Oh, I'm sure he doesn't, I just believe he prefers the easy path and justifies it internally by speaking out against those who chose to save and sacrifice.
Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
define "bettering yourself"
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
The OP is under the delusion everyone has equal potential. If only the rich weren't holding back the poor, there wouldn't be poor. If that were true, we'd all be Michael Phelps.
ctwalrus
Active Member
i think the cap should be 300000000.
i forgot which rich guy interview i was watching i think bill gates
but he said he would be able to live his life as extravagent as he wants and hed never spend a penny over 3 hundred million.
but if there is to be a cap i dont think someone should just stop doing what they do to make so much, i think that it should just be off limits to use personally. like you have to donate or invest it into other seperate corporations or buisnesses or countries blah blah..
i forgot which rich guy interview i was watching i think bill gates
but he said he would be able to live his life as extravagent as he wants and hed never spend a penny over 3 hundred million.
but if there is to be a cap i dont think someone should just stop doing what they do to make so much, i think that it should just be off limits to use personally. like you have to donate or invest it into other seperate corporations or buisnesses or countries blah blah..
Easy, you get the best paying job you can with the education and skills you've attained.
If it takes going back to school, so be it. Then you work your tail off and sacrifice your play time while you're saving your money and investing it, you have to train yourself that your finances come before expensive toys and your social life (except for your kids), before you know it, you'll be so wrapped up in your own life that you're no longer concerned with how much others are making!
undertheice
Well-Known Member
just what is it we're supposed to do with the "excess" wealth? are we supposed to give it to our corrupt government officials to distribute as they please? are we just supposed to throw it up in the air and let anyone nearby grab it as best they can?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Wars do not provide freedom in the 21st century and we certainly don't go to war because our freedom is threatenedTo the OP. A simple reason this can't work.
Take wars. Wars are endorsed by government. The government can't exist without people.
If you want to maintain freedom, who pays for the equipment, including soldiers, weapons, etc. Right now the most used fighter is the F-16. We have about $24 billion worth of them. That doesn't include R&D, etc. Who pays for that?
We can give aptitude tests and force people into jobs. Then not count everything needed for those jets as part of your wealth cap. But then you have a form of communism, socialism and/or fascism.
Or you some sort of genius and have this all planned out to end all wars?
This is just one example. There are often far reaching consequences to what we first think is a simple suggestion.
You guys keep up the circle jerk, I was going to respond to the rest of this but I already know how that story ends and I'd rather go see how many rocks are in my yard to tell you the truth.
This current system is working brilliantly anyway.... right?
Unsubscribed
undertheice
Well-Known Member
yes, in fact it is. a quick look back just a few short centuries shows us just how well we are doing. a scant three hundred years ago, nearly all of the political and economic power was held by a fraction of a single percent of the population. though the job is by no means complete, we have made great strides in separating finance and politics and have given the power of self-determination to the general population. what the OP proposes, the aim of new liberalism in general, is actually a gigantic step backward in the evolution of our society. it is essentially the demand for a new system of modern feudalism, where every facet of our lives is controlled by the few and enforced by their agents throughout society. it is giving those with the violent power of government ever greater say over the lives of supposedly free men.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
He finally realized he lost. The best he can do is call those who disagree a circle jerk, rather than respond. We even played by his rules and did no name calling.
On a side note I agree wars aren't about freedom. But there is nothing we can do to stop them. We're fooled into believing our world policing is saving us. Yet more die from our actions around the world and not from attacks.
We already tried the non-interference policy with the Monroe Doctrine, but wars are too tempting for making money.
Until we wise up, it's in our best interest to have as close to a libertarian capitalist society. Humans aren't responsible enough and don't have the motivational drive to have a capitalist socialism libertarian society. The temptation to let others do the work for us while we do nothing is too great.
Maybe a hybrid society of Babylon 5 and Star Trek will be possible once technology advances and artificial intelligence can support it.
But, you will never get rid of humans' need to compete. We might be able to work together, but that is secondary to our need of wanting what's better then our neighbor's.
A means of measuring status and control will always be with us. If it isn't money, we humans will figure out something else to replace it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am not for a cap on attainable wealth but i am for regulations that make it all but impossible to attain a monopolistic amount of wealth.
having all the wealth centered is a great way to have a plutocracy or feudalism, but a horrible way to run a nation that does best when powered by a strong middle class.
americans certainly think that the distribution of wealth is out of sorts. it hasn't been this bad since right before the great depression.
having all the wealth centered is a great way to have a plutocracy or feudalism, but a horrible way to run a nation that does best when powered by a strong middle class.
americans certainly think that the distribution of wealth is out of sorts. it hasn't been this bad since right before the great depression.
beardo
Well-Known Member
I agree with your post and the charts and graphs make it wonderful, much better than average.i am not for a cap on attainable wealth but i am for regulations that make it all but impossible to attain a monopolistic amount of wealth.
having all the wealth centered is a great way to have a plutocracy or feudalism, but a horrible way to run a nation that does best when powered by a strong middle class.
americans certainly think that the distribution of wealth is out of sorts. it hasn't been this bad since right before the great depression.
I hate being poor and hate how things are, it's set up so the rich get richer and the poor are fucked, I am always getting ripped off by big companies and stuff, where if it was the other way around their would be big problems but when its me getting ripped off their is nothing I can do, bank can steal from me but if I stole from bank Id be killed or imprisioned, if I called cops to say bank stole from me they would laugh or give me a hard time, this is just one example of many, phone company, furniture store etc its all the same.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
stop doing business with companies you object to then. vote with your dollars.
beardo
Well-Known Member
You are correct, but it is bigger than that, yes in a way you are correct and to some degree that is effective but when you dig deeper and think broader and more abstract is when it gets scary
They don't want or need your money...
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I saw this video on youtube where this foreigner ordered an orange juice in the middle of the night from a Burger King. The teenagers thought it was funny to take his money but not give the drink. So he called the police telling him he was robbed. They police did nothing. The dude kept complaining and was arrested. Had the guy reached over the counter and took the OJ without paying, he'd also be in jail for shoplifting. What gives?
But that has nothing to do with advocating communism or too much attained wealth. It's just part of the broken system. Redistributing the wealth isn't the solution.
beardo
Well-Known Member
the solution is to stop the redistribution of wealth that is being perpetrated upon us, the top is redistributing your wealth and wealth creation to themselves concentrating the wealth into their small concentrated system and this redistribution is being enforced with force and threat of force.
budlover13
King Tut
i vote "no".
What gives? Ask yourself if those little punks would have gotten away with that 50 years ago or longer, or if that would happen in small town USA.
Liberals, lawyers and laws!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
50 years ago in small town USA, it is questionable that a foreigner would be welcomed into a local restaurant.
the good old days that clayton misses.