Why do we allow so few to hoard to much wealth?

[Matt1970]

Ok Liberals, give up the rest of your internet time this month and cell phone minutes to the less fortunate. We will be coming after your cars next week and then you will need to share that spare bedroom for a homeless guy. What? You have more than one TV in your house? Well, fork um over, there are plenty out there with no TV's. I also see you have gone over your government allotted food budget this month, you will now have to eat crackers and rice for the rest of the month.

 

[Matt1970]

The fall of the USSR was a triumph for Socialism regardless of the bitter taste it was medicine greatly needed since 1917 for the left.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

What I said is obvious and known to most, sources are not needed.

Churches are one of the biggest providers of care for the homeless and downtrodden in the country (and probably the world).

 

[Deeko]

I get it now. It took me this long, but the OP is just the hardcore liberal parody to anarchist 420. I was curious why he kept posting so many threads like this, then it hit me...he's just a parody artist.

Frankly, looking at the two of them, it just goes to show that the extremes on both sides are stupid.

 

[alkemyst]

The man with $20 will have more than $20 when you give him what is owed to him from the man with 20 billion dollars. If we redistribute the wealth fairly, the poorest man could have a room, a computer, internet, and maybe even a car.

Yeah you may want to look at Cuba in that.

Fair distribution of wealth still has a way of being unfair.

Ultimately if everything was fair, goods would be very subpar in order for everyone to have "one". The only way a system like this would work is big ticket items would have to be shared and you'd have homes that probably where more like dorm rooms where you get a bedroom of your own, but the kitchen, common living area and bath would all be communal.

The unit would get one computer/game/homework system which probably shared the same screen as the TV/DVD does.

 

[Steeplerot]

Ok Liberals, give up the rest of your internet time this month and cell phone minutes to the less fortunate.

Sounds good, right after you head to the mideast to kill all those pesky infidels yourself you keep whining about. Need spare AK comrade?

 

[BoberFett]

Sounds good, right after you head to the mideast to kill all those pesky infidels yourself you keep whining about. Need spare AK comrade?

Which infidels? The ones that Obama the Democrat needs more money to keep killing?

 

[Slew Foot]

Libtards got owned hard in this thread.

 

[Steeplerot]

Which infidels? The ones that Obama the Democrat needs more money to keep killing?

I dunno, you are the one that voted for him.

 

[Steeplerot]

Libtards

You know these guys are lost when they cant get 2 words in before libtard. :awe:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It should be obvious to all when you have a billion more than the poorest man you have excess. The richest man should be no more than 10 times richer than the poorest man.

Have a look at this:
http://ask.yahoo.com/20060717.html

Seems a reasonable approximation.

By your measure the richest people would have about $6700. For this you sell civilization because you'd have to seize everything and there wouldn't be any way to make more.

Your failure is that you haven't suggested any means to feed the poor, rather have begrudged others what they have, ignoring the fact that if you had your way everyone would be poor. I'm missing the selling point here.

This is what's happened with Medicaid in many cases. You have a multigenerational enslavement program. Just give the next generation money with no accountability, no sense of worth, no real understanding of work or accomplishment. They are taught to hold out their hands and money falls into it. Fixing that would go a lot farther than taking everyone's stuff.

 

[Nebor]

Sounds good, right after you head to the mideast to kill all those pesky infidels yourself you keep whining about. Need spare AK comrade?

Wait, I already did that. They said I have to spend a year back here before I can go back. Does that mean you'll give all your stuff away now? By the way, they call us infidels, not the other way around. They're just savages.

 

[Steeplerot]

Wait, I already did that.

Nope, nowhere near.

 

[JimW1949]

Well, I read it and understood it, and your point was ridiculous.

[FONT=&quot]Why is my point ridiculous? Many times charitable contributions have benefits for the giver. There is nothing wrong with that, a charitable gift is a good thing and Bill Gates did a good thing when he donated the computers. I was merely pointing out that he also got something in return. He got a tax break and he promoted future sales. So yes, Bill Gates did a good thing, but he got something in return and down the road he will more than likely get a lot more return from his investment.

Now if you can't understand that, then there is little point in discussing it further.
[/FONT]

 

[xj0hnx]

Christian Conservative? I am an atheist. That is my biggest problem with tax deductions for donations, since most donations are made to religious based charities. Religious charities are usually a front group spread their religion and do very little to actually help people. They are the reason people in poor countries like Sudan, Somalia, and Uganda have so many more children than they can afford. They go there and tell these people god wants them to multiply.

The ignorance in this post is astounding.

 

[nusyo]

FACT the top 1% hold more than 40% of the world wealth, FACT the top 10% hold more than 85% of the world wealth, and the bottom 50% of the world has less than 1% of the world wealth.

Seems to me we are allowing the top to hoard all of the resources and wealth, while the bottom to get nothing. These people collect all of this wealth that they don't need, while people in countries like Uganda can't even get enough water to drink.

Something needs to be done about this.

and what are you proposing to do? get the money from the rich and redistribute it to poor people in Uganda? teach Afrika how to design CPUs ? so they can have better jobs but making sure they don't get rich at the same time.... (that's one of the communist ideas believe it or not)

why would you invest 16 years or more of your life going to school in order to get a shot to become wealthy ? what would be your motivation if you wouldn't be allowed to get/be rich ?

 

[DCal430]

The ignorance in this post is astounding.

Do you deny most religious charities are a front to spread their religion? Here for example the sisters of mercy are very big in the charity field, they have hospitals, homeless shelters, food places, and other things. I am positive they use these places to try to get the needy to join the catholic church though.

 

[xj0hnx]

Do you deny most religious charities are a front to spread their religion? Here for example the sisters of mercy are very big in the charity field, they have hospitals, homeless shelters, food places, and other things. I am positive they use these places to try to get the needy to join the catholic church though.

One thing I am positive of is you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do some charities try? Yea, but they all don't. And your theory about them making Africans over breed is beyond laughable. You are a joke.

 

[hal2kilo]

Because the media, and universities are owned by the corporations and wealthy. Even though this country was going along just fine,and middle class was expanding. The idealogs on the right who have hated the programs introduced by FDR, that have the middle class in this county the broadest, most successful society that this country has ever seen, have been under assaut since the days of Reagan.

There has been a concerted propaganda campaign, promoted by the Ann Ryan libertarians and the Chicago school of laisez faire economists to fool the American people that what made this country strong was the old pioneering spirit gone wild. Fuck your brother, it's all about what a man could get for himself that made this country what it is.

 

[manimal]

I get it now. It took me this long, but the OP is just the hardcore liberal parody to anarchist 420. I was curious why he kept posting so many threads like this, then it hit me...he's just a parody artist.

Frankly, looking at the two of them, it just goes to show that the extremes on both sides are stupid.

welcome to the new ATPN.

parodies of parodies of parodies

 

[wuliheron]

Because the media, and universities are owned by the corporations and wealthy. Even though this country was going along just fine,and middle class was expanding. The idealogs on the right who have hated the programs introduced by FDR, that have the middle class in this county the broadest, most successful society that this country has ever seen, have been under assaut since the days of Reagan.

There has been a concerted propaganda campaign, promoted by the Ann Ryan libertarians and the Chicago school of laisez faire economists to fool the American people that what made this country strong was the old pioneering spirit gone wild. Fuck your brother, it's all about what a man could get for himself that made this country what it is.

It has been the pace of social changes as well as propaganda, ideologues, and big business. The country has changed dramatically in 40 short years and the backlash has been enormous. Civil rights, homosexual rights, women's lib, drug epidemics, abortion, divorce, and on and on. The result has been an increasingly confused and angst ridden population ripe for hate mongering with economics rapidly becoming one of the few remaining socially acceptable outlets for hate mongering.

 

[Baasha]

What risk? The risk is to the workers livelihoods, not the CEO type who gets a golden parachute in real life to go on to be a lobbyist.

Once again more fairy stories with a few isolated incidents to beat you over the head with to work harder to enrich someone else who has more money then you thus inherently more capable of spending your own money then you are through excess profits on your labor.

Capitalism is a wealth redistribution scam to the top is all. Same as the rest of the history of the human race when it comes to master/slave relationships.

"What risk?" Are you kidding me? Do you know anything about starting a business and building it from ground up? Entrepreneurship, whether it is in technology or any other field (retail etc.), is mightily difficult and risky. For every successful entrepreneur, there are thousands who fail at attempting to make it big. Those who try are taking on risk in several ways; time, capital, and other resources. Your example of "CEO" doesn't encapsulate ENTREPRENEUR at all. An entrepreneur who starts a company may be the CEO, yes, but the CEO you are alluding to is one who is of blue-chip stock from HBS who does a stint at Goldman or CItigroup and then is recruited by the 'old boys club' to head some Fortune 500 company. The entrepreneur I am talking about is the guy who is from a middle class family who has a decent education and gets a job but decides to take the risk to start his own company. If it becomes successful, he makes money, creates jobs, and improves the overall economy. He should be amply rewarded with tax cuts and other incentives to encourage more people to become entrepreneurs.

Now, the Fortune 500 CEO is also not an easy job. The risks are usually commensurate to the rewards but of course there are exceptions where poorly performing companies pay the executives millions due to contracts signed prior to engagement and that are not tied to performance of the company. Perhaps, a step in the right direction would be to tie the compensation, above a 'base salary', a bonus if you will, to an executive's performance. That is already being done but there are many who circumvent the system and get millions through dubious methods.

As I mentioned in my first post, we must differentiate between EARNED and UN-EARNED income; the latter being predominantly applied to individuals who inherit their wealth. Without that, the perennial struggle between the haves and have-nots will provide no solution, just rancor.

 

[Nebor]

Nope, nowhere near.

Tell me what I need to do.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

[FONT=&quot]Why is my point ridiculous? Many times charitable contributions have benefits for the giver. There is nothing wrong with that, a charitable gift is a good thing and Bill Gates did a good thing when he donated the computers. I was merely pointing out that he also got something in return. He got a tax break and he promoted future sales. So yes, Bill Gates did a good thing, but he got something in return and down the road he will more than likely get a lot more return from his investment.

[FONT=&quot]Now if you can't understand that, then there is little point in discussing it further.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Everyone who gives to charity gets benefits from it, with the main benefit being the feeling that you helped someone in need. When companies do it, they generally do it to help the community they're in (since many employees live there) and also, yes, public image.

You act as if Bill Gates was sitting in his mansion with his financial advisors and spreadsheets trying to determine how much extra money he'd gain in long-term sales by donating. I don't know when this donation took place, but MS owns nearly 90% of the desktop OS marketshare worldwide so I hardly think a couple thousand kids using MS software will convince them to use MS software when they grow up. In fact, many people who use MS software in the real world have no choice because 1) Their company's IT department mandates it 2) There aren't cheaper alternatives available. If the donation took place in the mid-80s you might have a point, but if it took place in the last 15 years, you don't.

 

[Atreus21]

"What risk?" Are you kidding me? Do you know anything about starting a business and building it from ground up? Entrepreneurship, whether it is in technology or any other field (retail etc.), is mightily difficult and risky. For every successful entrepreneur, there are thousands who fail at attempting to make it big. Those who try are taking on risk in several ways; time, capital, and other resources. Your example of "CEO" doesn't encapsulate ENTREPRENEUR at all. An entrepreneur who starts a company may be the CEO, yes, but the CEO you are alluding to is one who is of blue-chip stock from HBS who does a stint at Goldman or CItigroup and then is recruited by the 'old boys club' to head some Fortune 500 company. The entrepreneur I am talking about is the guy who is from a middle class family who has a decent education and gets a job but decides to take the risk to start his own company. If it becomes successful, he makes money, creates jobs, and improves the overall economy. He should be amply rewarded with tax cuts and other incentives to encourage more people to become entrepreneurs.

Now, the Fortune 500 CEO is also not an easy job. The risks are usually commensurate to the rewards but of course there are exceptions where poorly performing companies pay the executives millions due to contracts signed prior to engagement and that are not tied to performance of the company. Perhaps, a step in the right direction would be to tie the compensation, above a 'base salary', a bonus if you will, to an executive's performance. That is already being done but there are many who circumvent the system and get millions through dubious methods.

As I mentioned in my first post, we must differentiate between EARNED and UN-EARNED income; the latter being predominantly applied to individuals who inherit their wealth. Without that, the perennial struggle between the haves and have-nots will provide no solution, just rancor.

You're ruining this thread.

You're using facts and theory. Here there be only generalities and talking points.