 |
Apparently the top 1% of the population have it all and the other 99% Don't! I don't know what this means for those truly in poverty but it would seem that at least in some circumstances this situation is obscene. When you consider that such statistics are fueled by oil wealth and whole nations, however small, who import servants there is no excuse for thinking this is OK
Combat obscenity. Send 30% of your total wealth to my Paypal, another 30% to your government for Social Justice causes, and live on the other 40%. (Okay, the sarcasm font was on after the first comma)
Sarcasm doesn't cut it, from your response I expect you are one of the 1% and you don't like looking in the mirrorQuote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
When does wealth become obscene?
When other people suffer from your wealth.
It is obscene when you consider with the resources throughout the world, and not just from a financial perspective, there is more than enough to stamp out poverty.
Much of what results in poverty could be dealt with... lack of education, training, and infrastructure.
However, you would still have the human nature aspect from those who seek power (sometimes at a government level), at the cost of those things, to those who would rather not put forth the effort to change their individual circumstances.. and everyone in-between.
Business wise... many have worked very hard to get where they are and have the jobs for thousands. Some experienced more luck than others along the way... you can't begrudge them of that. Many do spread the wealth to support various causes.
The issue arises of who decides how much is too much? Who decides what someone should and shouldn't do with their money? What's the cut off? Do celebrities and professional athletes fall in to the same category?
I don't know, Doula, if you are a billion dollar corporation, and have thousands of jobs, and enjoy tax breaks to do your business, I think it's obscene for the vast majority of your workers to be on WELFARE.
I have to agree with Tal there and that is the issue yet no one wants to think about wealth distribution, why should 100 individuals possess as much as 50% of the inhabitants of the planet, luck, effort or innovation doesn't justify it and yet there are whole political systems designed to ensure it can happen. Debate rages about wages and how much is too much, not how much is too little. Billions are spent trying to eliminate labour under the guise of efficiency but it is not efficient to have large numbers of the population unemployed and in poverty
If you have a phone, floors and an income above $9800 Aus. Per year, you are one of the 1% like me.Quote:
from your response I expect you are one of the 1%
As I understand it the measure is $1 million in assets which is different to the poverty level, I know people who are just above the poverty line on $50,000 family income in an ecomony where average weekly earnings equate to $75,000 a year. Everyone has a floor it is a question of what it is made of, marble or dung. No one who lives on the pension could be considered wealthy unless they have substantial other income. However the question is how to lift the 99% because the statistics demonstrate that the share of wealth for them is shrinkingQuote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
So that's what the question is. Thanks for clarifying. The one word answer is "opportunity." Any attempt to "give" anything else to people puts one in mind of the signs in the wildlife parks that say not to feed the wildlife lest it become dependent and incapable of providing for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Obscenity has been around as long as there have been kings, czars, despots, chairmen, and leaders of any stripe. There is obscenity when a poor couple sells a 5 year old daughter for a tv set instead of rice, or when shrimp processors smuggle people over the border who are poorer than their poor and lock them in sheds for 16 hours a day in rooms full of ice water, and the cops are paid off the catch them if they escape. It reaches from the deepest depths to the highest peaks. What do you want, a Russian Revolution, or Mao's March? What do you do about the billionaires who give most of their money away? America's high tech rich give away a lot. And Warren Buffet, who WANTS laws to close the tax loopholes. There are good rich people! Some of them are even smart enough to know that they are supported at least as much by the poor as the poor are supported by them.
Change the tax code. Don't lump the 1% together as evil.
An interesting detail on calculation of income inequality: it's all done using pre-tax figures. So increasing taxes on the rich actually does nothing for reducing "income inequality," at least as defined in the statistics that get bandied about.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
One way would be to change the tax codes so the money flows back here rather then being held offshore for a rainy day by investing in the future of the product or service. Education in value is what needs to be taught again rather then the wasteful attitude of a throwaway soceity. One like Walmart would run from it because they are part of the problem. We need to get back to self thinking and being independent rather then waiting around for a government solution. Being able to think on your feet and move through the fog of life used to be the standard. Now its foghorns and training wheels all the way. We all need to take ownership and be responsible for our own peice of the world. The rest will align itself.
Ok so Gates and Buffett have shown some spine but they are lone voices and they can afford to be generous, if they gave away 99% they would still have a huge fortune. It is not only the tax laws that need to change, it is the greed laws that need to change. Think about this for the moment; what if the salary of a CEO couldn't be more than 20 times the salary of the lowest paid person in the organisation and no cheating, like stock in leiu of salary or fringe benefits. What if stock holder dividends were limited to say 10% of face value. What if the salary of the CEO was limited to a multiple of after tax earnings. If the corporation incurred a loss the CEO would feel it. This would change the way corporations are structuredQuote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
I don't believe in regulating CEO salaries any more than I believe in term limits. Heck, I don't even like the term limit on president. No one wants to do any work as a citizen anymore, not even vote. They want laws. Instead of limits they need to overturn Citizens United and reform tax laws. I don't much like to vote either, given how railroaded I feel. Between National Party Chairmen and the media, it's all in the bag. On the heels of those heels who buy any and every politician they want. They all dance with each other and I trundle off to the polls feeling like a chump.
Salaries are the job of boards and active investors. Do you think if Goldman Sachs is paying a 5 billion dollar fine for all sorts of crap, the CEO's salary is really that big a deal?
Can we at least try to keep this a semblance of a remnant of a democracy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
Yes the CEO salary is a big deal various CEO have been paid huge sums for presiding over debacles. Democracy is not that great an institution because as it is implemented the ordinary person has no say. Electing candidates and having them speak for us isn't democracy it is a sham. True democracy is any person being able to address the assembly and being given time to do it. A vote can then be taken on what they have said. What we have now is ridiculous, party politics, obstructionism. Laws so volumunous no one knows what is in them. The most ridiculous statement was made by Pelosi" we have to pass it to see what's in it" what sort of governance is that. What is the point of having an elected king if he cannot be deposed. No one can stay fresh after years in government, there comes a time when they are out of ideas. The electoral process is supposed to be a process of renewal not entrenchment, there should be term limits on all politicians no more than two terms. That will get them off their bums and into work
I couldn't agree more. Rather then being protected from legislation that they pass they would have to return home and live under it. That was part and parcel of how this system was suppose to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes I expect the idea behind two year terms was no one could afford to be away from home long, but then that was in the days of public service when politicians weren't paidQuote:
Originally Posted by cdad
So let me get this straight. We can't be trusted to vote people out who are 'entrenched,' so we institute term limits for everyone. Thereby making voting even more of a sham than it is. Believe it or not, there are some very valuable people in Congress, and it can take years to figure out the workings of some of the most important committees. There go Sanders and Warren, and others we don't hear about! BYE BYE! Oh, and there is HUGE time wasted in getting adjusted to Congress and hiring a Washington staff and learning the ropes and wangling your way onto a committee (again, often the most important part of change), hopefully by virtue of showing your expertise on the subject at hand, whether it's weapons or veterans' benefits.
Second, you don't like CEO salaries, because some 'preside over debacles.' So down go their salaries, even Tim Cook and that new guy at Google. Never mind that you can't just pass a law for every damn little thing you don't like. Sure, business can have regulations, but messing with salaries is really uncomfortably fascist.
I claim that you want nice easy fixes in the form of yet more and more laws, the very laws you complain about as being too complicated. You don't like the general look of something, you slap a law on it. You are full of contradictions. Of course a nation of 319,000,000 people can't be democratic in the old fashioned way. A lot of my most liberal friends like to show what various Scandinavian countries have done successfully, nations smaller than most New England states, and with mostly homogeneous peoples. NO COMPARISON. We have about the same land mass as China (albeit 1/4 the population) and the process is going to be messy. Deal with it.
It already is. Since the ultimate goal in the US is to become wealthy the politicians have figured out that getting their pockets lined by big corp and special interests groups is incredibly rewarding for their personal pocketbook. They will tell you what you want to hear in order to get elected, after that it's easy street. Not sure how you're going to fix that. The Citizens United decision was a big step backwards. Good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
SCOTUS decisions do get overturned on occasion. I'm not sure if they were naive about all the ways to move money around or if they really thought that free speech was the clincher. I agree that it's serious. Big Money is much more sophisticated than in the past, any past, but the end result is the same. It's nothing new to buy politicians.
I'm always amazed by how many people think the past was a lot rosier than the present. It NEVER is; it's just different in some ways and not others. We bumble along and it works better than any other option of government. Term limits will solve NOTHING. Caps on CEO salaries by anyone other than investors and boards will solve NOTHING. There are no sound bites, no quick fixes, no apps for that. A survey of employers about young workers found that the young want to work and even do a good job, but the minute they finish their first project, they expect a promotion and a raise.
Capitalism is a rigged game, and that's what makes wealth obscene. It's an OLD game, and only the name has changed to protect the greedy. Do you believe Trump when he says he wants everybody to be rich?
Because that's how it used to be - your job was your career, your company mentored you and promoted you. Now not so much, you're low-value chattel, infinitely replaceable.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
That was rae even then. The mentor bit anyway, that is a word that krept in in the 90'sQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Wealth is obscene when the boss sucks all the money a company makes and shares NONE with the workers that help him make it!
Wealth is obscene when the boss screws up the company and the workers lose their jobs.
Wealth is obscene when the bosses screw up the world and the workers lose their jobs.
Wealth is obscene when you get a job and need taxpayer assistance to pay for food rent and heat.
Wealth is obscene when workers need TWO or THREE jobs to make ends meet to have a LIFE.
Wealth is obscene if you can employ slave labor for high end products and beech about the high cost of labor.
Wealth is obscene when take your profits to buy government officials to give you more tax breaks and shelters, and waive the rules of regulations that ensure clean air, water, and soil for ordinary people.
Wealth is obscene when rich people rig/run the whole economic system and call it fair.
Wealth is obscene when the boss runs your country and YOU don't.
Wealth is obscene when it allows you to control lives, and not bear responsibility.
Wealth is obscene when it puts you above and beyond the laws of ordinary citizens.
Wealth is obscene when it's used by the few to control the many...................
Talaniman - I'm trying to figure out how to apply your definitions. Imagine this scenario: a person starts a lawn maintenance company, buys a couple of trucks and some mowers on credit, and hires 6 seasonal workers at $15/hour to mow lawns. After the summer mowing season is over he realizes he has burned through all his cash and can't afford to keep paying on the loans for for the equipment, and so declares bankruptcy. He lays the workers off, shuts down the business, and gets a job as a clerk at Walmart. Does this person have obscene wealth? He falls into at least 4 of your definitions, and maybe as many as 6. The point is that you have classified virtually anybody who hires people and tries to build a profitable business as having obscene wealth.
So Tal having identified the reasons and found all of them in daily operation what solution do you propose?
By definition he has no wealth, just debts and high hopes. By definition he is an entrepreneur or small businessman with a failed business. Hardly qualifying him as wealthy, so he fits in NO category. Unlike say a Donald Trump, whose bankruptcies have never landed him in Walmart's employ. Or a GWBush who had 7 bankruptcies and ruined a baseball team, and still ended up president.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
Do you grasp my distinction about obscene wealth now? Wealth is obscene when you are too rich to fail, or JAIL!
Unfortunately Clete it's going to take many election cycles of increased participation by informed voters........at least in the US. Or at least enough with common sense, and a sense of the common good.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
What you have said there is that bankruptcy is almost a qualification for President, perhaps if you could have an elected cabinet just as you have an elected president you would have a broader group to choose fromQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
'Mr Teflon': Sydney's showiest politician comes unstuck - BBC News
proving the apple doesn't fall far from the tree a Sydney millionaire is following in the footsteps of his father, very soon he will be jailed, the charges range from corruption to well who knows. He has made obscene use of his wealth and influence in recent months and may even be the reason for the dismissal of an Urban local government Council. Dealings include a deal where the council sold him a property which may have been significantly under valued. His wife even had the termerity to allege they may loose money because of his suspension.
One could even say he has given fuel to the idea we don't want muslims here, their moral values are lacking
There is no such thing as 'obscene wealth'; it is a phrase fabricated by those who would facilitate the redistribution of wealth by setting economic classes against each other .Quote:
When does wealth become obscene?
There are those who acquired their wealth by illegal ,or even immoral means .THEY are obscene, not wealth.But if they got their wealth legally and by moral means ,they are not obscene regardless of how much they've accumulated . Avarice may be one of the deadly sins(as is envy btw) . But that is between humans and their maker . What is a big obscenity is thinking a government has the right to determine how much wealth person in a free society can accumulate ;or the confiscate that wealth based on a pretext that the person has enough wealth.
What if the wealthy person uses every trick in the book, every possible loophole, to prevent his wealth from being taxed fairly?
Why are there loopholes ? That is the fault of the government that creates loopholes to favor tax evasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I doubt that little people get to use the loop-holes like the big boys and corps. Loop-holes are put there intentionally, don't you think?
I wonder who was in charge when loopholes were created? And who was financially behind those in charge?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
of course they are . They are put there for 2 reasons . 1 social engineering . The government thinks it is a better manager of other people's money so they confiscate it to allegedly achieve a social goal. 2. The government is trying to be a top down manager of the economy . So they permit loopholes so they can decide the winners and losers .Quote:
Originally Posted by catonsville
Both sides are at fault if you are talking about political parties . Now you will blame the rent seeking person who is trying to gain favor by giving a donation . I say that it is the government that makes laws that is at fault . The government holds all the cards because they make the laws of the land . If they are corrupted by money then it is up to we the people to throw them out of office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But that rarely happens and they are mostly all corrupted by money. What now?Quote:
If they are corrupted by money then it is up to we the people to throw them out of office.
So right, look at what happened in Oregon. The little guys stood up with a legitimate argument and they get slapped down without the possibility of addressing their question in a court of law. Power Corrupts right or wrong. So much for standing up against corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Refresh my memory .What corruption were they protesting when they took up arms and occupied a wild life refuge ? That was a strange hill to take a stand on.Quote:
Originally Posted by catonsville
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 PM. |