Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

Originally posted by Mindship
I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

All I have to say is

"Amen."

(Prepares himself to be labeled as a "Commie" by other members)

I disagree.

You can't put a value on an idea, or invention, or a person's worth. If one person has the ability, and the talent, skill, etc to do so they should be free to make as much money as possible for them.

People earning the money that way, eg Bill Gates, is much different than people stealing it by de-frauding companies. They should have the right to capitalize on their abilities without someone limiting them.

Not to mention people with that kind of money need it to support their lifestyles.

I agree. Socialism, even in small amounts, goes against the natural flow of things. People should be allowed to either sink or swim on their own.. those who don't swim shouldn't be thrown a life preserver and those who do shouldn't be thrown an anchor.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I agree. Socialism, even in small amounts, goes against the natural flow of things. People should be allowed to either sink or swim on their own.. those who don't swim shouldn't be thrown a life preserver and those who do shouldn't be thrown an anchor.

I think you guys are missing Mindship's point though..I don't really believe that he's condoning Soviet Union style Socialism..which essentially equates to Marxism and Communism, but I believe he's just saying that Capitalism could learn from some socialist ideals.

Come on now guys. Maybe the 10 million dollar figure was a bit low..But I believe there should be a cap on the amount of wealth an individual is able to acquire. After a certain amount, wealth just seems to be gratuitous.

Would it not make sense to have a safety net for society? You're closer to the top of the barrel, when the bottom of the barrell isn't too far down.

Socialism is a wonderful thing, when used in moderation and in the correct way. It benefits everyone involved, and detracts from everyone equally.

Just because socialism is introduced into a society, doesn't mean that free-market economies and capitalism has to be done away with, entirely

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I think you guys are missing Mindship's point though..I don't really believe that he's condoning Soviet Union style Socialism..which essentially equates to Marxism and Communism, but I believe he's just saying that Capitalism could learn from some socialist ideals.

Come on now guys. Maybe the 10 million dollar figure was a bit low..But I believe there should be a cap on the amount of wealth an individual is able to acquire. After a certain amount, wealth just seems to be gratuitous. It doesn't really matter if it's 10 million or 10 trillion as far as I'm concerned.. there should be no uneccesarry limits to one's accomplishments. If they want to have all that money and have the means to do so, they should be allowed. Do I think they should give a lot of it away to charity and whatnot? Of course, but if they don't do so on their own free will then that sorta defeats the purpose.

As far as I'm concerned, we're better off without a "safety net." The lack of a financial crutch creates more motivation to become self-sufficient.

Socialism is a nice Ideal.
It could never happen, but it would be nice if it did.
I think a better way to deal with the massive gap between the rich and poor is to bring the poor up instead of bringing the rich down.
Not that I am in love with the ultra-rich or anything, I just don't think a wealth cap is the way to solve the problem.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Socialism is a nice Ideal.
It could never happen, but it would be nice if it did.
I think a better way to deal with the massive gap between the rich and poor is to bring the poor up instead of bringing the rich down.
Not that I am in love with the ultra-rich or anything, I just don't think a wealth cap is the way to solve the problem.

speaking from a resource stand point, that isn't possible.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I agree. Socialism, even in small amounts, goes against the natural flow of things. People should be allowed to either sink or swim on their own.. those who don't swim shouldn't be thrown a life preserver and those who do shouldn't be thrown an anchor.
corporations hate socialsim when it comes to workers rights or antitrust laws, but they love it when it comes to huge government subsidies which they recieve whether they need them or not

People like Gates, Winfrey, etc, do put much of their wealth to charitable use, but seems to me they are the exception. IMO, most people with wealth and power use their wealth and power to acquire More wealth and power ("Power corrupts yada yada yada", often to the detriment of those who don't have wealth and power, either by overwhelming circumstance or choice.

Should the "less fortunate" be allowed to live off the efforts of the "more fortunate?" Of course not. Every person is ultimately responsible for his/her own life, if not the circumstances then how he/she responds to circumstance. Welfare Layer to society? No, thank you.

Should the "very fortunate" help those in need? Absolutely, though honestly I'm not sure if it should be government-ordained, since corruption exists there too. Plus, charity should come from the heart willingly. But since this seems far and few between, some kind of nationalized system does seem in order. Would it be up to snuff like private? Generally, it isnt, but IMO, it probably would be if the Wealthy and Powerful could in some way profit from it (inject sarcasm here).

I offer the wealth cap only as an initial platform for debate. My broader statement is simply this: our way of life as is, is hardly perfect. Perhaps there is no better way until we, as a species, mature and realize the egocentric lifestyle is not the Golden Path (and vice versa). But (again, working off Churchill) to put it yet another way: if a person fails all subjects but passes with a 65 in Math, that doesnt mean he/she is good in Math.

Have you ever imagined how much simpler and genuinely more rewarding our society could be if, simply, we truly cherished honesty and compassion, instead of giving it so much "Only $19.99 Act now and get 1 free!" lip service?

BTW, ppl, thanks for the feedback. Good stuff.

There's really no point.

First of all, it is hypocritical to have a system that relies upon encouraging people to make money, but then put a limit on how far that can go; it would simply limit the drive of people to be so successful- and remember, people almost never get that rich without creating employment for a whole load of other people.

Secondly... it's far too simplistic. Bill Gates might be worth a fortune, but nearly all of it is in stock. Are you going to forbid people owning stock, or property? The system would be absurd to administrate- not to mention offshore accounts, the fact that value is related to confidence... and so forth.

No, for better or worse- and it's mostly for better- we have capitalism, and if you try and impose limits like that on it, you only bugger it up. Tpt is right; there are much better ways to deal with the issue.

Originally posted by Mindship
I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

we-tard-ed..............our system already throws socialism in the mix.............caps on wealth lame. Bringing up the poor? Well take the poor that bust their ass to make it and take them up a notch. The ones with hands out should get them cut off......ho ho ho merry christmas!

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
It doesn't really matter if it's 10 million or 10 trillion as far as I'm concerned.. there should be no uneccesarry limits to one's accomplishments. If they want to have all that money and have the means to do so, they should be allowed. Do I think they should give a lot of it away to charity and whatnot? Of course, but if they don't do so on their own free will then that sorta defeats the purpose.

As far as I'm concerned, we're better off without a "safety net." The lack of a financial crutch creates more motivation to become self-sufficient.

But you see..there is a certain degree of "Socialism" even in "Capalist" societies...just not to the extreme of Soviet Style Marxism. For example..in the United States, they're are all types of "Checks and Balances" in place that are used prevent any one individual(s) from become to wealthy/powerful. Think about it, we have laws in place that prevent monopolizing, as well as a progressive tax system. A true Capitalist society wouldn't have these things. Imagine if the United States had a flat tax system. The gap between the Rich and Poor would be even wider.

There's a lot of demand for flat rate taxing these days, actually. Some of the eatsern European states are trying it out, and there is a big debate about it in the UK.

The idea is that the flat rate only comes in at the rough equivalent of $20000 a year, so people on less than that pay no tax at all, but all income above that point is taxed at a flat rate throughout. The pitch is that it is much easier to administrate and harder for rich people to wriggle out of.

Originally posted by Mindship
I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

I think that that would be a great start. You got my vote.

Originally posted by silver_tears
I disagree.

You can't put a value on an idea, or invention, or a person's worth. If one person has the ability, and the talent, skill, etc to do so they should be free to make as much money as possible for them.

People earning the money that way, eg Bill Gates, is much different than people stealing it by de-frauding companies. They should have the right to capitalize on their abilities without someone limiting them.

Not to mention people with that kind of money need it to support their lifestyles.

The problem with this idea is that some people have certain advantages to gain this wealth than other people do. Being born into a wealthy family for instance would give you more opportunities to become a wealthy individual as an adult. People born and raised in poor settings without advantages of a great education and proper nourishment whether it be food or love, have a significantly less chance to have the social nohow to progress in the business world. And the idea of "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps" is moot. You need someone to direct you. People just don't become a genius overnight with a technical knowledge of the international business community.
Having the "right" to capitilize on other people while already having an unfair advantage is NOT fair.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I agree. Socialism, even in small amounts, goes against the natural flow of things. People should be allowed to either sink or swim on their own.. those who don't swim shouldn't be thrown a life preserver and those who do shouldn't be thrown an anchor.

Okay the natural flow of things is people capitalizing on other less fortunate people. Is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by meep-meep
The problem with this idea is that some people have certain advantages to gain this wealth than other people do. Being born into a wealthy family for instance would give you more opportunities to become a wealthy individual as an adult. People born and raised in poor settings without advantages of a great education and proper nourishment whether it be food or love, have a significantly less chance to have the social nohow to progress in the business world. And the idea of "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps" is moot. You need someone to direct you. People just don't become a genius overnight with a technical knowledge of the international business community.
Having the "right" to capitilize on other people while already having an unfair advantage is NOT fair.

What if a person came from an impoverished family and made it to the top. Would you be willing to cap that too even with all they had to get through?

I think that is unfair, if someone has the determination and drive to succeed, no one should take that away.
But like I said again, I don't mean succeed by fraud or other illegal means.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Okay the natural flow of things is people capitalizing on other less fortunate people. Is that what you're saying?

I'm pretty sure he meant survival of the fittest. That is the natural flow, you're better than someone else then you should have something to show for it.
We have to admit it, everyone is not at the same level, and by putting a cap on wealth that's basically like saying your efforts are pointless. There would be no such to succeed anymore.
And what about professional athletes? With a limit to how much they can make, they do not play as well.

I'm just going to make one contribution to this discussion:
YOU MISQUOTED CHURCHILL! Churchill said something very similar to that but it was not about capitalism. It was about democracy.
For the record...
Churchill on Democracy: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."
Churchill on Capitalism: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Originally posted by Zarathustra
I'm just going to make one contribution to this discussion:
YOU MISQUOTED CHURCHILL! Churchill said something very similar to that but it was not about capitalism. It was about democracy.
For the record...
Churchill on Democracy: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."
Churchill on Capitalism: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Please read what I wrote more carefully. I began my post with:

I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

Thanks for the full quote, though. Isn't the Net wonderful?

Originally posted by silver_tears
I'm pretty sure he meant survival of the fittest. That is the natural flow, you're better than someone else then you should have something to show for it.
We have to admit it, everyone is not at the same level, and by putting a cap on wealth that's basically like saying your efforts are pointless. There would be no such to succeed anymore.
And what about professional athletes? With a limit to how much they can make, they do not play as well.

Well, I'm a successful person but I don't make a whole lot of money nor do I want to. I walk up EVERY morning with motivation and creative thoughts. The thought that the only rewards we strive for in life are the most money we can make is a very greedy take on human nature. Personally, I find satisfaction with talking to interesting and stimulating people. I find satisfaction with kissing a beautiful women (Jennifer) or wanting to. I find satisfaction in running 10 miles and drinking a beer afterward. I find satisfaction in bench pressing 225 pds. I find satisfaction in eating a delicious lunch. I don't find satisfaction in trying to make as much money as I can and brag about how hard I worked to get it.

Originally posted by silver_tears
What if a person came from an impoverished family and made it to the top. Would you be willing to cap that too even with all they had to get through?

I think that is unfair, if someone has the determination and drive to succeed, no one should take that away.
But like I said again, I don't mean succeed by fraud or other illegal means.

Yes I believe even if someone who worked out of poverty to become a wealthy person they too should be subjected to a cap. Why should they be treated any different? But people like athletes who do work to get out of poverty aren't working in their community to get that wealth. People from poverty who work in their community and get lots of wealth usually give back to their community and if they don't they are probably just sucking the money from their neighbors.
Determination and drive is good. Its especially good when those qualities are used to make the quality of life better for ALL people. Determination and drive to get rich at the expense of other peoples health is wrong.

IMO: With regard to athletes--and for that matter, also movie stars and rock stars--making as much money as they do: some believe that, hey, if we wanna pay them so much, that's our choice. Yes, this is true (and please note, human beings don't always make the wisest choices). It just seems to me that something is not quite right, values-wise, when we pay people who basically provide entertainment--ie, escape from reality--so much more than we pay people who help prepare us for reality (eg, teachers).

I once heard, many moons ago (perhaps someone can help here), a quote to this effect:
"What do you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dish-washing liquid and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade?"

Again, for the record: God Bless this great nation. I only hope that, in time, we will find a better way to manage our affairs.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
But you see..there is a certain degree of "Socialism" even in "Capalist" societies...just not to the extreme of Soviet Style Marxism. For example..in the United States, they're are all types of "Checks and Balances" in place that are used prevent any one individual(s) from become to wealthy/powerful. Think about it, we have laws in place that prevent monopolizing, as well as a progressive tax system. A true Capitalist society wouldn't have these things. Imagine if the United States had a flat tax system. The gap between the Rich and Poor would be even wider. Flat tax rate as in the same amount of money is payed by everyone or flat tax rate as in the same percentage regardless of income? The first is a bit ridiculous, and I don't see how the second is at all socialist.

There are rules against monopolies because monopolies actually restrict the free market. I'm not arguing that no regulation is needed, just that financial success/failure should have no limit.
Originally posted by meep-meep
Okay the natural flow of things is people capitalizing on other less fortunate people. Is that what you're saying? That's exactly what the natural flow of things is, actually. The strong prosper, many times at the expense of the weak.

Is it really any better for the less fortunate to capitalize on the hard work of the rich? As long as the money is earned in an honest and legal way, they deserve every penny. Why should they be told they can't succeed past a certain limit cause that would be greedy? At least they are earning their money; we aren't just handing it over to them for winning our sympathy.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO: With regard to athletes--and for that matter, also movie stars and rock stars--making as much money as they do: some believe that, hey, if we wanna pay them so much, that's our choice. Yes, this is true (and please note, human beings don't always make the wisest choices). It just seems to me that something is not quite right, values-wise, when we pay people who basically provide entertainment--ie, escape from reality--so much more than we pay people who help prepare us for reality (eg, teachers).

I once heard, many moons ago (perhaps someone can help here), a quote to this effect:
"What do you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dish-washing liquid and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade?"

Again, for the record: God Bless this great nation. I only hope that, in time, we will find a better way to manage our affairs.

true dat.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO: With regard to athletes--and for that matter, also movie stars and rock stars--making as much money as they do: some believe that, hey, if we wanna pay them so much, that's our choice. Yes, this is true (and please note, human beings don't always make the wisest choices). It just seems to me that something is not quite right, values-wise, when we pay people who basically provide entertainment--ie, escape from reality--so much more than we pay people who help prepare us for reality (eg, teachers).

I once heard, many moons ago (perhaps someone can help here), a quote to this effect:
"What do you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dish-washing liquid and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade?"

Again, for the record: God Bless this great nation. I only hope that, in time, we will find a better way to manage our affairs. That is because we pay them based on the money that can be made from their service, not from the value of the service itself. Entertainment rings in the cash, teaching kids for free does not. Plus, to be fair, the averages person's chances of becoming a teacher are much better then the average person's chances of making the NFL.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Flat tax rate as in the same amount of money is payed by everyone or flat tax rate as in the same percentage regardless of income? The first is a bit ridiculous, and I don't see how the second is at all socialist.

There are rules against monopolies because monopolies actually restrict the free market. I'm not arguing that no regulation is needed, just that financial success/failure should have no limit.
That's exactly what the natural flow of things is, actually. The strong prosper, many times at the expense of the weak.

Is it really any better for the less fortunate to capitalize on the hard work of the rich? As long as the money is earned in an honest and legal way, they deserve every penny. Why should they be told they can't succeed past a certain limit cause that would be greedy? At least they are earning their money; we aren't just handing it over to them for winning our sympathy.

So a person who works hard their whole life and never becomes a millionare doesn't deserve to be a millionare? Do they need to be a millionare to be happy? No. Are millionares happy? dunno but seems like the buly things to make them happy.
My point in cae you missed it is that very rich people who worked hard their whole lives deserve to be happy because they work. They don't deserve to own more than 100 people they employ.

Also, to Mindship: Interesting quote. I never heard it before but interesting.

Originally posted by meep-meep
So a person who works hard their whole life and never becomes a millionare doesn't deserve to be a millionare? Do they need to be a millionare to be happy? No. Are millionares happy? dunno but seems like the buly things to make them happy.
My point in cae you missed it is that very rich people who worked hard their whole lives deserve to be happy because they work. They don't deserve to own more than 100 people they employ. For the most part no. They don't deserve to be a millionare. The only people who deserve to be millionares are those who not only work hard but are smart enough to apply that work on something that is going to get them rich. Busting your ass at some dead end job doesn't make you worthy of being a millionare. I work hard, but I don't deserve to be a millionare cause I haven't contributed anything that would make a million dollars. If I'm not creating a hefty profit in some way or another than what makes you think I deserve said profit?

I believe that this might jsut be one of the worst ideas I ever heard. Why should anyone work when they have aquired the limit? And face it, we do need the people who are able to aquire that much money, they don't get the money for nothing they get it cause they are worth iot, maybe not all, but most do. I think a little socialised capitalism, meaning that there is some sort of social security is necessary, but except for that everyone should be allowed to aquire as muh wealth as they wish.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
For the most part no. They don't deserve to be a millionare. The only people who deserve to be millionares are those who not only work hard but are smart enough to apply that work on something that is going to get them rich. Busting your ass at some dead end job doesn't make you worthy of being a millionare. I work hard, but I don't deserve to be a millionare cause I haven't contributed anything that would make a million dollars. If I'm not creating a hefty profit in some way or another than what makes you think I deserve said profit?

So people who are smarter deserve to capitalize on others stupidity? I consider myself to be as intelligent as anyone but not better than anyone. I am not entitled to make morre money than someone who doesn't have as good an education as myself or is from a less wealthy family, or from someone who doesn't have the resources to become a millionare. Using your argument someone who capitalizes on the fact that many people are drug addicts and gets rich off of dealing drugs and works hard making and dealing those drugs "deserves" to be rich. Just because you work in a "dead-end" job doesn't mean you aren't smart are have drive. It sounds to me like you are just unhappy. There are people who work in the same not0so-glamorous job for their whole lives and they don't complain about how dead end their job is. If you are surrounded by good people it doesn't matter. Now if you are being paid shit than you do deserve to be unhappy. You deserve the right to be paid at least a living wage. In fact it's the people who make so much money that you should be trying to talk with about your situation. They don't like to talk though so sometimes you have to get their attention through organization.

Dealing with drugs is a whole different thing, it is dangerous and a threat to whoever uses them. To cfapitalize on that is illegal. Of course you are not allowed to make money off of illegal dealings. But if you are just better in one way or another than other people, and those other people actually decide to give you money for your skills, you sure as hell are allowed to take that money if you please. So if you don't become a millionaire you are either not good enough (regarding your circumstances) or you do not want to. And puitting a limit to what you can achieve will jsut make our societies fail eventually, it is against huian nature and there are only so many who can actually form an elite to keep things going.

Originally posted by meep-meep
So people who are smarter deserve to capitalize on others stupidity? I consider myself to be as intelligent as anyone but not better than anyone. I am not entitled to make morre money than someone who doesn't have as good an education as myself or is from a less wealthy family, or from someone who doesn't have the resources to become a millionare. Using your argument someone who capitalizes on the fact that many people are drug addicts and gets rich off of dealing drugs and works hard making and dealing those drugs "deserves" to be rich. Just because you work in a "dead-end" job doesn't mean you aren't smart are have drive. It sounds to me like you are just unhappy. There are people who work in the same not0so-glamorous job for their whole lives and they don't complain about how dead end their job is. If you are surrounded by good people it doesn't matter. Now if you are being paid shit than you do deserve to be unhappy. You deserve the right to be paid at least a living wage. In fact it's the people who make so much money that you should be trying to talk with about your situation. They don't like to talk though so sometimes you have to get their attention through organization.

and your not rich either

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dealing with drugs is a whole different thing, it is dangerous and a threat to whoever uses them. To cfapitalize on that is illegal. Of course you are not allowed to make money off of illegal dealings. But if you are just better in one way or another than other people, and those other people actually decide to give you money for your skills, you sure as hell are allowed to take that money if you please. So if you don't become a millionaire you are either not good enough (regarding your circumstances) or you do not want to. And puitting a limit to what you can achieve will jsut make our societies fail eventually, it is against huian nature and there are only so many who can actually form an elite to keep things going.

I think you mossed the entire point of my comment...

Originally posted by soleran30
and your not rich either

So? What is your point?

Originally posted by meep-meep
I think you mossed the entire point of my comment...

I think you don't have much point to your comment.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you don't have much point to your comment.


yup seriously word!

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you don't have much point to your comment.

Well you are entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by soleran30
yup seriously word!

And you are entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
As are you. But the point is, that the point you were trying to make didn't actually get out. So you could for example try to clarify it, so we can discuss what you are saying.

Originally posted by meep-meep
So people who are smarter deserve to capitalize on others stupidity? I consider myself to be as intelligent as anyone but not better than anyone. I am not entitled to make morre money than someone who doesn't have as good an education as myself or is from a less wealthy family, or from someone who doesn't have the resources to become a millionare.You make it sound as if the only way to obtain wealth is through other's misery. Ideally, it's all about knowing the market and finding something that people will spend money on to get you rich which will essentially end up creating more jobs to provide this good/service. Of course there are exceptions to this but the discussion here is a general wealth limit which would apply to everyone, whether their means of making money is ethical or not.

If drugs were legal than that'd be true. Those people choose to do drugs. It's not the dealer's fault if they get addicted.

I'm not unhappy and I never said that poor people can't be smart. All I meant is that it takes more than just hard work to deserve a million dollars. If you figure out an honest way to generate that kind of revenue, then you deserve it. If not, then you don't, regardless of how hard you work. Like I said before it's not the importance of the service or the difficulty of the task that makes certain jobs pay more, it's the amount of money that can be made off that industry. Unfortunately if you're scrubbing dishes at the Olive Garden you aren't in a position to get rich. The fact that you work hard entitles you to nothing more than what they're willing to pay you.

If people were satisfied with moral rewards rather than material goods, money wouldn't really be a problem would it? Unfortunately, the world does not function like that. As long as there is greed in the world, there needs to be incentive for people to work hard. If there was a cap on money, there would only be so much initiative...

Originally posted by crazylozer
If people were satisfied with moral rewards rather than material goods, money wouldn't really be a problem would it? Unfortunately, the world does not function like that. As long as there is greed in the world, there needs to be incentive for people to work hard. If there was a cap on money, there would only be so much initiative...

And there would only be so much progress....

Well, after having read through this thread it's obvious most see this as a black and white, either/or issue.

First of all, study history. It's obvious neither system, left to it's own devices, works. Absolute capitalism existed in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, and 19th century America. One thing all those societies had in common were 2 classes of people, the rich and the poor...there was no in between.

Socialism in theory is great. Socialism in practice is an absolute disaster. It creats a corrupt system of fasvoritism and is in fact capitalism in disguise rewarding only a very few.

So what is the answer? I would say capitalism with some restraints. Do we truely want absolute globalism? Or do we want to what's in the long term best interests of our Nation (s)?
I do not advocate putting limits on how much someone can make nor do I believe excessively taxing the rich.

HOWEVER, I do believe the tax code should be revamped. Right now the tax code in the US is set up for business. Businesses and corporations can write off nearly everything (I know, I have an E-Commerce business). The wealthy do have more tax breaks and shelters than they need.

An across the board flat tax for all individuals, businesses, etc. No deductions with a few exceptions, which I'll get to in a minute.

Repeal free trade agreements. These only serve to allow businesses to outsource for cheap labor which concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands. The middle class was created in the 1920s-50s when unions were strong. In the last three decades unions have been on the decline. This was offset for a while by the technology boom of the 80s and 90s but now that is being outsourced to China and India as well. Unless changes are made the middle class will disappear in the US in the next couple decades. Free trade advocates all say in the long run this will benefit us but what none of them can say is how long the long run is, nor can they say how bad things will get for the middle class before it gets better. Tax incentives for companies that keep production and other aspects of their business in the US while severe tax penalties for those companies that outsource.

One will say that will make products more expensive to make them here which is true. But it will also give more people more spending power to buy said products when they are making $26 an hour in a factory as opposed to $7 an hour at Wal Mart.

There are other dire consequences to this current free trade mentality. The huge trade deficiet is helping push up our national debt. forget about ever paying it back.

And we are inadvertantly putting China on the road to becoming the wealthiest nation on earth and while it will take longer, the most powerful militarily as well.

Short term profits in the name of absolute capitilism are good but when that mentality sets us up for long term failure, which it is, there needs to be some restraints. Anti trust laws should be strengthened. It should be easier for workers to organize unions. And trade barriers should be put up. Otherwise, what kind of country will we really be leaving our children? A third world country where the best option is to immigrate to China.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Well, after having read through this thread it's obvious most see this as a black and white, either/or issue.

First of all, study history. It's obvious neither system, left to it's own devices, works. Absolute capitalism existed in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, and 19th century America. One thing all those societies had in common were 2 classes of people, the rich and the poor...there was no in between.

Socialism in theory is great. Socialism in practice is an absolute disaster. It creats a corrupt system of fasvoritism and is in fact capitalism in disguise rewarding only a very few.

So what is the answer? I would say capitalism with some restraints. Do we truely want absolute globalism? Or do we want to what's in the long term best interests of our Nation (s)?
I do not advocate putting limits on how much someone can make nor do I believe excessively taxing the rich.

HOWEVER, I do believe the tax code should be revamped. Right now the tax code in the US is set up for business. Businesses and corporations can write off nearly everything (I know, I have an E-Commerce business). The wealthy do have more tax breaks and shelters than they need.

An across the board flat tax for all individuals, businesses, etc. No deductions with a few exceptions, which I'll get to in a minute.

Repeal free trade agreements. These only serve to allow businesses to outsource for cheap labor which concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands. The middle class was created in the 1920s-50s when unions were strong. In the last three decades unions have been on the decline. This was offset for a while by the technology boom of the 80s and 90s but now that is being outsourced to China and India as well. Unless changes are made the middle class will disappear in the US in the next couple decades. Free trade advocates all say in the long run this will benefit us but what none of them can say is how long the long run is, nor can they say how bad things will get for the middle class before it gets better. Tax incentives for companies that keep production and other aspects of their business in the US while severe tax penalties for those companies that outsource.

One will say that will make products more expensive to make them here which is true. But it will also give more people more spending power to buy said products when they are making $26 an hour in a factory as opposed to $7 an hour at Wal Mart.

There are other dire consequences to this current free trade mentality. The huge trade deficiet is helping push up our national debt. forget about ever paying it back.

And we are inadvertantly putting China on the road to becoming the wealthiest nation on earth and while it will take longer, the most powerful militarily as well.

Short term profits in the name of absolute capitilism are good but when that mentality sets us up for long term failure, which it is, there needs to be some restraints. Anti trust laws should be strengthened. It should be easier for workers to organize unions. And trade barriers should be put up. Otherwise, what kind of country will we really be leaving our children? A third world country where the best option is to immigrate to China.

Well said. Again, I put the "wealth limit" on the discussion table basically to express my sense that The System, as is -- while probably the best to come along thus far --is still hardly a perfect deal. It seems that any system put in place will eventually be abused by the few who know how to work it to their ends, often to the detriment of the many. Do we keep "tweaking" until everything falls into place, or will that be too little too late? In which case, will something more dramatic be required--indeed become inevitable as the abuses of the past are revisited?

I always liked the term "Benevolent Capitalism." Or is that an oxymoron?

Well the thing is that as soon as the government gets more powers to aid any individual more than another it's not actually true capitalism anymore...so people who "work" the system basically destroy capitalism....but you can't really blame the syste for that now can you?

"Blame?" Not blaming the system; blaming the "few who know how to work it to their ends..." Regarding the system: it needs refinement, so as to minimize this sorta abuse.

Those who "work the system" to acquire Wealth And Power will use their WAP to acquire more and more WAP, again often to the detriment of those who seek other, nonmaterial rewards. And yes, as you've said, this will "basically destroy capitalism." So, if nothing else, the system needs refinement just as a matter of self-preservation.

The idea that government and state officials should receive a substantially less pay and or restriction from receiving any sort of "free money" outside of campaign contribution funds, which should also be watched carefully and have restrictions placed on them, has alwasy s seemed an interesting idea to me. That way those who work in these jobs wouldn't be in them to be financially well-off. It would be more of a position that could be regarded as humble yet very noble. There would be some benefits to this idea, I think. Officials because of their income wouldn't be able to live away from urban areas that they govern since their pay wouldn't allow them to run off to the suburbs. People couldn't argue that their state and governmental officials are detached and removed from the reality of society.
Any thoughts on this idea?

Originally posted by Mindship
"Blame?" Not blaming the system; blaming the "few who know how to work it to their ends..." Regarding the system: it needs refinement, so as to minimize this sorta abuse.

Those who "work the system" to acquire Wealth And Power will use their WAP to acquire more and more WAP, again often to the detriment of those who seek other, nonmaterial rewards. And yes, as you've said, this will "basically destroy capitalism." So, if nothing else, the system needs refinement just as a matter of self-preservation.

No you misunderstand me...to use the means the system provides to aquire money is alright and very useful too...but to bend the system to achieve power and such is wrong....

As for your idea I agree that government officials should only be paid a small amount of money. And they shouldn't be allowed to receive money from corporations and such.

Originally posted by meep-meep
The idea that government and state officials should receive a substantially less pay and or restriction from receiving any sort of "free money" outside of campaign contribution funds, which should also be watched carefully and have restrictions placed on them, has alwasy s seemed an interesting idea to me. That way those who work in these jobs wouldn't be in them to be financially well-off. It would be more of a position that could be regarded as humble yet very noble. There would be some benefits to this idea, I think. Officials because of their income wouldn't be able to live away from urban areas that they govern since their pay wouldn't allow them to run off to the suburbs. People couldn't argue that their state and governmental officials are detached and removed from the reality of society.
Any thoughts on this idea?

Excellent idea..unfortunately, it won't happen due to the current views of the dominant political parties that make up the US. Neither Republican or Democrat will support such an agenda..seeing as how would mean the end of both of their respective parties.

The thing that we as common people can do to break from this mold is to be more supportive of the independant canidates. People need to give donations..and help out the qualified independants.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Excellent idea..unfortunately, it won't happen due to the current views of the dominant political parties that make up the US. Neither Republican or Democrat will support such an agenda..seeing as how would mean the end of both of their respective parties.

The thing that we as common people can do to break from this mold is to be more supportive of the independant canidates. People need to give donations..and help out the qualified independants.

Wow...I think that might be the first time I really agree with you....

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Excellent idea..unfortunately, it won't happen due to the current views of the dominant political parties that make up the US. Neither Republican or Democrat will support such an agenda..seeing as how would mean the end of both of their respective parties.

The thing that we as common people can do to break from this mold is to be more supportive of the independant canidates. People need to give donations..and help out the qualified independants.

Yes. There are some candidates right now that I view as being good, positive, and socially responsive-aware candidates. If anyone of these candidates ever gets elected into a high standing political office I will be happy, yes, but I would be an idiot to think that person is reprentative of all the population and that makes me think that our system is very flawed and unjust.
People will always be pissed in the U.S. it seems. When the President is elected one party always bitches and moans the next four years (sometimes justly, sometimes not, but always unrelenting). The checks and balances of the judicial, legislative and executive branch's help to make a somewhat balanced institution but even that can be manipulated to a single party's agenda. However, in a parlimentary system many politcal groups with varying ideals get a seat in the goverment, thus a voice that can be heard.
Do you think the U.S. would fare well with a parlimentary type system, and if so do you think it is ready for it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
...so people who "work" the system basically destroy capitalism....but you can't really blame the syste for that now can you?

Your statement is quite clear, no misunderstanding. We were both referring to those who abuse the system. And again, so I am not misunderstood: I am not blaming the system. To paraphrase: the system doesn't kill...people do. So just like some gun control is a good idea (or am I pressing a hot button for some people?), so the system, I feel, would benefit from refinement to keep the abuse to a minimum.

Three or more political parties with real voice? Great idea. Do I think this country is ready for it? Not those with the WAP. Like any creature, they will fight to prevent any change from which they can no longer benefit as they have been. They will use their WAP to keep the system from evolving.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow...I think that might be the first time I really agree with you....

It happens man..don't be so hard on yourself..

Originally posted by Mindship
I do feel we live in the greatest country in history, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible system upon which to base an economy...except for all the other systems.

When I see how the financially elite (the top 1% of the population which holds most of the wealth), apparently lie, cheat and steal (eg Enron execs) to simply acquire more wealth, I wonder if our system would benefit from just a wee bit of socialism injected into it.

I propose that no single person be allowed to be worth more than ten million dollars. There is no reason--other than bolstering a shallow, overinflated ego--a person needs to be "so rich."

I know many of you will object to this on principle. Knock yerselves out. Realistically, I think it is safe to say that 1) 99.99% of us here (I could be wrong, but I doubt it), will never, ever acquire anywhere near that much money in his/her lifetime (so for you the Ten Mil Limit is a moot point); and 2) even if you did acquire "only" ten mil, why the #@&*%$@ would you be complaining? You'd never have to work, you could travel, secure your future, take care of family, kids' college educations, buy anything you needed (and then some), etc, etc.

Opinions, debate welcome. If enough people like this idea, hell, maybe I will run for Prez in 2008.

Stupid, stupid, stupid idea

Originally posted by Mindship
Your statement is quite clear, no misunderstanding. We were both referring to those who abuse the system. And again, so I am not misunderstood: I am not blaming the system. To paraphrase: the system doesn't kill...people do. So just like some gun control is a good idea (or am I pressing a hot button for some people?), so the system, I feel, would benefit from refinement to keep the abuse to a minimum.

Three or more political parties with real voice? Great idea. Do I think this country is ready for it? Not those with the WAP. Like any creature, they will fight to prevent any change from which they can no longer benefit as they have been. They will use their WAP to keep the system from evolving.

Yes I thinkit's a good idea too. I think it's up to us, the people, to try to drive this point home though. There is power in numbers...

defining wealth and putting a limit on it is silly. What is the goal of this system? What problem does it solve?

It just creates another problem at the end of the day...........more rules means more people to enforce them.............more cost.....

Originally posted by soleran30
defining wealth and putting a limit on it is silly. What is the goal of this system? What problem does it solve?



Well to force people to act like they have compassion, and to respect their fellow man. I don't believe it would create a huge problem by putting a limit on what people are able to acquire..it would actually do quite a few people a whole heck of a lot of good. We already have many limits imposed upon us within day to day life..this would be no different.

You ever heard of the expression.."Am I my brothers keeper?"..Well guess what? You are in a sense..because his actions, in many ways.. effect you later on.

Anyone who earns 500 billion dollars a year, and spends it exclusively on themselves is insane. Particularly since the average human being lives of less than 1 million for their entire lifetime. If everyone had an attitude of doing unto others..instead of doing unto themselves..then their would be no need for any type of "socialism" in our government. Unfortunately, we live in a world that has the exact opposite ideal..and until this changes, then some form of socialism is needed to help those who have difficulty helping themselves.

bravo

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well to force people to act like they have compassion, and to respect their fellow man. I don't believe it would create a huge problem by putting a limit on what people are able to acquire..it would actually do quite a few people a whole heck of a lot of good. We already have many limits imposed upon us within day to day life..this would be no different.

You ever heard of the expression.."Am I my brothers keeper?"..Well guess what? You are in a sense..because his actions, in many ways.. effect you later on.

Anyone who earns 500 billion dollars a year, and spends it exclusively on themselves is insane. Particularly since the average human being lives of less than 1 million for their entire lifetime. If everyone had an attitude of doing unto others..instead of doing unto themselves..then their would be no need for any type of "socialism" in our government. Unfortunately, we live in a world that has the exact opposite ideal..and until this changes, then some form of socialism is needed to help those who have difficulty helping themselves.

Indeed. As I mentioned in an earlier post, imagine how much simpler our society would be, how much more genuine our human experiencing of one another, ourselves, of life, would be, if we truly valued honesty, compassion and personal responsibility, instead of giving it $19.99-act-now-get-1-free" lip service.

But as I also said before, we, as a species, may simply not be mature enough at this point in time to put into effective action anything more evolved than our current way of doing business.

You can't "force" someone to have compassion and respect for their fellow human beings, either they do or they don't, kinda self defeating to try and force something like that.

Originally posted by BackFire
You can't "force" someone to have compassion and respect for their fellow human beings, either they do or they don't, kinda self defeating to try and force something like that.

Well, most of the governments that are based off of "Judeo-Christian" value systems do kind of force compassion/love in a sense. Grants are given to those who do things that benefit society. Laws are put into place to stop individuals from doing things that will effect the welfare of society.

Anyway..my opinion is this, regardless of what politicol system one follows or idealizes, they are still being "forced" or attempting to "force" others into practicing their ideals.

If one makes the choice of creating a "self serving" system, then they are imposing that belief system on people, just as much as an individual who is imposing a "compassionate" one. I believe I would prefer living in the system that concentrates less on self..and more on others. But again that is just my preference, you are certainly entitled to your own.

See, there's a difference between rewarding those who do good, and actually, literally, forcing someone to do good, regaurdless of whether or not they want to. It becomes pointless and somewhat contradictory when the good in the world is forced. There's also a difference between protecting the rights of fellow human beings by preventing harm from coming to them and forcing them to give money to others who may simply be lazy.

While I agree that, logically speaking, there is no need for someone to have 5 billion dollars, and after a while it does just become for show, I don't like the idea of a "wealth limit". It simply wouldn't work in this country. If someone has the capability or talent to make tons of money then they should be allowed to. Most people who are rich do give to charities and help those less fortunate, simply because they're decent people for the most part. But they shouldn't be forced to, it would promote laziness (If I don't succeed someone will just GIVE me money) rather then motivate for success.