PDA

View Full Version : Democracy: having a referendum on the redistribution of wealth?



Skyhaven
8th November 2014, 16:29
Should't it be possible that everyone can vote on such vital matters. Most of us can see that having a system where excess wealth can just be kept on banks indefinetely isn't serving the common good, nor the individuals who own it. I know the implications are enormous, but still I believe we must be able to address these easy to see flaws of the system. What do you think?

Happyjak
8th November 2014, 19:29
I think resources belong to the Earth and her people not private corporations. Also think usuary, especially when used in a fractional reserve system is criminal. So most of the vast wealth disparity was accumulated unethically and those funds should be returned and used for the betterment of man instead of a tool of enslavement and dominance as it is used for today. Also believe the need for a money system will eventually be obsolete see www.michaeltellinger.com for an idea how this transition could happen.

Yetti
8th November 2014, 23:26
From my point of view "REDISTRIBUITION OF WEALTH " could be good or very bad as well. To take money from the ones to have it and give to the ones who do not work for it is communism. Ideal conditions must be created for the people with money to create jobs, instead to kill them by taxes. In that way if the conditions are fair they will stay here instead to take the jobs overseas, as happening now, because of the hi tax rate by greedy gov. We all loose exept the one who have the money , they still making money anywhere else but you don't get a job ! so you end up buying goods manufactured overseas , god that once where made here! in USA. But greed and lobbyist government aloud such a thing, and that's where we're stand today, totally F> UP! I would like to have a referendum in , ban GMO, Tax exemption for business coming here to provide jobs, Les regulations for small business, TAX THE BANKSTERS for the money they create with your money ! . A referendum on having our money backed on precious metals, not just paper , or even worst: bits on a computer.
Redistribution of wealth, is a socialistic propaganda orquestrated by the very same that put us in this situation. And I'm not saying Democ or Rep, did it, I say both are responsible directly for decades for such a mess. So redistribution is not the answer, but is just MY opinion ok?. Thanks.

Skyhaven
9th November 2014, 00:06
The odd thing about this whole situation is that even a child can see that this whole accumulating wealth philosophy is absolutely ridiculous, and yet most people would be totally against doing anything it about because they themselves are already knee-deep into this mud, and rather prefer short-lived security than a long term solution.

Having all the comfort in the world in their homes, while criticizing the politicians that they are making the wrong calls, when really they wouldn't even have the courage to go against the grain in their daily lives because it might harm their wealth, let alone doing that when they were in charge.

TargeT
9th November 2014, 00:17
it certainly seems FAR out of balance.


85 richest now have as much money as poorest 3.5B
"There's been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won."

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett made that remark more than three years ago and it still holds true today only the gap between the richest and the poorest has gotten even wider.

Here's how bad it is: Oxfam now calculates that the 85 richest billionaires on the planet, including the likes of Carlos Slim, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, have as much money as the 3.5 billion poorest people.

And for all the talk about the urgent need to address income inequality, the mega-rich just keep on getting richer.

How much richer?

Oxfam estimates that between March 2013 and March 2014, those same 85 billionaires saw their wealth grow by $668 million every day.

These people are so grotesquely rich that if Bill Gates, for example, spent $1 million every day, it would take him 218 years to exhaust his funds.

That, of course, would never happen because Gates would be earning millions of dollars a day in interest on the rest of his wealth.

When you have more money than you could possibly spend in several lifetimes, you can afford to do some pretty crazy things.

Like spend $95,000 on a 4 lb white truffle that looks like a turd because when your name is Vladimir Potanin, the Russian mining tycoon, and you have a net worth of $13.9 billion, $95,000 is pocket change.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/07/globalpost-richest-poorest/18640031/

but how do you change it?

In my mind I think if there were ways to disincentive obnoxious amounts of money it could work... say once your net-worth exceeds 150 million you are taxed annually at a 90% on income, once it exceeds 200 million you are taxed at 150% on net worth (not income). (and this would have to be based on a number that changes with currency inflation/deflation; perhaps some formula that includes the prices of a wide range of commonly used goods OR, even better, just "energy").

This "taxed" money would have very stringent uses: Infrastructure ONLY overseen by a rotating committee that can never serve twice and changes every 4 years with heavy lobbying prohibitions.

The system could change, but it has to de-centivise people from becoming what they are now, if you've earned 150,000,000.00 in net worth, you will be INCENTIVISED to take a break, relax, enjoy life.. let OTHERS do some earning. Oh, and effective immediately there would be a trust-proof "death tax" of 50% if the assets equal more than 100milion 80% if more than 200million and 95% above 250million.

Carmody
9th November 2014, 02:01
Due to the reality and concept of individualism, as played out via human avatars, one cannot foster a functional environment for awakening, without sticking a finger in each and every individual eye.

It cannot be a few, with a herd of armchair followers, that is meaningless, besides being an unreality, and ineffective.

Therefore, each and every individual gets a poke. Right in the eye. Hard. Even some sand rubbed in, for the more stubbornly clueless and/or uninvolved (refusing to fully relate). Obviously, this is done via an intercontinental device and directive.

wnlight
9th November 2014, 04:07
Let's close the Fed Reserve Bank first. Then see what else after the dust settles.
Maybe:
Remove the concept of corporations having the rights of human citizens.
Ban payments for political adds. Maybe "money talks", but not on TV.
Ban investment banks.
Break up the broadcast corporations. (MSM)

Baby Steps
9th November 2014, 09:10
We need full transparency and democracy to stop the shenanigans. We need to concentrate on liberating the masses, not focusing on the rich, it's a red herring

Snookie
9th November 2014, 18:32
The most egregious thing the wealthy get away with doing is creating "Trust Funds" or "Foundations", where they escape paying the outrageous taxes that you & I pay.

If a flat tax was brought in and EVERYONE had to pay it, no wiggling out of it, we (the so called 99%) would all be paying a lot less taxes, & the elite a lot more. This wouldn't solve all our problems but would really begin to change things.

Paul
9th November 2014, 18:56
The most egregious thing the wealthy get away with doing is creating "Trust Funds" or "Foundations", where they escape paying the outrageous taxes that you & I pay.
That, and the corporations they control, which are for many practical purposes above the law (no jail time for corporations, no risk of death penalty, no campaign finance limits, no practical limit on longevity before all passes via inheritance laws to others, ...). Corporations get the benefit of "personhood" when it's to their advantage, and the safety of "limited liability" when it suits them.

Snookie
9th November 2014, 19:23
The most egregious thing the wealthy get away with doing is creating "Trust Funds" or "Foundations", where they escape paying the outrageous taxes that you & I pay.
That, and the corporations they control, which are for many practical purposes above the law (no jail time for corporations, no risk of death penalty, no campaign finance limits, no practical limit on longevity before all passes via inheritance laws to others, ...). Corporations get the benefit of "personhood" when it's to their advantage, and the safety of "limited liability" when it suits them.

Very well said!

sheme
18th March 2016, 13:28
Give one hundred people one hundred dollars wait a few weeks and you will have what you had before you started -rich and poor and some stay the same. Far better to do away with money- in exchange for some work you get what ever you need. why not?