Do you really need that cell phone? Or multiple pairs of shoes? I never said anybody needed it, but just because you don't need something does not mean you should not be allowed to have it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wealth acquisition and distribution?
- Thread starter Mock Turtle
- Start date
Are you talking about money? Or wealth?
I'm talking about in TODAY's economy. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to attain unlimited wealth?In the Medieval Age, there were these aristocrats who were allowed to stockpile unlimited wealth.
The aristocrats used to possess all the lands. There was the feudal system.
The commoners couldn't own anything, because all the lands were already taken.
Do you think it was a good system?
But if you have more shoes than you need (let's
say 2 pairs, 1 for summer, 1 for winter), then this
'means someone else has less than they need.
No one creates wealth...it's just there, & it's limited.
If some have more, then others have less.
It's violence against the poor to have too much.
Governments should decide how much you get.
The logical reason is that if you give government the
power to limit wealth, then you give it far more power
than it currently has. This alone is dangerous.
But there's also the issue that someone owning a
company worth the limit will be incentivized to
do no more....never expand....spend nothing on
research...take no risks.
You support the politics of limits...of oppression.
How is it wasteful? His wealth is being used! If he were to convert his wealth into currency, and sit on top of a pile of money; yeah that would be wasteful, but reality doesn’t work that way. A billionaire (for example) will likely have his wealth tied up in various corporations throughout the world, and those corporations will use his wealth for research and development, to make payroll, and countless other necessities of running a business; IOW such a person has 99.9% of his wealth controlled by other people, and if that wealth was taken away from him and pulled out of those corporations, it would cause those corporations financial hardship. So why is having so much of your wealth controlled this way bad?
How did you come to the conclusion that there is a limit to the amount of wealth that exist?
I didn't.
For a brief moment, I had a stroke.
It turned me into a socialist.
But I've now recovered.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
How did you reach this conclusion?
I hope you realize it sounds absurd to everyone else.
"Plenty" is a stretch. Either way, it just means that it is possible to attain power by means other than money, and I have never stated otherwise.
Last edited:
I'd be happy with just bringing back pre-Reagan taxes on the wealthy, but yes, massive wealth disparity and a vanishing middle class is a surefire sign of a society descending towards massively corrupt plutocracy. With extortion and fraud just the cost of owning American political power, either directly or through corporate bribery.
Reagan's "tax cuts" also included tax increases,
eg, eliminating recapture of depreciation as
capital gains rather than income. The tax
changes occurred in 1986. There was a big
increase in federal tax revenue after them.
U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue
The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.
avoidance tools. They were dysfunctional.
How many billionaires do you see on Social Media? How many common and broke-azz people do you see there? How many people are influenced by Social Media?
Have you consulted everyone else? If not I doubt you are qualified to make such a claim.
Should there be limits on the amount of social media one is allowed to partake in?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Are you under the impression that the only power that exists is the power to influence people through social media? If not, why are you obsessed with social media?
Fair enough. We can give it a try on Reddit. Shall we?
Why do you ask? Is partaking in social media sufficient to amass lots of power?
Audie
Veteran Member
No one crteates wealth...zer sum game...
Are you sure?
Audie
Veteran Member
HOW else can you keep some sneaky pete
stinking individual from outdoing NASA at lower cost???
Heyo
Veteran Member
Woohoo!
Look at you being tolerant toward the unfortunate and downtrodden.
(Can you see now where this is going?)
Capitalists never stop when there is no more
money to draw from people. They can still draw
productivity from them.
You forget that I didn't vote to ban private wealth,
not even excessive private wealth. I just want the
ROI of that wealth taxed, and the ROI of excessive
wealth excessively taxed.
... for the economically successful, and the
exploitation of the workers.
Says you.
To show how much I care about anecdotal evidence.
Your fascism
has never provided a single example of a just society.
(Yep, I called you a fascist. If you don't like that,
don't call me a socialist again.)
I had a moment of insanity.
A warning to skip the rest.
Gonna copy that too?
siti
Well-Known Member
That's it! But nobody is going to vote for that. Which is why nobody running for office will ever state "reducing consumption" in their manifesto. I reckon its not money that needs redistributing...money is not even a real thing anyway. But the only genuine solution to the major economic problems that face human society is for us to learn to consume less...problem with that is if everyone does it, economies shrink, GDP goes down instead of up and the government that presides over that scenario will not be re-elected. So for those of us in the relatively prosperous "west" its really on you and me...the rich man can only sell me what I am prepared to buy from him, at the price I am prepared to pay for it...and if I buy less, there'll be a little bit less money in his wallet and a little bit more still in mine.
PureX
Veteran Member
It’s all about control. And money equals control, especially under capitalism. When we allow one person to amass huge amounts of money, they will then have control over a lot of other people’s well being. And this is not ever a good thing. Capitalism is all about money = control. And the more control one gains by it, the more they will use that control to gain yet more control. And more, and more, because they can never get enough.
It’s a recipe for abuse that feeds itself. And the only solution is equality. We have to stop individuals from gaining so much control over the lives and well being of so many others. We need to spread the wealth and the control that it affords around. Money now provides everything that matters: health, education, opportunity, respect, security, justice and so on. When one person piles up so much more than they need or deserve, they are depriving so many others from getting what they need and deserve. And this should not be allowed in a intelligent, civil, society. Greed is very destructive, and this is greed.
Last edited: