 |
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:41 AM. |