Forum Post: Won't there always be a 1%?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 7:09 a.m. EST by Understanding
(2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If all the 1% had everything taken away from them, wouldn't the next 1% then be the 1%? My point is, won't there always be some with more than others? Has anyone read Orwell's 1984?
No. The OWS is going to eradicate oppressive mathematical principles, too.
The Tax Payer problem
In the US, the people who pay the taxes have a problem: Congress can not resist spending more money than they take in from Federal taxes.
The people have tried starving the beast; but, that does not work. We have concluded that the problem is the direct result of the free market system these same people put so much faith in.
It is natural for the people with money to spend it getting people elected that will allow them to improve their market advantage over others. The other voters elect people who will insure their advantage over people with money. So which ever party is in control, the incentive is to spend money to either get elected or to get re-elected.
So, they all buy votes (in general - there maybe be exceptions but they are too rare to matter) by spending to help their constituents.
So, it is ironic that to save the free market system from itself, we need to use the power of government to put constraints on the free market system.
The solution is two fold:
1) No elected office holder should be allow by law to succeed themselves. That will reduce the temptation to buy the next election by spending other peoples money.
2) We need to make it less expensive to run for office. Again we need to use government to constrain the free market. The government should fund a web site for candidates to tell their reasons to be in power and debates the issues a reasonable number of times. It should be illegal to spend any other money on or for a political candidate. For these are no less than bribes in fact.
Note: In 2011, the York County Registrar has placed links to the web sites of valid candidates.
A warning from history:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. " Author unknown
1% isn't just about financial clout, it's what they can do with it. The system they use.
Yes, but at a lower level of capital ownership. I think it would be better if everyone was a Capitalist, rather than just a few very wealthy people. We should all be owners of America in the stock and bond market through our retirement savings accounts.
If laws are changed it will make it harder to become the 1% that is based on doing it the honest way.
Yeah, but a 1% who does not own the whopping amount as they do now.
I rather have a 1% who owns 10% than a 1% who owns 60%
Yes as long as there is 100% it will be made up of 100 1%s. That's math for ya.
Won't there always be Kings and nobles to rule over us? 1776 and 1789 put an an end to that-- won't there always be a 1% to rule over us? There always has been since the end of the neolithic but it is not written in stone. I hate to mention the Communist Manifesto with so many trolls and bankers looking on, but it makes better reading than Orwell.
So how do you make sure everyone has the same amount of money?
Nobody thinks everyone has to have the same amount of money. Some day we won't even have to use money-- but not some day soon.
They can't
So there will always be a 1%. Now we've established this fact, what issue do we have with the 1%? For example, if an old lady's grand daughter buys her a lottery ticket, and she wins a hundred million dollars, what issue can anyone take with her? Did she rip off all the other people who bought a ticket? Or is it cool because everyone willingly participated?
No. You are missing the point. There is a big difference between someone who wins a lottery, makes money legitimately ect... than those that use a broken system to their advantage at the expense of everyone else. Lots of rich people who do good things with their money.
If you have the power to pay off the legislators to change the laws in your favor to increase your profits by 2% to the incredible detriment of the public and that public has no recourse... that is the 1% we are talking about... and that is just one badly worded example
[Removed]