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.
Originally posted by boncho
If you took away what the 400 have and gave it to the others, they would all have 16,000 dollars instead of 8,000. Hardly rich.
What would that accomplish exactly?
Originally posted by tvtexan
Originally posted by boncho
If you took away what the 400 have and gave it to the others, they would all have 16,000 dollars instead of 8,000. Hardly rich.
What would that accomplish exactly?
Stick around.... if Obama gets re-elected you will find out.
Originally posted by boncho
If you took away what the 400 have and gave it to the others, they would all have 16,000 dollars instead of 8,000. Hardly rich.
What would that accomplish exactly?
Originally posted by boncho
If you took away what the 400 have and gave it to the others, they would all have 16,000 dollars instead of 8,000. Hardly rich.
What would that accomplish exactly?
First of all I never said anything about the rich handing out their money until everyone has the same amount, that is an assumption Boncho made without even knowing how I really see this problem and how I think it can be remedied. See the following thread if you wish to know exactly where I stand:
Giving everyone the same amount of money doesn't do anything.
Yes, fine... but you know what, most of those 155 million Americans work 8 to 10 hours a day 5 days a week. Do you really believe the CEO's and shareholders actually work so much harder that the wealth gap I portray in the above graphic is actually justified? You really believe such a huge ridiculous difference in wealth is justified? There's no way in hell those 400 people worked even 1% as hard as they'd need to to justify them having that amount of wealth. As I note in the thread I linked above, the problem is how they got such a huge amount of wealth compared to everyone else in the first place, not trying to get that wealth back from them. We need to fix the root cause of the problem and not slap a temporary treatment on the problem.
Shouldn't the person who works hard and is fiscally responsible enjoy the rewards of their labor?
The only way out of this is to not have jobs that aren't worth enough to live off of. You have to have enough worth to society to pay your own way, or leach it. No one has enough worth to live like a king. They aren't using their own time creating wealth. They have hidden these facts by the use of debt.
So now you may wonder how do we shift out of a capitalistic system to one where wealth can be more evenly distributed.
Clearly.
1. Not everyone in that 133 million has $8000.
It's still a lot better than 8K isn't it.
2. $16,000 is double 8 but not that much either.
Great. I'll take all your "monopoly dollars" please.
3. Money is useless, (especially being that it is fiat) so the idea that having $8000 extra monopoly dollars and that is supposed to enrich your life in some way is ludicrous.
Wrong. I am focusing on things being FAIRLY distributed. There is a key difference.
This is your problem. You are focusing on things being "evenly distributed" without addressing useful production.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by boncho
Clearly.
1. Not everyone in that 133 million has $8000.
It's still a lot better than 8K isn't it.
2. $16,000 is double 8 but not that much either.
Great. I'll take all your "monopoly dollars" please.
3. Money is useless, (especially being that it is fiat) so the idea that having $8000 extra monopoly dollars and that is supposed to enrich your life in some way is ludicrous.
You seem to be forgetting these statistics concern net worth, not income. The average net worth of each person on the bottom 50% is 8K, meaning they have about 8K worth of assets, such as a car etc. To double their personal asset value is not as trivial as you make it seem.
8k or 16k is not enough to retire, not enough to do much of anything. An extra 8k could be spent on a one time purchase of a watch. This is hardly anything to call home about. 8k is a Christmas bonus to many... What is 8k?
Now you are just blabbering nonsense... they are broke because they spend their money? No s**t sherlock, they spend their minimal wages on bills and food and other things they need to survive, leaving them with hardly anything, only just enough for the average of them to build a net worth of 8K. And how you equate that into "rich people are broke" is completely beyond me. If you mean broke, as in lacking morality and empathy, yes they are broke in that department.
You will take the monopoly dollars yes, and spend them. And cry when they are gone still wondering why you are broke. That's the problem.
Everyone is broke without realizing it. Even the rich people.
Originally posted by redhorse
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
First of all, I think that the OP has presented an absolutely outstanding visual representation of the current wealth disparity present in the United States. Well done.
For all or those who are attempting to justify this catastrophe with social-Darwinist over simplifications, I don't believe that the OP is attempting to say that all of that wealth should be taken away and then evenly distributed. Hierarchy is inevitable, and part of that is hoarding wealth. It's how the system works, however, when that distribution becomes too one sided (like now), the system will collapse. A certain balance must be achieved between the "haves" and the "have not's", lest the masses with less revolt in attempt to redistribute wealth/resources, or simply have too little of it to be productive within the contemporary paradigm.
As an aside; it took me a while to find your single pixle... Funny thing that.