Let's accept a premise for the point of argument.

  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 17, 2012 5:04 PM GMT
    Fortunately my thread that began posing the question of who on RJ has a net worth of at least $2.5 MM has taken on a life of its' own. With luck, this thread will move discussion in a slightly different direction, but that is for our RJ "democracy" to decide.

    For the sake of argument, let's assume that one can own wealth in whatever form it may take in excess. I say "own" because one's possessions in whatever form they take are fundamentally protected as to ownership in America's foundational documents, i.e. the U.S. Constitution, etc.

    This is of course not unique to America, but is an intrinsic element of all democracies even though I wonder about this precept in regards to the Greeks, Portuguese, Italians, and French. Let's of course not leave out the Swedes, even though you will find there are no free rides in Sweden as there are in the U.S., ergo fifty-percent or so of Americans do not pay their fair share of the federal tax burden; instead they receive welfare in the form of refundable credits.

    Let's say a small group of individuals both via personal work and effort and inheritance stretches across the globe and controls many billions in assets. What should be the cap on wealth controlled by an individual or small group? Should in Randian fashion prior to collapse, these assets be reallocated to others, even though they lack the skills to manage said assets?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2012 5:39 PM GMT
    You've basically described what is happening with Walmart's Walten family. If the trend continues, and they make a near complete takeover of US sales along with continued subsistence wages for their employees, we could see a repeat of the Minors 'Company stores' scenerio. We could end up with riots which would force redistribution just like what happened to bring about the Robber barron, Coal minor Company Store days, which brought in Unions and redistribution.

    That Union redistribution era that brought about the Middle class has passed, the pendulum swung the other way, the masses are suffering now with fewer jobs and little money to spend. All the attention and policies have been pushing money to the rich and corporations, thereby taking away jobs to the detriment of the masses. Soon the pendulum will swing back because the masses can only take so much and they will revolt.

    Right now the masses aren't quite yet down to the point of being totally 'uncomfortable' enough to start hitting the streets to make their demands heard. But if the trends continue, the masses will revolt then the pendulum will start swinging back and policies will be enacted to redistribute wealth. This has happened time and again throughout history. Look for it to happen again if our policy makers don't wake up.

    One of the best things we could do to turn this around is to do away with Citizens United and as far as possible seperate money and politics. Then there would be a natural improvement in the distribution of wealth rather than the contrived bought and payed for redistribution of wealth upwards which is our current situation and started with Reagan.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 17, 2012 5:41 PM GMT
    conservativejock said
    For the sake of argument, let's assume that one can own wealth in whatever form it may take in excess. I say "own" because one's possessions in whatever form they take are fundamentally protected as to ownership in America's foundational documents, i.e. the U.S. Constitution, etc.



    False. Tea Party myth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2012 6:03 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    conservativejock said
    For the sake of argument, let's assume that one can own wealth in whatever form it may take in excess. I say "own" because one's possessions in whatever form they take are fundamentally protected as to ownership in America's foundational documents, i.e. the U.S. Constitution, etc.



    False. Tea Party myth.







    To my way of thinking, the Tea Party myth is that there is a 'redistribution of wealth' downward, when reality has it that the redistribution has been upwards since Reagan. Notice who funds the TBaggers ? Its the wealthy in whose interests they fool the Baggers into promoting. What 'godam' fools, these 'baggers'.!!!!
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 17, 2012 6:08 PM GMT
    yourname2000 saidWhy do you engage this racist, trolly piece of shit??? icon_eek.gif

    He's all lies by all accounts; no one has ever backed up his claims.


    Photobucket
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2012 6:15 PM GMT
    There should be no limit on the wealth an individual may hold, but it should be taxed and, above a certain level, taxed heavily.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2012 6:22 PM GMT
    Interesting that if you go back to the Reagan administration, they wanted a flat tax but could not stomach the political fallout from all sides.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2012 8:36 PM GMT
    conservativejock saidFortunately my thread that began posing the question of who on RJ has a net worth of at least $2.5 MM has taken on a life of its' own.


    No it did not.. the comment you got were warranted because that's the thread you wanted it to be. Tough.. you 'attempted' to change it to deflect your original BS but it failed miserably.

    Own it clown.