′cial secu′rity
n.
1. (often caps.) a program of old age, unemployment, health, disability, and survivors' insurance maintained by the U.S. government through employer and employee payments.

Welfare is CHARITY that is given to the poor and paid by tax payers.
Social Security is a BENEFIT that is paid into by the retiree to be withdrawn upon retirement.

So specifically:
"Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need."
Vs
"a program of old age, unemployment, health, disability, and survivors' insurance maintained by the U.S. government through employer and employee payments."


neo96
Neither social security NOR medicare pay for themselves other people are paying for it:
1. Them evil rich people
2. Employers ARE.
3. The rest of us
4. Printing Money
5 Borrowing money.
6. Other taxation as per the capital gains tax.

1. They pay the same as every employee if they are employed.
2. They match the pay of the employee.
3. Only right now because the funds were borrowed by the government to pay for other things.
4. No, not at all.
5. If they have to borrow to pay that back its no different then them having to borrow to pay back any other loan for money they borrowed, such as a US Treasury and Saving Bond.


neo96
Once again there is nothing 'misleading' stating the facts.
People pay a pittances and the difference is made up by other means.
That in my book is WELFARE.

If I pay you $200/month on the good faith that I will be able to get that money back with INTEREST when I retire, and you spend it on bubble gum and baseball cards rather then investing it like you were supposed too.... Whose fault is that?!?

In reality you'd go to prison for that, its called FRAUD...

That is exactly what happened to Social Security.
The government cannot default on that money, as otherwise its fraud. They took payment from folks for it, now they OWE that back. Its NOT charity, its OWED...


neo96
Suppose doesn't have anything to do with it.

OH YES IT DOES!!!!
If I give my money to JP Morgan to invest in the stock market, and they take it to Vegas on a gambling trip, that's FRUAD and THEFT... It might even be EMBEZLEMENT...

em·bez·zle (ĕm-bĕz′əl)
tr.v. em·bez·zled, em·bez·zling, em·bez·zles
To take (money, for example) for one's own use in violation of a trust.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

spiritualzombie
Eventually maybe we learn from our mistakes. Eventually maybe we read the words of wisdom from the greatest spiritual teachers and actually take it to heart and apply it to policy.


Eventually none of that happens because the problem isn't people with money or people without money it's people.
This idea that being poor makes anyone more noble or honorable then someone with money is wrong.

I'm doing okay financially thanks to living a controlled but comfortable lifestyle , working hard in a place that does well with a high level and valued skill set. Tell me again why my wealth should be redistributed to the guy around the corner that spends his day sitting on the step smoking pot? Tell me again why someone with 8 billion times my wealth should have their money taken and given to the guy around the corner that spends his day sitting on the step smoking pot?

Besides it not making sense to me whenever you steal from one class or person to give to another all you do is play a shell game with the problem. I don't see redistribution of wealth as accomplishing anything.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

defcon5

beezzer
What happens after the wealth is redistributed?

The whole mess starts again.
It will all slowly creep its way back to the top.
But that it happens slowly is the important part, as the playing field levels for a time.
Again, Wars and Revolutions are what kept this in check in the past.
Its happened before, it's just never gotten as unequal as it has now.


That's my point.

No-one thinks of the "after" wealth has been redistributed.

As I stated in another thread, nothing changes for us, the only thing that changes are the names on the bank accounts.

This is an emotional reaction to the piss poor economy.

Not a rational look at what has happen, can happen, will happen.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I've looked up Welfare, Benefits, and Entitlements and they are all quite similiar according to the dictionary. At least in my view.

But I believe that they are three totally different things these days.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

spiritualzombie

beezzer
What happens after the wealth is redistributed?


After people are educated on the detrimental effects of greed? After an entire generation of kids see the society we live in now as one that put greed on a pedestal, used general judgments against poor people to make policy that only benefitted the super rich? And then, after many years of policy changes that result in a more balanced distribution of wealth... I would imagine at that point, we all live and struggle and survive together, like we do.

Beezzer, you do understand that there are many degrees of middle ground between a utopian society that I would like, and 1% ruling all that exists now.

The point is, 1% is a failed system and that wealth needs to be redistributed somehow back into society.

Caring about people needs to be a priority.




Your post is emotional and heart-felt, I'll give you that.

But any issue has to be looked at rationally. Not emotionally.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Antigod
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Wealth is not evil.

You have the peculiar idea that this one percent haven't earned their wealth. Most of them have you know.

Like I said before, there isn't some pre existing pie this one percent is taking an unfair slice from. They are in effect making new pies, through inventiveness and organisation of labour and risk of thier capital .Large organsations are quite critical to the manufacture of modern goods and our standard of living, and there's a limited number of people who can and will run them effectively.

You need to study economics a bit.


I never said wealth was evil. I think wealth can be amazing and inspiring.

What did I say that indicated I don't think wealthy people earned it? You misunderstand me. It's okay, there are a lot of posts, so let me make this clear.

We live in a system where 1% rules all. This 1% dictates law. The laws of corporations being people, money being free speech -- this is greed manipulating a system to feed their all-powerful ambitions. This is great for super wealthy who want to control the country, horrible for democracy.

Changes need to be made to balance it out.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Antigod
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Wealth is not evil.

You have the peculiar idea that this one percent haven't earned their wealth. Most of them have you know.

Like I said before, there isn't some pre existing pie this one percent is taking an unfair slice from. They are in effect making new pies, through inventiveness and organisation of labour and risk of thier capital .Large organsations are quite critical to the manufacture of modern goods and our standard of living, and there's a limited number of people who can and will run them effectively.

You need to study economics a bit.



No it is you that needs to study exactly what it is that is going on.

Take a look at this chart and you explain to me, what it is exactly that the top 5% are doing today that they were not doing in 1965 that justifies how far they have pulled away from everyone else.



There already is a redistribution of wealth going on. But it seems the same tired old conservatives are quite alright with it. The fact is we do have a system that should be about equal opportunities, not necessarily equal outcomes. Everyone makes out better the closer together those lines are. Take away minimum wage the result will be the blue and yellow lines going down. Lower taxes on the "job creators" the red line will go further up than it already does. It is kind of funny how those lines start dividing in 1975 when when our trade policies started practicing "free trade" with the third world. It is even more interesting that the first big jump in income redistribution came with Old Ronnie and "trickle down".


I often find it funny when the conservative stooges come in here and bash the Imperial President, yet are quite content to bend knee to the Noble class that really runs this country.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





Welfare is CHARITY that is given to the poor and paid by tax payers.


Charity is a voluntary act of good will towards their neighbor.

Welfare is a mandatory sadist act against their neighbor.




Social Security is a BENEFIT that is paid into by the retiree to be withdrawn upon retirement.


'Benefit' to the detriment of many others.




1. They pay the same as every employee if they are employed. 2. They match the pay of the employee. 3. Only right now because the funds were borrowed by the government to pay for other things. 4. No, not at all. 5. If they have to borrow to pay that back its no different then them having to borrow to pay back any other loan for money they borrowed, such as a US Treasury and Saving Bond.


Why are you ignoring those programs funds are made up by other means because they DO NOT generate the revenue to fund them ?




In reality you'd go to prison for that, its called FRAUD...


Those programs ARE FRAUD.

Since people are getting 100% of that so called 'benefit', and the difference is made up by others.




OH YES IT DOES!!!! If I give my money to JP Morgan to invest in the stock market, and they take it to Vegas on a gambling trip, that's FRUAD and THEFT... It might even be EMBEZLEMENT...


Why yes giving hard earned money to the US government is so much better without a choice.


Alright fine let's have it your way please by all means tell me what to call then:

What is it called when someone creates government programs that pays out more than they take in, and the difference is made up by robbing from other people ?


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



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

beezzer

spiritualzombie

beezzer
What happens after the wealth is redistributed?


After people are educated on the detrimental effects of greed? After an entire generation of kids see the society we live in now as one that put greed on a pedestal, used general judgments against poor people to make policy that only benefitted the super rich? And then, after many years of policy changes that result in a more balanced distribution of wealth... I would imagine at that point, we all live and struggle and survive together, like we do.

Beezzer, you do understand that there are many degrees of middle ground between a utopian society that I would like, and 1% ruling all that exists now.

The point is, 1% is a failed system and that wealth needs to be redistributed somehow back into society.

Caring about people needs to be a priority.




Your post is emotional and heart-felt, I'll give you that.

But any issue has to be looked at rationally. Not emotionally.


Are you saying the system we have now where 1% controls 99%, where greed rules all, is.... rational?



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Sly1one
I can agree with this but I challenge your problem being "debt" to instead being one of "education" and "mentality"....no one is forced into debt...

That's not really true anymore.
Unless you are born rich, you have to go in debt to get an education, to have a house, to buy a vehicle, for health care issues, etc. Students are coming out of school owing sometimes a quarter of a million before they even make a dime in the real world.

Its like the OP said, we are playing Monopoly and all the board spots are already owned. With every move you make you are paying out to the person who owns that spot. There are really no realistic moves that will not lead to debt. The system has been intentionally set that way as the rich are making money on money, or 'residual income'. Everything you do ultimately goes to paying them more residual income, or landing you into debt to them.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

spiritualzombie


Are you saying the system we have now where 1% controls 99%, where greed rules all, is.... rational?


"Where greed rules all"

Greed does not "rule all".

Greed exists on every spectrum of the economic scale. Just because one is poor, doesn't immune one's self to greed.

If we are to have a rational debate and solution-outcome, you'll have to realize that greed exists in all walks of life.

And 1% controls the 99%. Okay.

I make a good salary. I write policy where I work. I determine how I want to live, what I want to spend, and where I want to spend it. If I'm being controlled, I'd like to see how.

Many of the 99% (as you put it) enjoy the entitlements and look to government to secure them in medical care, housing needs, food, and the basics of life.

If there is control, I'd look there first.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

defcon5

Sly1one
I can agree with this but I challenge your problem being "debt" to instead being one of "education" and "mentality"....no one is forced into debt...

That's not really true anymore.
Unless you are born rich, you have to go in debt to get an education, to have a house, to buy a vehicle, for health care issues, etc. Students are coming out of school owing sometimes a quarter of a million before they even make a dime in the real world.


I wasn't born rich. My family struggled until all of the children made it out into the world. I dropped out of High School my Junior year and still was the first to retire at 48. I have had no credit cards since 1988. I live cash only. I invested my time and effort into what I was good at. I'm not rich by a long shot, but I'm not totally stressed out either.

It hard and difficult, but it can be done as long as you stick to a plan. And yes, you absolutely must have a plan A, B, C, etc.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

spiritualzombie
The 1% is a problem.

If this were one of those sim games, where you control the sim-nation, and it evolved to a state of mass poverty and 1% of the population controlling everyone else, that game would be considered a fail. Too much unhappiness. Not enough balance.

They have tipped the scales too far. It's obvious to any reasonable person. This psychosis of greed may even destroy the world if it's allowed. I am convinced at this point that the "free market" championed by these mentally ill people is nothing more than an enabler to their addiction.

I'm reminded of a time I played monopoly with my little sister. I won that game so well-- but the winnings were so good, I didn't want to stop playing. My stacks of $500 bills so high that it went beyond the capacity of the bank, and we had to switch to paper and calculator. My little sister was so sad to lose and I had so much fun winning that I said, don't worry, just pay me what you can now, give me your railroads, and when you pass go, just give me the $200 for a few turns. I worked out a nice little debt system for her so she could still hang onto hope of winning... of course I knew she had no chance. Every lap around the board she only accrued more debt. She was not having fun, but I kept encouraging her. This mentality is exactly in control of the capitalist system. It's bad. It's a scam. There is no opportunity and they know it. They LIKE it that way.

Time for a massive change. I vote for a mass redistribution of wealth.
edit on 30-1-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


A friend of mine told me about this thread here and she knew I had been reading about the idea that money is accounting for human energy. She said I might be able to add something here and convinced me to sign up.

I suggest that it's time, not to redistribute wealth, but to eliminate the need for money. From what I have read, there are a number of things that add up to our ability to do just that.

1. There is a huge amount of energy available all around us - and those who have discovered how to extract this energy have been suppressed, one way or another

2. Free energy would remove most of the cost of things, all down the line

3. Robotics is at a point where necessary work that nobody wants to do can be done by robot

4. Some 90% of the jobs we have out there are in support of the money system (and therefore producing nothing of value):


  • Banking
  • Insurance
  • Advertising
  • Wall Street
  • Accounting
  • Sales
  • Cashiering


5. There is plenty for us all in this world - we throw out enough food from spoilage (or simply past date) to feed everybody here because we are distributing by profit, not need

And if you think about it, any system of money will promote the most psychopathic to the top. They are the ones who will do whatever it takes to get the money and the power, at the expense of us peons.

Since money accounts for energy, if we had free energy, and filled productive jobs with people who want to do the jobs or with robot workers, accounting for money becomes useless. Like accounting for leaves on all the trees.

This would free us all from having to add energy to a system just to survive. We would have nobody starving, no debt slavery, no profiteering. We could order things we want on the web for free.

We could do what we want - if we had only three laws:

1. Don't deliberately hurt or kill each other
2. Don't deliberately take or damage each other's property
3. Don't defraud each other

If we teach our children to find what they love to do and develop the skills - with a betterment ethic instead of a work ethic - rather than giving up what they love to find a way to get money to survive, our children (and us) will create much better, unblocked from suppression to protect profits and power. The cures that are hidden will come out in the open. Truth will not be sullied with propaganda.

It may not be a perfect world, but hey, it surely would be much better than now.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join