A Breath of fresh air

[Preston]

Again you can't generalise about all billionaires - don't forget that millionaires create jobs and some billionaires are doing a lot of good, take the Bill Gates foundation for example. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

I had a thought about the "Bill Gates Foundation", and came to what I feel is the truth. I wanted to share in hope that some may understand the treachery and sickness of Gates greedy self.

First, as you know I believe that the blood-sucking is done from the rich - otherwise they would not be rich. Many consider "America" (I am speaking about America politically) to be free, good, etc. I have come to despise with much that is in me, and hopefully eventually all that is in me, that way of thinking. "America The Great" has a great and overwhelming plague, as do many countries. America is a country of such unimaginable oppression and pain the sheer thought of it is far beyond disturbing. Anyway.

The problem I have with money is, imo, it is a form of greed. A greed that when one takes too much they step on their fellow beings - smashing their brains into the ground - perhaps that is to lightly put. I think the more serious and better way to put it is because the greedy individual takes more of the pie than they should, naturally, they cause others who also want the pie to not have any - and therefore make them spend not seconds, not days, not months, not years, etc. - but their entire lives in a world of confinement and chains - if you will. I think I would rather wake up daily and be beaten to death (and perhaps far more) with a bat than live in utter poverty, homelessness, prison, etc. Though, that is me.

Anyway, as for Bill Gates. To my mind is one of the greatest thieves of all time. The reason being is because Gates created an operating system that was wholly proprietary. He/Microsoft then refused to share the source code with any other. Now there is no real universal operating system (where there would be choice and diversity) - most programs/application run under Windows not because they want to because they have to, because of people like Gates.

I am not attempting to rail all rich people. Though, I do wonder how someone could be so sick and insane as to take or have so much money then to see not just someone but an entire world of starvation and suffering and continue to hold on to more than their fair share. It reminds me of a bunch of insane Nazi's bleeding, starving, tormenting, etc. their fellow beings to such a level of pain and terror.

Also, wanted to add about the political America - it acts like it doing the right thing, but in truth, to my mind, it is as insane as it is consumptive.

As for success, as Robert mentioned, "success in modern times" as a plague of endless disease. True success, imo, is in honesty and truth, etc.

[Preston]

Well it is common sense that someone can "make it". That is obvious as has been seen throughout history when the basis of the wealth of the society is money.

Whether it is right (in a "spiritual" sense) to "make it", that is another question.

The punchline is this:

When there is a society based around money there has to be redistribution in order for other people to have wealth. In other words, if everyone was wealthy who would do the work? No one, and, the entire society would collapse (Which, given the society - say America, would not be a bad thing, imo.).

[EternaLisa]

Thank you Peter.

Fundamentals is really all I know - not statistics, .

It just seems that a modernized society based on money should have a form of redistribution of money to help the oppressed, yet at the same time provide incentive. It seems like common sense.

Hi Preston,

Just buttin in again because I spotted a neat article on the internet today and I immediately thought that I should share it with you. Enjoy!!

http://shine.yahoo.com/event/poweryo...id-it-2573956/
Welfare mom creates million dollar biz: how she did it


xoxoxox

PHX

[Preston]

Thank you Peter.

Fundamentals is really all I know - not statistics, .

It just seems that a modernized society based on money should have a form of redistribution of money to help the oppressed, yet at the same time provide incentive. It seems like common sense.

Another, fundamental, is the prisons of today. Something must be done - they are terrifying, truly. Nothing can really be gained from being locked behind bars in an extremely brutal environment.

[Peter]

Thank you Sorrano. By no means are feelings hurt on my part and hopefully on no one elses part. No hard feelings on my part either.

Of course not Preston - it has been a very good debate. I think you have some fundamentally good points, but they are a little idealistic without fully thinking of the implications and practicalities. In the UK some strides are being made in the right direction because the basic threshold for paying tax has been raised and there is an idealistic vision of raising it to £10,000 before anyone has to pay, helping the lowest paid workers - it will take time to achieve because of the dire global situation.

[Preston]

Thank you Sorrano. By no means are feelings hurt on my part and hopefully on no one elses part. No hard feelings on my part either.

[Sorrano]

Preston, I don't mean to be picking on you. You've offered food for thought and we respond with our own ideas. I think it has been a good discussion and there shouldn't be any feelings hurt in regards to one's own beliefs. You have a good heart and are appreciated on the forum.

[Preston]

All I know to say is each to their own.

I have written a good portion of how I feel, whether anyone here likes it or not it does not matter, it is what I believe and to a great level, and I know there are many supportive of it.

[Sorrano]

There is a controversy in this country (US) with regards to taxing the rich more so that the country can get out of debt. Is that just? Perhaps a sly form of redistribution? There are many arguments for and against such proposals, but I bring it up as I feel it is related and not to offer opinion on it.

[Agnes Selby]

A good example is the Australian Education System. For instance, the 47 graduating
students who came top of the year in the State of New South Wales
all received scholarships to whichever university they preferred.
They are receiving $10,000 per year until graduation. This is a reward for hard work. I am familiar with this award as my grandson is one of the recipients. His dedicated hard work was rewarded.

As one of our Prime Minister's said, "the world owes you nothing, you have to
prove yourself", and believe it or not, Preston, he was a Labor Prime Minister.

Idlers do not deserve to be supported by those who work hard, be it physically
or mentally. Taking money from successful workers in order to support idlers
is pure and simple robbery. Taxes cover most of the necessary support
idlers deserve. Drugs and alcohol are not on the list of required support.

[Preston]

Would you want all people, regardless of job or skill acquired, to earn the same amount?

No. Goodness no. Quite the opposite. What you ask is what Communism is - a system that does not work because everyone makes the same thing and there is no incentive.

I am saying let there be classes, let there be incentive, let there be jobs, etc.

Though, as I said, it is just a dream and the hardships of a free-for-all democracy are the bitter and horrifying truth. Horrifying not to all but to many.

[Sorrano]

Would you want all people, regardless of job or skill acquired, to earn the same amount? Some jobs require a great deal more sweat and physical effort but others only mental exertion. Some people expend a lot of effort to increase their skills and hope that it pays off in the workforce while others are content to maintain what they have. There is no equity among the laborers nor is there equity among the jobs and pay rates. If everyone earned the same pay per hour there would be no motivation for the more difficult (mental or physical) jobs. As others have mentioned, redistribution has a scary ring to it.

[Preston]

Then why shouldn't someone who has worked hard and made a success of things be allowed to benefit from it?
These are the complex questions Preston and I don't think you've explained exactly what you mean by redistribution or how it would be done or quite frankly what the awful reality would be.

Well, as I said the working class are the wheels and foundations of the country, and they work hard - damn hard, and the benefits they get are quite little when compared with other people who no doubt work hard too, yet make much more money than the working class.

They are complex issues and I don't know the answers. I am just saying that when you have a society based around money the logical thing seems to be to have a form of redistribution that still provides good incentive and advancement. What is wrong with that?

[Peter]

No, to most it is hell, for a very small minority it is paradise. I haven't had the "privilege" of living through a supposed socialist/communist paradise in former Soviet-bloc countries, but I do know former east Germans here in Strasbourg who maintain a certain nostalgia for full employment.

It was hell when it meant not having enough food to feed your family - now it is boring and confidence destroying. I'm sure the majority of unemployed would rather not be so, but I'm also sure there are jobs that many wouldn't touch with a barge pole and prefer to remain on benefit rather than do what they consider beneath them which explains why around 80% of new jobs created in recent years in the UK have gone to migrant workers.

[Peter]

Yes, kind-of, but not in the sense I am referring to. Depending on how much they make, yes, I can easily say that a working person should be far more than willing to give away 50% of what they make, for the better cause, given the state of the financial situation in society. It just depends on how much the individual makes. A balance can be struck but when some have everything and some have nothing there is no balance at all.

Please do not think I am railing freedom of humanity!!! Anything but!

I am sure Agnes can. Peter, I thought you understood that the entire point of this redistribution talk was to keep a democratic society, just not a complete and total free-for-all (free-for-all meaning: horrible environmental laws, no redistribution of money, etc.). My goodness, I did not mean to come off seeming as though I am supportive of a dictatorship!? What happened???

I do believe in democracy, just not a free-for-all democracy. I believe in a different form of democracy. I see somewhat clearly, that while a wholly democratic society is not wholly forceful on very key subjects (religion, speech, etc.) - as a dictatorship is - at the same time great suffering and great oppression come with a wholly democratic society - and that is the problem.

I apologize if I am being too pessimistic. It is just it is a touchy subject and there are very sad and severe things happening.

Well as I said the top rate of tax for the wealthy is 50% in the UK so how much do you you think they should give? Whether they give it willingly is neither here nor there! Once you start taking more then you go down the road of disincentive - why should anyone bother to build up a business employing other people if over half of their hard work is going to be taken from them? I agree with you about the excessive wealth of some and I think something should be done there, but the fact is the majority are in the middle and they aspire to do well for themselves and their families and it is wrong to take that aspiration from them.

It is easy to talk about redistribution but how can you do it without dictatorship? Do you kick families out of affluent homes and build horrendous blocks like the communist states? Then why shouldn't someone who has worked hard and made a success of things be allowed to benefit from it?
These are the complex questions Preston and I don't think you've explained exactly what you mean by redistribution or how it would be done or quite frankly what the awful reality would be.

As to the sad and severe things happening, when hasn't that been the case? Throughout human history there have been wars, dictatorships, atrocities, these things are not new - But they are the negative aspects, look at the positive please!! We are far more socially aware than any previous generation and as I mentioned in other posts, poverty is relative - no one in the west starves unlike in every era prior to the 20th century - most people have decent housing and are looked after if they are sick or cannot work. Look at the death rate, how just over a hundred years go many young children in every family would die before they reached the age of 10 - these are just examples of the progress we have made.

Of course there is much that is wrong (for example the attitude and treatment of mental health is one major area that needs much more research) but I'm optimistic that we will progress and that we are learning (the hard way of course!).