Originally posted by meep-meepYou 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.
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.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.
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.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? 😉
"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.
Re: Wealth Limit
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...
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.