It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Should We Cap The Wealthy?
page: 9share:
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
Should we put a cap on the amount of wealth a person can have? No.
Should we put a cap on the amount a person can "earn"? Yes, in a sense.
Milton Friedman, one of the fathers of modern business/economic philosophy, is known for saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that the corporation(business) is amoral and to attempt to apply any morals to it that inhibit it from maximising and extending its primary constant expansion of profit to owners) was actually, in itself, immoral.
Couple this with a Randian Rational Egoist/Objectivist mentality that is pervasive in today's business environment.
What do you get?
People who are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead for themselves, no matter who gets in true way.
I do not subscribe to this belief.
I believe that the only way we advance is when we advance together.
As such, I believe society has the right to create rules and regulations, as well as to make judgements on the legitimacy of compensation.
I believe society can and should judge how people are compensated for what they do.
Should teachers earn so little?
Should stockbrokers earn so much?
Who contributes more valuably to society?
I think we have a right to say to the Bankers, "no, we bailed you out after you brought us to the brink of economic oblivion...no, you DON'T deserve that multi-million dollar bonus that you are giving yourself...!"
Should we put a cap on the amount of wealth a person can have? No.
Should we put a cap on the amount a person can "earn"? Yes, in a sense.
Milton Friedman, one of the fathers of modern business/economic philosophy, is known for saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that the corporation(business) is amoral and to attempt to apply any morals to it that inhibit it from maximising and extending its primary constant expansion of profit to owners) was actually, in itself, immoral.
Couple this with a Randian Rational Egoist/Objectivist mentality that is pervasive in today's business environment.
What do you get?
People who are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead for themselves, no matter who gets in true way.
I do not subscribe to this belief.
I believe that the only way we advance is when we advance together.
As such, I believe society has the right to create rules and regulations, as well as to make judgements on the legitimacy of compensation.
I believe society can and should judge how people are compensated for what they do.
Should teachers earn so little?
Should stockbrokers earn so much?
Who contributes more valuably to society?
I think we have a right to say to the Bankers, "no, we bailed you out after you brought us to the brink of economic oblivion...no, you DON'T deserve that multi-million dollar bonus that you are giving yourself...!"
edit on 29/11/11 by madhatr137 because: Premature exclamation
I don't think we should limit wealth per se, I just think we need to tax the beejeesus out of it once it reaches a certian level. There is a limited
amount of money. New money is only created by debt with attached interest. Thus every dollar the super wealthy acquires is another dollar unavailable
for everyone else to fight over. Let them brag to each other about how much their wealth tax is rather than how much their sportscar cost.
new topics