First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply The 1%
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/24/16 , edited 1/24/16

bobsagget wrote:


ayesharocks wrote:


bobsagget wrote:

Some people from the real 1%...


1) Lord Jacob de Rothschild. 2) Nathaniel Jacob de Rothschild. 3) Baron John de Rothschild, 4) Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. 5) David Rockefeller, 6) Nathan Warburg 7) Henry Kissinger, 8 George Soros, 9) Paul Volcker, 10) Larry Summers, 11) Lloyd Blankfein 12) Ben Shalom Bernanke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rothschild,_4th_Baron_Rothschild


white


Shockingly only one of these men is of European descend (David Rockefeller). All of the rest the men are actually Semites. (non-European)


Wait, why is that shocking? There are 70 million people in the 1%, and the fact that 11 of them are Jewish is shocking? Why? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO PICKED THEM OUT. Or is it shocking that you're the type of person that would think "who are some rich people?," and then proceed to pick 11 jews and a white guy (which sounds like it might be a bad sitcom, now that I think about it)?
25139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 1/24/16
If I was part of the 1% I would give everyone on Cr a 100k$
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/25/16

theYchromosome wrote:



I suppose I'm more moderately for some sort of collective responsibility. I certainly don't trust the government, but neither do I trust individuals and corporations just the same. There is a sensible amount that ought to be responsibly provided--yet we haven't figured how much that amount is or how it should be administered. Honestly, I'm more for privatization than against given the current state of things.

Originally the government was supposed to handle distribution, but instead money gets clogged there just as much as it does in the pockets of the wealthiest individuals--if not more so. Instead of addressing the clog it remedies it by increasing the money supply. Now, I'm nothing of the sort into the field of economics, but it comes to my vague understanding that circulation and the circulation speed of money is crucial. Is it not the money held from being placed back into circulation part of our issue? When we say 'too much money', do we really mean the individuals with so much money they have nothing to do with it but store it away?

So what do we do, per se, to prevent the dam at the top of the wall? Well, I pondered on it a bit, what if there was an incentive to spend money instead of hold on to? If not incentive, than perhaps a penalty %-age for not spending? Instead of having the government grab it and decide where it goes--to have the consumer simply consume more often.

2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 1/25/16
I have NO problem with wealthy people having money. I do have a problem with a system that seems to exist solely to exasperate and widen the inequality between the rich and the poor. I'm honestly happy people are rich and I never put them down. I wish everyone was rich. I might not like some of their actions, especially the corporations but that's a whole different matter. It's just not my place to judge. I wish I was rich lol.

On the other hand I don't care much for loopholes and tax breaks that seem to favor the rich. I'm not too impressed with people who have millions if not billions and yet pay less taxes than I do. Also our justice system is completely different if you have money which is something that needs to change. They should completely get rid of bail period. It favors those who have vs those who have not. Bailouts are also a big problem. Let's take Donald Trump for instance. How many times now has the government bailed him out after a bankruptcy? And he loves to go on and on about how he made all his money. Sorry but you can give a monkey a few million and it could make money too. It's not that hard once you hit a certain amount. Interest on savings alone makes quite a bit and that's before you get into putting your money into fake religious accounts to dodge taxes. I do wish we'd put a cap on how much CEO's can make the way other countries have. The disparity between the top 1% and the rest of us shouldn't be that great.

Here's a few facts that I copied and pasted from another site. Yeah I'm lazy:

In examining trends in CEO compensation to determine how well the top 1 and 0.1 percent are faring through 2014, this paper finds:

Average CEO compensation for the largest firms was $16.3 million in 2014. This estimate uses a comprehensive measure of CEO pay that covers chief executives of the top 350 U.S. firms and includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year. Compensation is up 3.9 percent since 2013 and 54.3 percent since the recovery began in 2009.

From 1978 to 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period.

The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 20-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 376-to-1 in 2000 and was 303-to-1 in 2014, far higher than in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.

That's a pretty big bump compared to the rest of us. Due to inflation most middle class people are now making less than they did in the late 70's.

Why aren't people more concerned about this? I read a recent study that shows why people haven't demanded better and fairer pay and it's because most American's believe they are better off than they really are. For instance the lowest class earners all believe they are in the middle class while the middle class workers all believe they are either upper middle class or are upper class. Americans time and time again overstate their actual worth which doesn't help. We will likely never reach a boiling point where change is demanded because of this.

It also bothers me a bit that a really crappy CEO can land a job, do a horrible job, heck not even show up to work every day if they want and still walk away a rich man/woman. Their severance packages are insane. Can you imagine working at McDonalds, not doing your job and calling in every day and then they fire you and give you a years worth of wages to boot? Who in their right mind would even bother to work hard if just by the mere fact of landing the job you're given money for no reason? It seems off to me. But hey if you're lucky enough to be born into wealth and already have a foot in the door then go for it. Why not? It also makes all those self made stories all the sweeter. I like reading about people who clawed their way up from poverty to become a big CEO who made a fortune. Who doesn't like a rags to riches story?

Again, I'm all for people being wealthy. I wish everyone was. I don't believe in taking the money they earn away from them like Robin Hood. I do believe the system should be fair and it just makes sense that any country would want a strong and thriving middle class. These days corporations seem more interested in scorch and burn tactics than growing a successful business. Quick cash is the new norm instead of innovation and a good rapport with your customers. Thankfully there are still many great companies out there who are interested in quality and innovation and not just get it while you can. You would think we would all learn our lessons from history. I wonder what the income disparity was in Rome right before it fell? I bet it was a mirror of what we're seeing now. Without the rest of us the rich won't keep their money and will have nothing to do with it. They can take it and run but eventually they are going to run out of places to run to. The world needs countries with strong economies and the backbone of any strong economy is the middle class. You can't build a house without a foundation.
23493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/25/16

theYchromosome wrote:


bobsagget wrote:


ayesharocks wrote:


bobsagget wrote:

Some people from the real 1%...


1) Lord Jacob de Rothschild. 2) Nathaniel Jacob de Rothschild. 3) Baron John de Rothschild, 4) Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. 5) David Rockefeller, 6) Nathan Warburg 7) Henry Kissinger, 8 George Soros, 9) Paul Volcker, 10) Larry Summers, 11) Lloyd Blankfein 12) Ben Shalom Bernanke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rothschild,_4th_Baron_Rothschild


white


Shockingly only one of these men is of European descend (David Rockefeller). All of the rest the men are actually Semites. (non-European)


Wait, why is that shocking? There are 70 million people in the 1%, and the fact that 11 of them are Jewish is shocking? Why? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO PICKED THEM OUT. Or is it shocking that you're the type of person that would think "who are some rich people?," and then proceed to pick 11 jews and a white guy (which sounds like it might be a bad sitcom, now that I think about it)?


Its shocking because a group of people who only make up 1% of the world's population are grossly over-represented among the world's ruling elites. There are many wealthy gentiles too, but the most powerful people in the world are undoubtedly the Rothschild banking Family, and they are Ashkenazim (ethnically) Jewish.

The Aristocrats: The Rothschilds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0su39y7QOM
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/25/16 , edited 1/25/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

My opinion is that a hard working person can only be so poor. We had 33% of the population receiving benefits. Now this points to two things. Either we have too lax of a standards on welfare, or we're doing a poor job getting people off of welfare.


Think it's a bit of both actually.

But to the OP.

No some number of 60+ people should own half of Americas wealth. That's simply corporate greed and it destabilizes the economy. It's a recipe for destroying a country, not helping it grow.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/25/16 , edited 1/25/16

PrinceJudar wrote:



I get the logic behind this, but I don't think that would be a good idea for a couple of reasons.

1. We already have an incentive for spending. Namely, that someone wants a thing. But if we're talking about a person that has money, but doesn't want to spend it, then you can reasonably expect that there's nothing of value to them that would warrant the spending of the money. What you do when you (if I understand your idea correctly) tax savings, is encouraging people to spend money on things they view as approximately worthless. If they didn't want it in the first place, but you encourage them to buy it just so they don't lose money on the penalty, then you encourage them to buy something they don't want. This seems like an excellent way to encourage bad products and services to continue past their natural expiration date.

2. On principle, I find the idea of telling people what to do with their money rather distasteful, but more importantly from a policy perspective, there are lots of very good reasons to save up a lot of money. It can take a lot of money to start a business, and someone saving up millions in the bank may be planning on using that later to make a startup, research a product, or whatever. Penalizing them for keeping that money temporarily may encourage them to not make the company at all due to heightened startup cost, or fund the project before it's ready, which lowers the quality. This 'penalty for not spending' seems to have a view sort of lurking in the background that there's a lot of rich people just building up money and hoarding it away in a safe somewhere, whereas I have a feeling that most of the time it's being used in investments, building companies, funding projects, buying stuff, and often, charitable donations. If you have any data suggesting that there actually are a lot of people hoarding up wealth and sitting on it, then I'd be interested to see it. I don't actually have any data, so I could be very wrong -- I'm really just working on my intuitions here.

Circulation of capital is an indicator of economic health, so it generally is a good thing to have a lot of it, but it's not really a cause of a good economy -- it's a symptom. Money is just a representation of the various resources of an economy: effort, time, ideas, products, material, etc. Ultimately, you need those things to ensure a good economy, and simply making people exchange things more often doesn't actually change much for anyone but stock brokers. To oversimplify things, that's how we get stock market bubbles and crashes. We have an increase in a circulation of capital without any increase in the stuff that the capital is supposed to represent. And without that, the perceived value of the stuff inflates past a breaking point, and we have a crash.


descloud wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

My opinion is that a hard working person can only be so poor. We had 33% of the population receiving benefits. Now this points to two things. Either we have too lax of a standards on welfare, or we're doing a poor job getting people off of welfare.


Think it's a bit of both actually.

But to the OP.

No some number of 60+ people should own half of Americas wealth. That's simply corporate greed and it destabilizes the economy. It's a recipe for destroying a country, not helping it grow.


Why?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the more time you've spent on this planet, the more time you'd have spent working, making and saving money. If the people are making good financial decisions, they should have more money as they grow old, and ideally, the oldest people would end up wealthier on average, and obviously in particular. Maybe you have a point, but I've seen no evidence or argument to support your claims.
81324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 1/25/16

bobsagget wrote:



Its shocking because a group of people who only make up 1% of the world's population are grossly over-represented among the world's ruling elites. There are many wealthy gentiles too, but the most powerful people in the world are undoubtedly the Rothschild banking Family, and they are Ashkenazim (ethnically) Jewish.

The Aristocrats: The Rothschilds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0su39y7QOM


How is 11 out of 70 million over represented? Also, you realize that 4 of them being from the same family should make it less surprising rather than more, right? It just means that the family cooperated with each other to acquire the vast fortune, or that the seed money and the methods of acquiring a vast fortune were passed among the family.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/25/16

TheOriginalStraynge wrote:


We're in agreement on most of it. A few things though. In order to get $20,000/year on interest in a standard savings account, you'd need approximately $60 million in savings. In America, depending on your state, the 1% makes above 300-500k/year. That's hardly making a living on savings. Putting it in a CD would be a bit better, but you'd still need quite a bit to make a living off it. The only other thing I think I disagree with is having a cap on CEO pay. Ignoring the fact that you'd have to find out what a CEO is worth without any market comparison, CEO's are given jobs by the owners of the company (shareholders) and the owners ought to have the right to decide how much to pay their employees.


Here's a few facts that I copied and pasted from another site. Yeah I'm lazy:



If any of that reveals that the market isn't working, I don't see it. Explain why any of this necessarily indicates a problem. As for the middle class making less than they did in the 70's, I'd ask whether you'd prefer to be middle-class in the 70's, without the internet, cell phones, and all the fancy stuff that corporations, businesses, and all manner of thinkers have produced since then. Ask me if we have it better now than we did in the 70's and I'd guess (admittedly, as someone that wasn't around then) that I'd prefer middle class now.


Why aren't people more concerned about this? I read a recent study that shows why people haven't demanded better and fairer pay and it's because most American's believe they are better off than they really are. For instance the lowest class earners all believe they are in the middle class while the middle class workers all believe they are either upper middle class or are upper class. Americans time and time again overstate their actual worth which doesn't help. We will likely never reach a boiling point where change is demanded because of this.


Wait, wait, wait. So people in America look at their wealth, and the things they have, judge they are well-off, and this is a problem? I can totally see this. When I was in college, working a minimum wage job while living in a tent on the outskirts of town, I had a pretty damn high estimation of my satisfaction with my life, who I am, the things I had. Being happy with not being rich is not a problem. Looking at the things you have and thinking 'yeah, I'm pretty well off' does not become an invalid statement if you underestimate how much other people make. In fact, why compare each other at all? Who cares how much other people make if you're happy with what you have? Upper, middle, lower -- it's a distinction that only exists when you compare people with each other. There are merits to doing so, but it shouldn't matter at all to whether or not society is serving individuals competently.


It also bothers me a bit that a really crappy CEO can land a job, do a horrible job, heck not even show up to work every day if they want and still walk away a rich man/woman. Their severance packages are insane. Can you imagine working at McDonalds, not doing your job and calling in every day and then they fire you and give you a years worth of wages to boot? Who in their right mind would even bother to work hard if just by the mere fact of landing the job you're given money for no reason? It seems off to me. But hey if you're lucky enough to be born into wealth and already have a foot in the door then go for it. Why not? It also makes all those self made stories all the sweeter. I like reading about people who clawed their way up from poverty to become a big CEO who made a fortune. Who doesn't like a rags to riches story?


Bothers me too. But people ought to be free to make mistakes, owners of a company ought to be able to hire whoever they want, and shareholders are certainly welcome to hire the wrong guys. Their company will suffer. Note, however, that good CEO's exist as well, and if I had to guess, are probably the norm. Although admittedly, I don't really have any data on CEO success rates -- I haven't really looked for them either, mostly because if a company hires a shitty CEO, it simply means I'll be buying products from the company that steps in their place. Its effect on me as a consumer is negligible.





This part isn't so much argument as your basic feelings on the matter. Which is fine -- I've mad my own clear throughout the thread, I'm not criticizing it -- but I don't really feel like countering with my own at this point, so I'll just leave it at that.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/25/16 , edited 1/25/16
I'm of the mindset that you reap what you sow. That's a very general way of looking at it for sure, but it's inherently true the majority of the time. There's problems with the way our system is setup currently but there aren't many better options available. Legislature can only change so much as well. Still, I'd rather greed run rampant than a lazy/undeserving person be handed everything on a silver platter (more or less).
Posted 1/25/16

dotsforlife wrote:

a lazy person

You can do a lazy ass job, like the fuckers who built and refurbished my house, where in the kitchen I've got 3 layers of paneling because they figured why take the old paneling down before we put up the new one, like, just to save time so they could go jerk off or something, but there's no such thing as a lazy person. A lazy person, the person you're calling undeserving (of living?), is a person who's struggling with depression. So, you're basically saying, that if you're struggling with depression, that if you're sad and upset, if you're hurt, and in pain, and alone and have nobody, just go kill yourself because you're worthless.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/25/16

Hrafna wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

a lazy person

You can do a lazy ass job, like the fuckers who built and refurbished my house, where in the kitchen I've got 3 layers of paneling because they figured why take the old paneling down before we put up the new one, like, just to save time so they could go jerk off or something, but there's no such thing as a lazy person. A lazy person, the person you're calling undeserving (of living?), is a person who's struggling with depression. So, you're basically saying, that if you're struggling with depression, that if you're sad and upset, if you're hurt, and in pain, and alone and have nobody, just go kill yourself because you're worthless.


Holy SHIT!

How do you even ACHIEVE this level of hyperbole?

You do this EVERY TIME I see you post. YOu blow something up and out of proportion until it's COMPLETELY SEPARATED from the original meaning.

That's not what he said at all, learn to read. Please.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/25/16

Hrafna wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

a lazy person

You can do a lazy ass job, like the fuckers who built and refurbished my house, where in the kitchen I've got 3 layers of paneling because they figured why take the old paneling down before we put up the new one, like, just to save time so they could go jerk off or something, but there's no such thing as a lazy person. A lazy person, the person you're calling undeserving (of living?), is a person who's struggling with depression. So, you're basically saying, that if you're struggling with depression, that if you're sad and upset, if you're hurt, and in pain, and alone and have nobody, just go kill yourself because you're worthless.


^ Don't do drugs kids.

Posted 1/25/16

sarteck wrote:


Hrafna wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

a lazy person

You can do a lazy ass job, like the fuckers who built and refurbished my house, where in the kitchen I've got 3 layers of paneling because they figured why take the old paneling down before we put up the new one, like, just to save time so they could go jerk off or something, but there's no such thing as a lazy person. A lazy person, the person you're calling undeserving (of living?), is a person who's struggling with depression. So, you're basically saying, that if you're struggling with depression, that if you're sad and upset, if you're hurt, and in pain, and alone and have nobody, just go kill yourself because you're worthless.


Holy SHIT!

How do you even ACHIEVE this level of hyperbole?

You do this EVERY TIME I see you post. YOu blow something up and out of proportion until it's COMPLETELY SEPARATED from the original meaning.

That's not what he said at all, learn to read. Please.


Reading is not the problem. I just don't give a shit about anything in his post except that one bit I put in quotes. Why would I give a fuck about this topic or anything else he said? What, do you think you, what you're talking about, or your point is somehow important to the rest of us? Bitch, please.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/25/16

Hrafna wrote:


sarteck wrote:


Hrafna wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

a lazy person

You can do a lazy ass job, like the fuckers who built and refurbished my house, where in the kitchen I've got 3 layers of paneling because they figured why take the old paneling down before we put up the new one, like, just to save time so they could go jerk off or something, but there's no such thing as a lazy person. A lazy person, the person you're calling undeserving (of living?), is a person who's struggling with depression. So, you're basically saying, that if you're struggling with depression, that if you're sad and upset, if you're hurt, and in pain, and alone and have nobody, just go kill yourself because you're worthless.


Holy SHIT!

How do you even ACHIEVE this level of hyperbole?

You do this EVERY TIME I see you post. YOu blow something up and out of proportion until it's COMPLETELY SEPARATED from the original meaning.

That's not what he said at all, learn to read. Please.


Reading is not the problem. I just don't give a shit about anything in his post except that one bit I put in quotes. Why would I give a fuck about this topic or anything else he said? What, do you think you, what you're talking about, or your point is somehow important to the rest of us? Bitch, please.


>Why would I give a fuck about reality when I can substitute my own?

Oh. You're one of those.

Okay, nevermind. No getting through to you.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.