Extreme tax on the extremely wealthy

[Cupid stunt]

Instead of leaving tax loopholes for the rich to benefit from (as seen in the link below) a multi-national agreement could be reached where, everybody who earns over say $10m a year would be taxed 75% on all earnings, the money would then be given out to the poorest people in the world thus stamping out poverty worldwide.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E7D7123CF932A35751C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=8

[zago]

Part of me says yes, part of me says no. Giving it to poor people, though, is just completely insane. Do you know how fucking lazy they would be?

[Cupid stunt]

Lol, I'm not suggesting just giving them money but setting up infrastructure and creating schools and jobs in poor area's so that they may learn to fend for themselves.

OK maybe I didn't myself properly in the original post.

[Neville]

Why should the rich have to help the poor?

[Dtrickk]

OK maybe I didn't myself properly in the original post.

Maybe didn't yourself in this one either

[Dtrickk]

Why should the rich have to help the poor?
The poor are most likely going to filter it back to the rich eventually..

[Cupid stunt]

Why should the rich have to help the poor?


Because enough food, water and medicine to save the lives of a million poor people is more useful than the worlds seventh largest diamond and a golden toilet seat.

Why should the wealthiest 1% have more money than the other 99%?

[Cupid stunt]

Maybe didn't yourself in this one either

Neither did!

[Dtrickk]

Because enough food, water and medicine to save the lives of a million poor people is more useful than the worlds seventh largest diamond and a golden toilet seat.

Why should the wealthiest 1% have more money than the other 99%?
They probably shouldn't have more money than the other 99%...but how are you going to convince them about this idea?

[avolkiteshvara]

This would never work. They would just find ways to evade taxes.

[Cupid stunt]

This would never work. They would just find ways to evade taxes.

Not if you bring back corporal punishment for tax evasion.

And a willy guillotine for paedo's while we're at it..

[Cupid stunt]

They probably shouldn't have more money than the other 99%...but how are you going to convince them about this idea?

That's the tricky part.

[Dtrickk]

Tricky tricky...
That link isn't working. Have a different one?

[Cupid stunt]

Yeah thanks for pointing it out...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E7D7123CF932A35751C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=8

[thod]

You cannot get elected unless you can buy the air time. Of course if you cant afford to get elected yourself, you can accept the bribes called campaign contributions and be some rich guys lapdog. Either way congress consists entirely of rich people.

The USA always has been a plutocracy, recently a kleptocracy. They will not allow anything that hurts their interests. They can do this because it is not a democracy.

The amounts politicians spend on campaigns are tiny compared to what they spend and waste once in office. The USA would be much better off paying for those campaigns out of public funds to ensure that a just man is elected instead of a corrupt one. Once again its blocked by the money men, they wont have any change that takes control from them, and that includes democracy.

[Ikcelaks]

There is danger in taking money away from the extremely rich. Many of the most ambitious projects, which often benefit all, are possible only because an individual person has the means to make whatever he dreams a reality. Governmental bureaucracies have a tendency to play it safe, stick with the known, and fall into group-think traps. How many great things would be lost if no rich men were out there to bet it all on something everyone else thought was crazy?

Total equality is on a slippery slope to total mediocrity.

On the other hand, I'm all for streamlining the tax code to eliminate all the crazy loop-holes used by the dishonest wealthy.

[nonperson]

I think the childless over thirty should have no tax burden. Children require all sorts of infrastructure, why should I pay more tax than those who think sex is hazard free? They get a shag and my tax too.

Also all those parent/baby parking spots at the supermarket would be gone too.....:)

{They can keep the shag if they want it because I don't!}

[Cupid stunt]

You cannot get elected unless you can buy the air time. Of course if you cant afford to get elected yourself, you can accept the bribes called campaign contributions and be some rich guys lapdog. Either way congress consists entirely of rich people.

The USA always has been a plutocracy, recently a kleptocracy. They will not allow anything that hurts their interests. They can do this because it is not a democracy.

The amounts politicians spend on campaigns are tiny compared to what they spend and waste once in office. The USA would be much better off paying for those campaigns out of public funds to ensure that a just man is elected instead of a corrupt one. Once again its blocked by the money men, they wont have any change that takes control from them, and that includes democracy.

I think it's long been a kleptocratic dictatorship disguised as a democracy. The Federal reserve was set up by thieves.

[Cupid stunt]

There is danger in taking money away from the extremely rich. Many of the most ambitious projects, which often benefit all, are possible only because an individual person has the means to make whatever he dreams a reality. Governmental bureaucracies have a tendency to play it safe, stick with the known, and fall into group-think traps. How many great things would be lost if no rich men were out there to bet it all on something everyone else thought was crazy?

Total equality is on a slippery slope to total mediocrity.

On the other hand, I'm all for streamlining the tax code to eliminate all the crazy loop-holes used by the dishonest wealthy.

In an ideal world that would be true but unfortunately money makes people greedy and power makes people want to control. Giving too much money or power to too few people makes the world a dangerous place.

[Dark Razor]

I think we should rather tax all financial transactions that take place at the stock markets and financial markets. With the amount of money thrown around there the tax wouldn't need to be high, only a few percent probably.

We should also root out tax havens, simply threaten them with military action and they will cave.

[Neville]

Because enough food, water and medicine to save the lives of a million poor people is more useful than the worlds seventh largest diamond and a golden toilet seat.

Why should the wealthiest 1% have more money than the other 99%?

So punish the people who are better at playing the game? And more useful to who? I'd get more use out of a gold toilet seat than a million poor people.

[Cupid stunt]

So punish the people who are better at playing the game? And more useful to who?

Not punishing them, just sharing the wealth more evenly than the current unfair distribution that is the cause of the worlds poverty.

More useful to each other and far less dangerous to everybody else.

You seem to be missing a few pieces of the puzzle. First, there's many people in poverty, this is not a good thing. Second, there's certain people that have far too much power and they're giving themselves more power (See GWB & Cheney). As a result we are losing our rights and freedoms, innocent people are being locked in cells and branded criminals (paid for by you, me and the victim him/herself) for the crime of smoking a joint and now the extremely wealthy are borrowing hundreds of billions in the taxpayers name to give to the extremely wealthy and you think this is a good thing?


I'd get more use out of a gold toilet seat than a million poor people.

A million poor people could sell it to pay for what they need to survive so no you wouldn't.

[Ikcelaks]

Giving too much money or power to too few people makes the world a dangerous place.

Give me a world with some danger before you give me a world full of the lame.

[Cupid stunt]

Give me a world with some danger before you give me a world full of the lame.

Bet you wouldn't say that if it was your wife and kids being blown up.

[Wise Fool]

Lol, I'm not suggesting just giving them money but setting up infrastructure and creating schools and jobs in poor area's so that they may learn to fend for themselves.

Infrastructure is part of that big power structure which scared me, but perhaps it'll turn out this way eventually, and be for the best.


Why should the rich have to help the poor?

Because they want to.

I used to be critical of big charity institutions because I thought that that was no way to genuinely help a person, through an institution, by throwing money at the issue. but unfortunately in the crazy time we live in, that is often what is necessary. I am beginning to see that everyone indeed does help out in their own way.


Because enough food, water and medicine to save the lives of a million poor people is more useful than the worlds seventh largest diamond and a golden toilet seat.

Why should the wealthiest 1% have more money than the other 99%?

One simulation or another? (or another?....)


They probably shouldn't have more money than the other 99%...but how are you going to convince them about this idea?

.... I don't know; you wanna talk about it?


Not if you bring back corporal punishment for tax evasion.

And a willy guillotine for paedo's while we're at it..

Do you think maybe you would still have a sliver of a doubt left over, even then, that it was 'the controllers' who orchestrated some body double to take the hit in order that we are once again, 'appeased and secure'?


I think it's long been a kleptocratic dictatorship disguised as a democracy. The Federal reserve was set up by thieves.

Sublimated criminals??

[nonperson]

Infrastructure is part of that big power structure which scared me, but perhaps it'll turn out this way eventually, and be for the best.



Because they want to.

I used to be critical of big charity institutions because I thought that that was no way to genuinely help a person, through an institution, by throwing money at the issue. but unfortunately in the crazy time we live in, that is often what is necessary. I am beginning to see that everyone indeed does help out in their own way.



One simulation or another? (or another?....)



.... I don't know; you wanna talk about it?



Do you think maybe you would still have a sliver of a doubt left over, even then, that it was 'the controllers' who orchestrated some body double to take the hit in order that we are once again, 'appeased and secure'?



Sublimated criminals??

:worthy::worthy::worthy: You truly are the new Fripping! :worthy::worthy::worthy:

[deuteros]

Instead of leaving tax loopholes for the rich to benefit from

It's only a loophole if we're under the assumption that the government owns 100% of our incomes, and that taking advantage of a rule that allows one to keep more of his or her income is a loophole.

[deuteros]

Why should the wealthiest 1% have more money than the other 99%?

Why shouldn't they?

[airjaw]

I think we already discussed this but, everyone has a different notion of what is "fair".

Just because 95% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a maybe 5% of the population doesn't necessarily mean that things are not "fair". Bill Gates could have $50 billion and I could have - $50000 and that situation could still be "fair".

[Nunki]

Instead of leaving tax loopholes for the rich to benefit from (as seen in the link below) a multi-national agreement could be reached where, everybody who earns over say $10m a year would be taxed 75% on all earnings, the money would then be given out to the poorest people in the world thus stamping out poverty worldwide.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E7D7123CF932A35751C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=8In other words, penalize productivity and reward laziness and inability. Sounds backwards to me.

[Ikcelaks]

Bet you wouldn't say that if it was your wife and kids being blown up.
People would still be blown up if no one was rich. We fight over money and power, but those aren't hardly the only things. Don't fool yourself.

[MadamI'madaM]

Unevadable flat tax.

maybe slightly progressive

Otherwise they'll all go to the trouble of officially expatriating. That's how bullshit nationalism really is.

It's much less the amount of tax revenue than it is the way it's spent. That needs to become a little more democratic.

But that would mean people have to actually care.

EDIT: People should own a share of their taxes as if it was a share of a company.

That way, the elite get to actually cut out the useless middlemen in Congress, and the whole fucked up system becomes a little more proactive and transparent. (just fyi, the middle class will still own more of the money if the richies get all possessive on us)

[Ikcelaks]

Unevadable flat tax.
That's really the ticket. Whatever progression rate they make it, all of these bull-shit loopholes need to be slammed shut. The amount of taxes a person makes should not depend on the competency of their tax preparer / accountant.

[MadamI'madaM]

Another thing, to the people who propose to tax the shit out of richies:

How could you then validly complain about government corruption?

They would literally own the country to an even higher degree.

It's not like we can keep them here with guns, so the ones who stayed would definitely be expecting some favors in return. Maybe even rightly so, depending on the chunk of their shit they'd fork over.


EDIT: A penalty of the right hand by machete is what needs to be passed for congressmen who throw in last minute deceptive riders.

Then, maybe people would feel like they were more welcome in their own game.

[10_percent_ninja]

We could simplify everyone's life by just saying "Your taxes = (x^(85/100), where X is your income. Any kind of income, from any source. It's when people start inducing exceptions into the tax code that people find ways to take advantage of them. And then you're either stupid or ignorant if you don't. Which is a pain to anyone who can't afford an accountant.

[Neville]

Not punishing them, just sharing the wealth more evenly than the current unfair distribution that is the cause of the worlds poverty.

More useful to each other and far less dangerous to everybody else.

You seem to be missing a few pieces of the puzzle. First, there's many people in poverty, this is not a good thing. Second, there's certain people that have far too much power and they're giving themselves more power (See GWB & Cheney). As a result we are losing our rights and freedoms, innocent people are being locked in cells and branded criminals (paid for by you, me and the victim him/herself) for the crime of smoking a joint and now the extremely wealthy are borrowing hundreds of billions in the taxpayers name to give to the extremely wealthy and you think this is a good thing?

Whether anything is good or bad doesn't matter. You think you should have as much power as someone who is filthy rich? You want your rights and freedom, earn them just like everyone else, make some money. You seem to think this game is fair, it's not and it shouldn't be.




A million poor people could sell it to pay for what they need to survive so no you wouldn't.

Uh, I have a use for a golden toilet seat, I do not have a use for a million poor people surviving. Hey and if I don't give them my toilet seat, a million don't survive, problem solved.


In other words, penalize productivity and reward laziness and inability. Sounds backwards to me.

I agree with this.

[foodeater]

Don't they already pay some incredibly high amount in taxes? I don't want to throw out random numbers that I ingested during campaign season, but they do pay a lot already, don't they?

[MadamI'madaM]

Don't they already pay some incredibly high amount in taxes? I don't want to throw out random numbers that I ingested during campaign season, but they do pay a lot already, don't they?

That's sort of doublespeak.

The ones with any intelligence (just about all of them) get out of most of it.

[Iceman]

If someone wanted to inform themselves they might find that the top 1% of income earners account for approximately 40% of the taxes. You might also find that the bottom 50% of income earners account for ONLY 3% of the taxes.

On top of that, "the progressiveness" of the plan is going in the favor of the bottom income earners.

Oh hell, (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

[MadamI'madaM]

You might also find that the bottom 50% of income earners account for ONLY 3% of the taxes.

Somehow, I don't think that's persuasive in the way you wanted it to be.


On top of that, "the progressiveness" of the plan is going in the favor of the bottom income earners.
If by "in favor", you mean "in favor of their basic sustenance".

Do you really believe such gross wealth is sustainable without the existence of almost-slaves?


Oh hell, (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

So, you're sourcing an anti democratic website?

Why not just call the whole thing off and fork over the country to the Rothschilds?

I mean, they earned it, right?

[Wise Fool]

Why not just call the whole thing off and fork over the country to the Rothschilds?

I mean, they earned it, right?

you gotta admit their plan was pretty genius, they had us fooled!... had. and by 'us' i mean 'me'.

[MadamI'madaM]

Okay, I'm not saying that (most) rich people are inherently criminal or that they deserve punishment, only that they need to start respecting the little people who basically are their production units.

Here's what I don't understand: if "zero sum economics" is such a fallacy, then why not give back to those without (worldwide, even) so that everyone can pull this magical mental capital out of their asses to make the world a utopia? Why are there so few billionaire engineers, or true worldly fortunes founded on engineering?

I know zero sum isn't necessarily a universal law, but it's definitely a trend in capitalism.

How many rich people would there be if the only way to make money was to make the world a better place for people in every tax bracket? Usually, it's just easier to con some suckers.

[floid]

If someone wanted to inform themselves they might find that the top 1% of income earners account for approximately 40% of the taxes. You might also find that the bottom 50% of income earners account for ONLY 3% of the taxes.

On top of that, "the progressiveness" of the plan is going in the favor of the bottom income earners.



Fascinating picture you paint there.
But when you compare the proportion paid to the proportion raked in it looks very, very different.

And that, mathematically, reasonably, and scientifically, is more relevant to reality than any political obfuscation that the elite have invented to protect their own perceived interests.

And I say "perceived interests" because only a fool or a consciously suicidal person would systematically destroy the environment that keeps them alive.

[iksikaksi]

I dont give a crap about humanity... Giving food, housing, cars and medical care to everybody on the planet is bad for the dolphins. I opt for a small elite living a comfy life whilst the earth is kept safe from all the humanitarian idiots. Hmm... maybe we should consider cannibalism that way we dont have any poor people which is even better because if we dont have poor people we wont have selfrighteous hypocrites blabbering their equality jargon and the rainforests are saved from cattle hearding.

[Lee]

Instead of leaving tax loopholes for the rich to benefit from (as seen in the link below) a multi-national agreement could be reached where, everybody who earns over say $10m a year would be taxed 75% on all earnings, the money would then be given out to the poorest people in the world thus stamping out poverty worldwide.Tax rates should not become a political club with which one group can penalise another, especially such a diverse group as the 'extremely wealthy'. Some wealthy people are scoundrels who acquired their wealth by deception and plunder, and should be imprisoned (not taxed more). But others struck it rich by providing poor people with goods and services at lower prices than anyone else, and have done more to combat poverty than any "war on poverty" waged by inept state officials.

The eradication of destitution does not require the imposition of costs on another. We really can all become wealthier simultaneously, but if we succumb to the furore of demogogues we will all be poorer in the long run. As the late Milton Freidman said, 'a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a good measure of both'.

[MadamI'madaM]

I dont give a crap about humanity... Giving food, housing, cars and medical care to everybody on the planet is bad for the dolphins. I opt for a small elite living a comfy life whilst the earth is kept safe from all the humanitarian idiots. Hmm... maybe we should consider cannibalism that way we dont have any poor people which is even better because if we dont have poor people we wont have selfrighteous hypocrites blabbering their equality jargon and the rainforests are saved from cattle hearding.

I would expect as much from the spawn of conquistador scurge.

EDIT: eating poor people, huh?

I hope your house is torched in the next civil war.

[Neville]

I dont give a crap about humanity... Giving food, housing, cars and medical care to everybody on the planet is bad for the dolphins. I opt for a small elite living a comfy life whilst the earth is kept safe from all the humanitarian idiots. Hmm... maybe we should consider cannibalism that way we dont have any poor people which is even better because if we dont have poor people we wont have selfrighteous hypocrites blabbering their equality jargon and the rainforests are saved from cattle hearding.

Easy there, the rich need the poor to exist, if they don't the rich aren't really that rich anymore and the poor rich become the new poor. Also, I'm not sure you want to eat the poor, the meat can't be all that great. Let the poor eat the poor, they can thin their numbers. Again solving the poverty problem.

[MadamI'madaM]

Easy there, the rich need the poor to exist, if they don't the rich aren't really that rich anymore and the poor rich become the new poor. Also, I'm not sure you want to eat the poor, the meat can't be all that great. Let the poor eat the poor, they can thin their numbers. Again solving the poverty problem.

If the poor are busy eating eachother, they won't be concerned about your dirty work anymore.

Hell, they might eventually adapt to it and start coming after the big game in your neighborhood.

[airjaw]

Tax rates should not become a political club with which one group can penalise another, especially such a diverse group as the 'extremely wealthy'. Some wealthy people are scoundrels who acquired their wealth by deception and plunder, and should be imprisoned (not taxed more). But others struck it rich by providing poor people with goods and services at lower prices than anyone else, and have done more to combat poverty than any "war on poverty" waged by inept state officials.

The eradication of destitution does not require the imposition of costs on another. We really can all become wealthier simultaneously, but if we succumb to the furore of demogogues we will all be poorer in the long run. As the late Milton Freidman said, 'a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a good measure of both'.

You all need to listen to this man. And Milton Friedman. (He's ESFJ? what?)

[Neville]

If the poor are busy eating eachother, they won't be concerned about your dirty work anymore.

The poor at each others throats and the rich holding the leashes, sounds about right.


Hell, they might eventually adapt to it and start coming after the big game in your neighborhood.

You assume the poor have the ability to organize. They don't; but they will go after the easy targets, their fellow members.

[iksikaksi]

I would expect as much from the spawn of conquistador scurge.

EDIT: eating poor people, huh?

I hope your house is torched in the next civil war.

Don't worry Ill be the one torching everybody elses homes in the name of equality and social justice. Ill be high up in the ranks of social justice politics while I tell them that I have saved them from the corrupt system of inequality. I will be worshiped because my morals and my ideals are undeniably valid and anyone who holds a grudge against them should be burned because they are evil.

Meanwhile I will live like a queen just like Stalin, Castro, and the rest of the lot who want complete power over everybody else and does not enjoy the possibility that there might be someone richer and more powerful than me.

[MadamI'madaM]

But others struck it rich by providing poor people with goods and services at lower prices than anyone else, and have done more to combat poverty than any "war on poverty" waged by inept state officials.

How is that done without exploiting imperialist exchange rates or flogging employees? Rarely, that's how.


The eradication of destitution does not require the imposition of costs on another. We really can all become wealthier simultaneously, but if we succumb to the furore of demogogues we will all be poorer in the long run. As the late Milton Freidman said, 'a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a good measure of both'.

Hold on there. I agree with the core of what you're saying in this swath, but it would cost someone something.

Would you support a hefty tax increase in an idealistic vacuum that only went towards the betterment of public education?

That's the only way I can see the slimming of a horde of people who only know how to make capital for wealthier people in exchange for doggie treats.

[MadamI'madaM]

Don't worry Ill be the one torching everybody elses homes in the name of equality and social justice. Ill be high up in the ranks of social justice politics while I tell them that I have saved them from the corrupt system of inequality. I will be worshiped because my morals and my ideals are undeniably valid and anyone who holds a grudge against them should be burned because they are evil.

Where you live, white skin will be a serious impediment to that.

[iksikaksi]

Where you live, white skin will be a serious impediment to that.

My sex would be a greater issue than my skin tone. I can still brainwash though.

[Lee]

How is that done without exploiting imperialist exchange rates or flogging employees? Rarely, that's how.Flogged employees are rarely productive or loyal. In an open and free society, employers must entice people to be their employees by making them an offer that is better than the next best option. When people are free to choose, wealth increases for everyone, and even greedy people must help others to help themselves.



That's the only way I can see the slimming of a horde of people who only know how to make capital for wealthier people in exchange for doggie treats.If people want to be wealthy, then saving and investment should be encouraged (so that capital assets can be commanded). Currently the U.S. Government tries to motivate consumption instead, and when people live from paycheck to paycheck they lose independence from their employer. Try reading The Millionaire Nextdoor; it is a cheap and fascinating look at how wealth is created, who has it, and why.

[MadamI'madaM]

Flogged employees are rarely productive or loyal. In an open and free society, employers must entice people to be their employees by making them an offer that is better than the next best option. When people are free to choose, wealth increases for everyone, and even greedy people must help others to help themselves.
Either you misunderstood me or I'm misunderstanding you.

Real wages are stagnant and benefits are an endangered entity, while some jobs have mostly been exported to further reaches of the empire.

As you say, this has lowered prices of goods and services, but obviously at the sacrifice of something else.

A zero sum number juke.


If people want to be wealthy, then saving and investment should be encouraged (so that capital assets can be commanded). Currently the U.S. Government tries to motivate consumption instead, and when people live from paycheck to paycheck they lose independence from their employer. Try reading The Millionaire Nextdoor; it is a cheap and fascinating look at how wealth is created, who has it, and why.

What I was referring to is the way money and consumerism are a dead end cycle that lead to the production of somewhat irrelevant shit as opposed to the equilateral betterment of society.

If the world were to be a meritocracy, the most intelligent and hard working people (who are incontestably engineers, inventors, and scientists) who pull the most capital directly from their own asses instead of the pockets of others should be the owners of wealth and produce for themselves. Also, they should feed some of their wealth back into the system that gave them the ability to work with mental voodoo so that more capital is effectively made from nothing instead of a smaller creature's something. Yes, some executives are mediocre experts in their respective fields and concern themselves primarily with improvement and research. Those people are a minority because the best engineers and experts truly love their work and despise the limitations and because CEOs who care about things other than profit are often crucified by shareholders and other more parasitic board members.

In truth, our doglike species is hardly a New York minute outside of a disgusting imperialistic tradition of fearsome tyrannical rule by a few. The only way to jumpstart the process towards equality and technological meritocracy would be to harshly redistribute hoarded wealth slightly favoring educational institutions and engineers. Unfortunately, even I realize this to be extremely unfair, if paradoxically so.


The poor at each others throats and the rich holding the leashes, sounds about right.

You assume the poor have the ability to organize. They don't; but they will go after the easy targets, their fellow members.

I wasn't speaking metaphorically.

Animals with thumbs are the scariest things on the planet.
You should talk to people who have seen war.

That's why we're trying to domesticate ourselves.
It only takes one or two generations for a family pet to turn into a killing machine.

[Lee]

MadamI'madaM,

Income may be stable or declining for some periods, but not in the long term. The U.S. is a relatively open society, and despite recent problems it should pull through. For more information about the current economic situation, you might want to check out my recent posts on other threads. Otherwise I strongly suggest you read Basic Economics and Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell to get a better appreciation of the economic problems facing society (both are well written and interesting).

[MadamI'madaM]

MadamI'madaM,
Income may be stable or declining for some periods, but not in the long term.
"The long term" is an artificial concept. Currently, they're stagnant.


The U.S. is a relatively open society, and despite recent problems it should pull through.
I'm glad you've found Jesus.


For more information about the current economic situation, you might want to check out my recent posts on other threads. Otherwise I strongly suggest you read Basic Economics and Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell to get a better appreciation of the economic problems facing society (both are well written and interesting).

So do you agree or disagree with what I've said, and what is your rebuttal besides referencing "the good book"?

It couldn't be too hard to dumb down.

I have math and science textbooks to read.

[Lee]

MadamI'madaM,

Wages are actually declining. Many businesses are currently laying off workers whose wages they can no longer afford. For those who lost their jobs, their wages have declined from something to nothing. Perhaps they would still be employed if other workers were willing to take a wage cut, but wages are notoriously difficult to reduce. Employers often find it easier to reduce payroll costs by laying off workers rather than enacting wage cuts. (This may be unfortunate, but good for long term prosperity).

With regard to the apparent artificiality of "the long term", I have no idea what you are getting at. Income was also declining during the Great Depression, but in the long term rose significantly. If that is "artifical", then being so is not a problem.

In any case, what was I to rebut? I was recommending a book which I think would help hone your understanding of the economic problems of society. It seems to me that you are interested, but labour your thoughts under some misunderstandings. They are too various and complex to warrant my efforts here and now, and would be more sensibly addressed from a book concerned with such problems.

[MadamI'madaM]

MadamI'madaM,

Wages are actually declining. Many businesses are currently laying off workers whose wages they can no longer afford. For those who lost their jobs, their wages have declined from something to nothing. Perhaps they would still be employed if other workers were willing to take a wage cut, but wages are notoriously difficult to reduce. Employers often find it easier to reduce payroll costs by laying off workers rather than enacting wage cuts. (This may be unfortunate, but good for long term prosperity).
So I was being optimistic?


With regard to the apparent artificiality of "the long term", I have no idea what you are getting at. Income was also declining during the Great Depression, but in the long term rose significantly. If that is "artifical", then being so is not a problem.
yeah, my dismissal was rash and you're probably right

I meant to express that I think it's wrong to assume we've quantified psychology and politics to such predictability.


In any case, what was I to rebut? I was recommending a book which I think would help hone your understanding of the economic problems of society. It seems to me that you are interested, but labour your thoughts under some misunderstandings.
I've been guilty of that.


They are too various and complex to warrant my efforts here and now, and would be more sensibly addressed from a book.

Meh, it's right up there with "become a fishing guru" and "train in budo".

Presently, I'm a student of molecular politics.

[Lee]

So I was being optimistic?If my reckoning of the current economic situation is correct, then you were being pessimistic. The U.S. has accumulated so much debt, at almost every level, that rising wages would concern me. A recession is needed to pay off debt, reallocate resources (including labour), purge malinvestments, and begin saving again. In the short term this would result in high unemployment for a couple of years while workers shift from the service to manufacturing sector. In the long term these difficult adjustments would lay the foundation for future economic growth and prosperity.

I am greatly concerned that the above will not happen, because it can only be delayed by borrowing even more money. Both the Federal Reserve and Obama's new administration seem to desire this, but it is not a long term solution. Perhaps more time will be bought, but the cost will be an even bigger crash in the future. As the inevitable is delayed, the pain it will deliver is growing.

[djm]

Because enough food, water and medicine to save the lives of a million poor people is more useful than the worlds seventh largest diamond and a golden toilet seat.

Why should the wealthiest 1% have more money than the other 99%?

Actually what the 'world' needs now is a lot less people, that way it would have a chance of pulling through the ecological mess that overpopulation by humans has created. If a few billion people could be swapped for gold toilet seats there would be more water, agricultural land and energy to go round for those that are left.

Money (whomever it is expropriated from) will not magically create more land on which to grow food, fertiliser with which to grow it, fresh water, or energy. Sustainability will only happen (in the unlikely event we do not become extinct as a species) via a combination of technology, and population reduction. It is the latter that is the most important.


I think the childless over thirty should have no tax burden. Children require all sorts of infrastructure, why should I pay more tax than those who think sex is hazard free? They get a shag and my tax too.

Also all those parent/baby parking spots at the supermarket would be gone too.....:)

{They can keep the shag if they want it because I don't!}

Hands off those child spaces ;)

I would levy extra tax on the fat, the future is small people (we have a lower carbon footprint).

[Zephyrus055]

Someone suffers from a condition I like to call hyperactive empathy. If your empathy extends to all of humanity, then please seek psychological help.

[rainfall]

Communism. Moving on.

[MadamI'madaM]

Someone suffers from a condition I like to call hyperactive empathy. If your empathy extends to all of humanity, then please seek psychological help.

Actually, we empathize with supposed victims, while despising the supposed brutish perpetrators.

Some other people empathize with the strong, while despising the weak for staining the earth with pity.

Some professionals would call both camps equally unhealthy for compartmentalizing empathy.

[Zephyrus055]

Actually, we empathize with supposed victims, while despising the supposed brutish perpetrators.
It's pointless to devote time to it, because pragmatic considerations and exploitation has been the rule of the successfully powerful for all of recorded history. The deposition of one asshole always resulted with another, no matter the moral impression their successor projected. It is praiseworthy to be morally superior yourself, but to think you can change this track record is arrogance and a futile waste of effort. It's best to accept reality and live with it.

[Madrigal]

This is childish.

Then they say communists are idealistic... that we believe social change will come about because of people's good and humanitarian intentions. Bullshit, it will come about because of pure and simple need, claimed by those in need for themselves.

Don't hold your breath waiting for bourgeois politicians to save the planet, they'll fight tooth and nail for their profits even if that means killing millions, polluting half the planet beyond repair or destroying entire countries. Capitalism is sinister like that.

[nonperson]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An assertion of the liberalism school of IR.

{So far then today we have arguments from both the main schools of IR. Super! But this isn't helping me get my IR revision done.............}

[Wise Fool]

The poor at each others throats and the rich holding the leashes, sounds about right.

You assume the poor have the ability to organize. They don't; but they will go after the easy targets, their fellow members.

We are all poor to someone; we are all rich to someone else. We don't see the connection.


Tax rates should not become a political club with which one group can penalise another, especially such a diverse group as the 'extremely wealthy'. Some wealthy people are scoundrels who acquired their wealth by deception and plunder, and should be imprisoned (not taxed more). But others struck it rich by providing poor people with goods and services at lower prices than anyone else, and have done more to combat poverty than any "war on poverty" waged by inept state officials.


The eradication of destitution does not require the imposition of costs on another. We really can all become wealthier simultaneously, but if we succumb to the furore of demogogues we will all be poorer in the long run. As the late Milton Freidman said, 'a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a good measure of both'.

The instinct, the intention, and the desire to eradicate widespread destitution is wrought with dangerous potentialities; not that there's anything wrong with that.


Hold on there. I agree with the core of what you're saying in this swath, but it would cost someone something.

Would you support a hefty tax increase in an idealistic vacuum that only went towards the betterment of public education?

the cost would be the sacrifice of our smaller self.


Either you misunderstood me or I'm misunderstanding you.

Or: you misunderstood each other, or you are both talking about the same thing, though from the illusion of different perspectives.


Real wages are stagnant and benefits are an endangered entity, while some jobs have mostly been exported to further reaches of the empire.

As you say, this has lowered prices of goods and services, but obviously at the sacrifice of something else.

Things could be said to be balancing out. we are heading somewhere. in the "long run" we could be moving forward, or we could be heading backwards, depending on the frame of reference we've chosen to employ.


What I was referring to is the way money and consumerism are a dead end cycle that lead to the production of somewhat irrelevant shit as opposed to the equilateral betterment of society.


if this is true, it is only a matter of time. patience and tolerance come to be viewed as important virtues.


"The long term" is an artificial concept. Currently, they're stagnant.

"currently" is an artificial concept too.


If my reckoning of the current economic situation is correct, then you were being pessimistic.

I will say: MadamI'madam was being optimistic in his own way.


Someone suffers from a condition I like to call hyperactive empathy. If your empathy extends to all of humanity, then please seek psychological help.

And what if your empathy goes beyond all of humanity? -- Who will help you then?


It is praiseworthy to be morally superior yourself, but to think you can change this track record is arrogance and a futile waste of effort. It's best to accept reality and live with it.

You want to keep all the arrogance to yourself; I want some!

[walfin]

I thought everyone knew that the rich got rich by evading nonsense like this.

The extreme tax would just serve to make the middle class poorer. Then you'd have more gold toilet seats (for fewer people perhaps) and more folks' lives ending up in the toilet.

[nonperson]

I thought everyone knew that the rich got rich by evading nonsense like this.

The extreme tax would just serve to make the middle class poorer. Then you'd have more gold toilet seats (for fewer people perhaps) and more folks' lives ending up in the toilet.

Yes. And the rich don't get rich by giving money away.

[walfin]

Yes. And the rich don't get rich by giving money away.
Sometimes they do, if it helps them avoid an even heftier tax.

Which is why an attempt to impose taxes the OP way would be abortive. They wouldn't have any incentive to give money away then.

[Kameraad Eksteen]

...everybody who earns over say $10m a year ...


Yeah right, check this calculator first:

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

[Lee]

This is childish.

Then they say communists are idealistic... that we believe social change will come about because of people's good and humanitarian intentions. Bullshit, it will come about because of pure and simple need, claimed by those in need for themselves.

Don't hold your breath waiting for bourgeois politicians to save the planet, they'll fight tooth and nail for their profits even if that means killing millions, polluting half the planet beyond repair or destroying entire countries. Capitalism is sinister like that.Capitalism is sinister. But what you call 'capitalism' is the antithesis of capitalism to others. Words can be such a barrier to communication sometimes.

[nonperson]

Sometimes they do, if it helps them avoid an even heftier tax.

Which is why an attempt to impose taxes the OP way would be abortive. They wouldn't have any incentive to give money away then.

Oh yes tax write offs. I was thinking more small scale. Re-using tea bags etc.

[rhinosaur]

I don't know if it was mentioned before in the thread, but another problem with high taxes on the wealthy is that they have the option to simply move to an area with low taxes (another country), taking their wealth with them.

Granted most wouldn't leave their homes unless the taxes were outrageous, but I'd call 75% pretty outrageous.

[Faust06]

Everyone should receive equal treatment when it comes to taxes, unless they simply can't afford it (ie those living on tax money). This could mean a single specific percentage of every income, which would still mean the rich pay more in the end. Sounds ideal to me.

[Neville]

Everyone should receive equal treatment when it comes to taxes, unless they simply can't afford it (ie those living on tax money).

Well that sure sounds fair. Let's reward failure some more.

[MadamI'madaM]

Well that sure sounds fair. Let's reward failure some more.

The incentive of taxation isn't to watch people flourish. It's to provide a social safety net in case shortsighted idiots who lucked into wealth (always luck involved somewhere) decide to sabotage their markets or the entire economy for some shortlived gain. If you think food stamps cost money, you should check out riots. That's what Americans do when they're scared.

The poor obviously don't have the money.

The middle class can't afford to pay too much, or they have absolutely no incentive to work for an honest living (and the rich need to use them).

The rich usually became rich due to the fertile markets and lax regulations and taxes afforded to them by the American government. Other places get much more possessive about their citizens' money. Why not pay to play?

Flat tax is very fair.

It could even be suited to the highest incomes, since the middle class supposedly pays so little anyway. It would just need to become more of a law and less of a game with some of the exemptions.

[Neville]

The incentive of taxation isn't to watch people flourish. It's to provide a social safety net in case shortsighted idiots who lucked into wealth (always luck involved somewhere) decide to sabotage their markets or the entire economy for some shortlived gain. If you think food stamps cost money, you should check out riots. That's what Americans do when they're scared.

If they did riot, which they wont, and even if they did, they'd end up destroying their own neighborhoods, appropriate force could be used to control the riots, crushing rebellion and thinning numbers. We can settle this the easy way, sterilize the impoverished so they stop breeding like rabbits, thus putting a damper on the downward spiral. There's absolutely no incentive to throw money at a problem that is never going to show a return.



Why not pay to play?

Why fill the tax coffers when one could so easily line the pockets of those who "run" the show. Everyone pays to play. Well, except the poor.

[stewie3128]

Because enough food, water and medicine to save the lives of a million poor people is more useful than the worlds seventh largest diamond and a golden toilet seat.

Why should the wealthiest 1% have more money than the other 99%?

Because it's theirs?

[stewie3128]

Instead of leaving tax loopholes for the rich to benefit from (as seen in the link below) a multi-national agreement could be reached where, everybody who earns over say $10m a year would be taxed 75% on all earnings, the money would then be given out to the poorest people in the world thus stamping out poverty worldwide.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E7D7123CF932A35751C1A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=8

Huey Long posed the same idea in 1934, called it the "Share Our Wealth" program: 100% tax on all income over $1 million.

[MadamI'madaM]

If they did riot, which they wont, and even if they did, they'd end up destroying their own neighborhoods, appropriate force could be used to control the riots, crushing rebellion and thinning numbers.

Who do you think really owns the land, the franchises, and supplies the markets in "their neighborhood"?

Incarceration is more profitable to the government, btw (because they pass the bill to taxpayers). Good luck getting a dime out of a body.

Also, you overestimate the strength of police in a full out guns blazing uprising.
A third of those guys can't run or shoot for shit. They rely on numbers, hesitation, and fear. The military/FEMA costs a lot more to pull out, too.


We can settle this the easy way, sterilize the impoverished so they stop breeding like rabbits, thus putting a damper on the downward spiral. There's absolutely no incentive to throw money at a problem that is never going to show a return.

Social tranquility is the only thing that keeps this contraption spinning.

If that tanks, for whatever reason, the whole thing takes a shit. (it almost happened)

That's why the rich feed the poor processed foods.

We should make it harder to subsidize a kid, but that's another moral clusterfuck.


those who "run" the show.

the government is actually their long arm, fyi.

[*Strictly_The_Facts*]

While i do agree that those with more money should help more than they do it will never happen. If you're this "multi-millionaire" 99% of them would be more willing to hold onto every penny and say "that's messed up" when they see poverty on tv. Yes donating to a charity is nice but much more should be done when you have 50mil and rising in your pocket.

At the same time money shouldn't be "given" away but the rich should be willing to help build schools, better housing, better roads, contribute money to colleges to help lower tuition, etc. Things of that nature. But that's not what's inside a human being.

Instead we have celebrities buy 378,000$ cell phones, Businessmen buying 900,000$ dresses for their niece(imagine what the daughter gets), Singers buying 1,100,000 pinky rings, and many many more. :ph34r: But hey, the economy needs help last time i checked... I must be mistaken...

[MadamI'madaM]

At the same time money shouldn't be "given" away but the rich should be willing to help build schools, better housing, better roads, contribute money to colleges to help lower tuition, etc. Things of that nature. But that's not what's inside a human being.

What we need are rich philanthropists to compete with the government's education and social security programs in a way that minimizes freeriding but rewards proactive success.

We need solutions, but I don't like the way people give the government responsibility carte blanche.

Only thing is, you generally can't trust the rich to be philanthropic.

[*Strictly_The_Facts*]

What we need are rich philanthropists to compete with the government's education and social security programs in a way that minimizes freeriding but rewards proactive success.

We need solutions, but I don't like the way people give the government responsibility carte blanche.

Only thing is, you generally can't trust the rich to be philanthropic.

"And the award goes to..... MadamI'madaM!" :theclap:

[MadamI'madaM]

"And the award goes to..... MadamI'madaM!" :theclap:

The elite and their government might actually be in trouble if I wasn't so useless.

If I ever become a rich philanthropist, I would kick public elementary education's ass.

That's when and where you make useful people from more or less nothing, imo.

[Denzien]

I read somewhere that rich people were much more generous with their wealth, helping to build infrastructure and pursue philanthropic activities before the government forced them to. Now they say "fuck it, I'm keeping mine."

[kendoiwan]

I read somewhere that rich people were much more generous with their wealth, helping to build infrastructure and pursue philanthropic activities before the government forced them to. Now they say "fuck it, I'm keeping mine."

Proof

[Neville]

Who do you think really owns the land, the franchises, and supplies the markets in "their neighborhood"?

Who do you think owns the insurance policies on the land, franchises and markets?


Incarceration is more profitable to the government, btw (because they pass the bill to taxpayers). Good luck getting a dime out of a body.

Good luck getting a body to cash a welfare check, or have five kids to overpopulate schools, or ask for a handout.


Also, you overestimate the strength of police in a full out guns blazing uprising.
A third of those guys can't run or shoot for shit. They rely on numbers, hesitation, and fear. The military/FEMA costs a lot more to pull out, too.

I'm sure they would be able to point in the general direction of a mob and squeeze.



We should make it harder to subsidize a kid, but that's another moral clusterfuck.

It's really easy, you can't afford kids, you don't get to have kids.




the government is actually their long arm, fyi.

Yes, notice that "run" part.


What we need are rich philanthropists to compete with the government's education and social security programs in a way that minimizes freeriding but rewards proactive success.

We need solutions, but I don't like the way people give the government responsibility carte blanche.

Only thing is, you generally can't trust the rich to be philanthropic.

People should stop expecting the rich to be philanthropic and stop hoping for a hand out.

[*Strictly_The_Facts*]

The elite and their government might actually be in trouble if I wasn't so useless.

If I ever become a rich philanthropist, I would kick public elementary education's ass.

That's when and where you make useful people from more or less nothing, imo.

For real! When I look at my little sister's homework i shake my head in shame. My mother used to teach me ahead of my classes and I was always somewhere around 2 grade levels ahead of the students. Now in college I sit in class wondering why its so easy. But without educating yourself past the public school system you cant surpass a certain level of intellect.. Its even more amazing that they can actually pull this off.

[kendoiwan]

Who do you think owns the insurance policies on the land, franchises and markets?



Good luck getting a body to cash a welfare check, or have five kids to overpopulate schools, or ask for a handout.



I'm sure they would be able to point in the general direction of a mob and squeeze.




It's really easy, you can't afford kid, you don't get to have kids.





Yes, notice that "run" part.



People should stop expecting the rich to be philanthropic and stop hoping for a hand out.

I haven't been following this thread from the beginning, is he serious or is this just sarcasm?

[*Strictly_The_Facts*]

I haven't been following this thread from the beginning, is he serious or is this just sarcasm?

Dont think there's any sarcasm involved... :sadbanana:

[puzzled-observer]

So.. according to your idea people who make $9m/year will be making more money than people who make $10m/year? And you think this is fair?

[CEOofRawness]

Capitalism is an unbalanced system in favor of the wealthy. There's a finite pool of money and the rich want more and more. The wealthy cuts regular joe a paycheck, and thus prefers paying him a little as possible in order to horde the rest for himself. This is how you get that top 1% with more wealth than the bottom 99%. Remember that with our current system, there is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. This of course means that (theoretically) an American can have a near infinite salary. In practical terms, the maximum salary cap would be all the money in the US, which is practically impossible but, again, still possibile theoretically.

The whole system is unsustainable and will eventually collapse in on itself over and over again (especially without government intervention). I made a thread similar to this one already:
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=31932

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember hearing somewhere that the average American makes about $1 million in their lifetime. So someone with $10 million can live 10 American lifetimes. Bill Gates could use his money (ignoring inflation, etc) to support thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of people for their entire lives. That's ridiculous, no matter how you paint it.

No one should complain if they make say $10 million a year, especially considering how the middle and lower class are fairing right now. $10 million a year is still a lot of money, and there should be a divide between those that truly work hard for their money. But at one point it's just too much. I think it was a Money magazine or some shit that I read about the 500 most wealthy Americans and the wealthiest averaged like $3,000 a second or some shit like that. That magazine disgusted me.

As if the guy that makes $10 a second has anything to complain about. <_<

[Ferrus]

Capitalism is an unbalanced system in favor of the wealthy. There's a finite pool of money and the rich want more and more. The wealthy cuts regular joe a paycheck, and thus prefers paying him a little as possible in order to horde the rest for himself. This is how you get that top 1% with more wealth than the bottom 99%.
Don't forget also the future value of money plays into their hands and is self-propogating.

[MadamI'madaM]

Yes, notice that "run" part.
I'm not sure you follow what I asserted.

The government protects the interests of the wealthy on a larger scale than those of the poor. The interests of the rich completely overlap and engulf the interests of the poor.

Let me put it to you this way, if you think the overall welfare bill ends up to a consequential amount of money after it's divided by 3 million, all things considered, you aren't among those actually covering it.

I suspect most people whining about welfare fall into that category.



People should stop expecting the rich to be philanthropic and stop hoping for a hand out.

You're right. I'm sick of all these lazy ass entitled shitheads.

Every child should be posessed by the government, educated by public schools, and rewarded or employed based upon personal merits to eliminate free rides on every level.

[CEOofRawness]

So.. according to your idea people who make $9m/year will be making more money than people who make $10m/year? And you think this is fair?

I think he meant an increasing tax bracket that had a maximum of 75% at 10 mil and was capped at that amount.

As it stands now, the rich pay a less percentage in taxes than the middle class. Is that fair? A middle class family gives up about 30% of their hard earned income, a significant portion considering that most of their money will go into necessities like housing, food, education, retirement, etc. The wealthy could afford all that and then some. And they get to keep more of what they make?

How is it fair that I have to give up a third of my paycheck (which I need more than the wealthy), but the wealthy doesn't have to give up a third?

[Neville]

I haven't been following this thread from the beginning, is he serious or is this just sarcasm?

Does it matter either way?


I'm not sure you follow what I asserted.

The government protects the interests of the wealthy on a larger scale than those of the poor. The interests of the rich completely overlap and engulf the interests of the poor.

It doesn't benefit those in the government one bit to protect the interest of the poor. It's only logical to help those who are going to help you.



Let me put it to you this way, if you think the overall welfare bill ends up to a consequential amount of money after it's divided by 3 million, all things considered, you aren't among those actually covering it.

I suspect most people whining about welfare fall into that category.

It's a waste of money anyway you look at it.



You're right. I'm sick of all these lazy ass entitled shitheads.

Every child should be posessed by the government, educated by public schools, and rewarded or employed based upon personal merits to eliminate free rides on every level.


Good luck with that. It really just seems like most people are just pissed off they didn't make it rich or weren't born into it.

[kendoiwan]

Does it matter either way?


If you're serious then how could you believe what you're saying given all the data available on the matter... Even Warren Buffett who actually like has money doesn't agree with what you're saying...

[MadamI'madaM]

It doesn't benefit those in the government one bit to protect the interest of the poor. It's only logical to help those who are going to help you.

It's a waste of money anyway you look at it.

Why don't you ask the former British empire about the costs of violence and noncompliance.

I hate to resort to these kinds of attacks, but I doubt either your age or your intuition if you can't understand why it's beneficial for everyone to have a complacent population.

EDIT: have you ever lived in a crummy job market?

The free market isn't god.

Some unskilled people will always fall by the wayside, at least temporarily.

[walfin]

The real aim of taxation isn't social justice, it's to fund the wars. Why else would the government pay people to come up with things like the Laffer curve?

This is a moot point.

[MadamI'madaM]

The real aim of taxation isn't social justice, it's to fund the wars. Why else would the government pay people to come up with things like the Laffer curve?

There is no justice in society.

There are people in relative positions of control who do everything in their power to stay there.

This actually involves keeping most law abiding citizens generally complacent.

Sometimes, to keep one's own population complacent, one must punk another population out of resources or artificially light a real fire under the asses of one's own population so they'll produce more.

EDIT: and it's necessary to prepare to defend against that action from another population

[Neville]

If you're serious then how could you believe what you're saying given all the data available on the matter... Even Warren Buffett who actually like has money doesn't agree with what you're saying...

What I believe has nothing to do with any of this.


Why don't you ask the former British empire about the costs of violence and noncompliance.

I hate to resort to these kinds of attacks, but I doubt either your age or your intuition if you can't understand why it's beneficial for everyone to have a complacent population.

Sure, government might change, take some hits, make some concessions but more often than not, the money doesn't. The rich stay rich and the poor continue on being poor.

I understand it just fine and I still don't care. It's not hard to keep the poor complacent.


There is no justice in society.

Not true, most just can't afford it.

[MadamI'madaM]

Sure, government might change, take some hits, make some concessions but more often than not, the money doesn't. The rich stay rich and the poor continue on being poor.
The rich need the government and the market for their wealth to be relevant.

And even if they sucessfully recuperated, as you put it, it would still involve a staggering loss of real assets and "lost" future profits. An unrecoverable loss for a temporary solution, if the free market system would be retained after the brutal subjugation.

Poor people are an invariable consequence of capitalism and almost every form of society.


It's not hard to keep the poor complacent.
Exactly. The top 1-5%, whose small fraction of income makes a majority of tax revenue, would never dream of stopping the velveta train and wreaking havoc on their oiled machine.

Most people whining about welfare are middle class 30k millionaires or working poor in grave denial about their contribution to society.


I understand it just fine and I still don't care.
So, tell us again why we should exterminate or sterilize the poor?


Not true, most just can't afford it.

That is definitively injust.

[Wise Fool]

Every child should be posessed by the government, educated by public schools, and rewarded or employed based upon personal merits to eliminate free rides on every level.

No government will ever posses me, I will educate myself, and I will create my own rewards, and always enjoy a free ride.... and i will fool myself.


If you're serious then how could you believe what you're saying given all the data available on the matter... Even Warren Buffett who actually like has money doesn't agree with what you're saying...

How do you know? I don't know, I don't know much about the guy, but I have a feeling that there is at least a part of him which does agree.



Good luck with that. It really just seems like most people are just pissed off they didn't make it rich or weren't born into it.


Not true, most just can't afford [justice].

Neville, I've haven't disagreed with most of your comments, but I must have a say about these two:

Justice is not absolute in our relative world. Money doesn't make it "true", unless you choose it to. For some, getting angry can be a representation of "true" Justice.

[kendoiwan]

How do you know?

Facts and examples
More gruel please

I says it, I knows it, else I don't says it, or says I don't noes...

[Neville]

The rich need the government and the market for their wealth to be relevant.

Governments and markets can be created and wealth can be preserved. Its all part of the game.


So, tell us again why we should exterminate or sterilize the poor?

I thought everyone wanted to eradicate poverty.


That is definitively injust.
Make some money if you want justice.



How do you know? I don't know, I don't know much about the guy, but I have a feeling that there is at least a part of him which does agree.

Neville, I've haven't disagreed with most of your comments, but I must have a say about these two:

Justice is not absolute in our relative world. Money doesn't make it "true", unless you choose it to. For some, getting angry can be a representation of "true" Justice.

Maybe I do agree with what I'm saying or maybe I don't. Nothing changes.

True, it all depends on what you construe justice to mean, however, enough money does buy justice.

[MadamI'madaM]

Facts
Warren Buffet doesn't want his family's future jeopardized by greedy, jealous fuckheads.

He's studied history and he believes in merit more than control, as opposed to some estate holders.

Bill Gates probably just feels guilty about Windows.

How about curing computer viruses, asshole? :p


Governments and markets can be created and wealth can be preserved. Its all part of the game.
You don't really understand capitalism if you don't grasp the concept of money-time.

No forfeited or lost opportunity or asset can truly be regained.

Recovering from a loss back up to an arbitrary threshold does not negate the loss, for the the simple fact that extra work is necessary to recover back to zero point (pre loss status), opportunities to leverage the lost wealth are forfeited, and since lifetime is finite.

Only a capitalist's trained parrot would say as you do without this understanding.


I thought everyone wanted to eradicate poverty.
You have a very roundabout method of rhetoric.

In case it was lost amidst all the rebuttals, I never said that we should employ extreme progressive taxation.

I expressed my opinion that drastically polarized wealth is an economically unstable configuration, and that minimum welfare is both logical and justified from both a greedy and a compassionate standpoint. (just don't be as generous as the UK)

[Wise Fool]

Maybe I do agree with what I'm saying or maybe I don't. Nothing changes.

In that case, even though you are saying what you are saying, you actually could agree that everything indeed changes.


True, it all depends on what you construe justice to mean, however, enough money does buy justice.

Yes. I wish I had more money. Though I wish for other things more.

[Neville]

You don't really understand capitalism if you don't grasp the concept of money-time.

No forfeited or lost opportunity or asset can truly be regained.

Recovering from a loss back up to an arbitrary threshold does not negate the loss, for the the simple fact that extra work is necessary to recover back to zero point (pre loss status), opportunities to leverage the lost wealth are forfeited, and since lifetime is finite.

My lifetime is finite, but a corporation or a family, is not bound by time. Thus wealth has a bit longer to accumulate and drastic measures can be employed when necessary. Although missed and lost opportunities cannot be regained and will present minor problems, new chances will arise. It's all about that dynastic wealth that surpasses the reaches of time.



Only a capitalist's trained parrot would say as you do without this understanding.

I've always enjoyed flying.


In case it was lost amidst all the rebuttals, I never said that we should employ extreme progressive taxation.

I expressed my opinion that drastically polarized wealth is an economically unstable configuration, and that minimum welfare is both logical and justified from both a greedy and a compassionate standpoint. (just don't be as generous as the UK)

Fair enough.

[MadamI'madaM]

It's all about that dynastic wealth that surpasses the reaches of time.

Exactly, they have it down to a science.

To be optimally wealthy, you have to know where to marginally concede to prevent catastrophic, though ultimately inconsequential, loss.


There's always some group of people directly beneath you waiting for you to fall.

The wealthy estate holders who want to regress taxes are either greedy idiots or truly evil shitheads who are willing to marginally risk it long term in hopes of a less democratic (majority ruled) and more republican (elitist law ruled) society.

They're probably whiny progeny of emperors sad about watching their forefathers' wealth dwindle for their own incompetence.

EDIT: I do agree, though, that letting the government do too much of this stuff is unfortunate, and I don't generally trust them to do good with anyone's money. But I know that the actually needed stuff would be the first cut if tax revenue plummeted, and people have come to rely on the government to teach the kids and feed the useless/needy.

[Wise Fool]

My lifetime is finite, but a corporation or a family, is not bound by time.

That's a really big assumption.


It's all about that dynastic wealth that surpasses the reaches of time.

This I could agree with.

[Neville]

That's a really big assumption. No it isn't, a family or corporation does have the ability to be never ending, though its not guaranteed, nothing ever is. Certainly, they have the ability to outlast me.

[Wise Fool]

No it isn't, a family or corporation does have the ability to be never ending, though its not guaranteed, nothing ever is. Certainly, they have the ability to outlast me.

Yes it is! we are stuck in time so its natural to assume it is never-ending, but how can we be so sure that time itself is never-ending; what if its just another means to a means?

[Neville]

Yes it is! we are stuck in time so its natural to assume it is never-ending, but how can we be so sure that time itself is never-ending; what if its just another means to a means?

Seriously? That's what your going to go with. I'll stick with my previous statement.

[Wise Fool]

Seriously? That's what your going to go with. I'll stick with my previous statement.

I am your overlord, Draconian plebe! :p

[Neville]

I am your overlord, Draconian plebe! :p

I will destroy you. :duel:

[weebolj]

No it isn't, a family or corporation does have the ability to be never ending, though its not guaranteed, nothing ever is. Certainly, they have the ability to outlast me.Hmm, collective consciousness of family or corporation? You're part of at least a family, you know, so it's partly an extension of your will (and you're mortal, right?). Likewise with corporations and shareholders.

Though I think with further spanned corporate sights would be better, because of externality internalization.

[Wise Fool]

I will destroy you. :duel:

Not before I make me you.

[Neville]

(and you're mortal, right?).
I'm not so sure.



Not before I make me you.

:sadbanana:

[weebolj]

- -
I don't generally trust them [government] to do good with anyone's money.
- -
I don't get this. Generally I mean. (Pertaining to The USA, a different story, perhaps.)

Tax money is spent mostly on providing common goods which have use value beyond market prices and ability. Coordinated effort which brings about greater utility than the marginal on top of one's income cake.

[weebolj]

I'm not so sure.
That's what you're going with?

[Wise Fool]

I'm not so sure.


That's what you're going with?

I'd say its a good answer.

[Wise Fool]

I don't get this. Generally I mean. (Pertaining to The USA, a different story, perhaps.)

Tax money is spent mostly on providing common goods which have use value beyond market prices and ability. Coordinated effort which brings about greater utility than the marginal on top of one's income cake.

Giving trust is giving power and power corrupts.

[weebolj]

Giving trust is giving power and power corrupts.Then not giving trust is withholding power..

[Wise Fool]

Then not giving trust is withholding power..

corrupt yourself.

[MadamI'madaM]

I don't get this. Generally I mean. (Pertaining to The USA, a different story, perhaps.)

Tax money is spent mostly on providing common goods which have use value beyond market prices and ability. Coordinated effort which brings about greater utility than the marginal on top of one's income cake.

True, a good deal of taxes are spent on things that the government handles with relative efficiency (not optimal efficiency, mind you).

But hundreds of millions, if not billions, are inefficiently spent on pork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel).

The Bridge to Nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge) is an extreme example of this.

400 million tax dollars to benefit about 50 people.

[weebolj]

True, a good deal of taxes are spent on things that the government handles with relative efficiency (not optimal efficiency, mind you).

But hundreds of millions, if not billions, are inefficiently spent on pork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel).

The Bridge to Nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge) is an extreme example of this.

400 million tax dollars to benefit about 50 people.
Hyperboles aside, a good number of measurable stupidity, while like I said, the benefits of governmental spending are not so easily measured. Of course markets win if we play by their rules.

[Ferrus]

400 million tax dollars to benefit about 50 people.
Although, actually it benefits a great deal more people who were involved in the investment thereof.

[MadamI'madaM]

Although, actually it benefits a great deal more people who were involved in the investment thereof.

Yeah, some shady kickbacks were involved, but I don't know if a "great deal" would benefit by any standard.

Construction companies have it made in America as it is.

[Ferrus]

Well, and those employed workers of the company spend money.

[Melody]

something that i think is relevant here is an essay by Paul Graham that opines on the distribution of wealth: http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html

here's a nice quote from it:

If your society has no variation in productivity, it's probably not because everyone is Thomas Edison. It's probably because you have no Thomas Edisons.

eg how does a country with 100 hard-working farmhands compare to a country with 99 hard-working farmhands... and a single person who invents the tractor?

does tractor-inventing person get filthy rich? they better, considering they just elevated the living conditions of the entire nation. how many farmhands lose their jobs? maybe 80 of them. sounds like a bad thing almost, except society can now have those 80 work on other things. maybe the milk-designing industry is short on designers? they can also work on things that were previously not of high enough priority. higher-level things

it might seem like tomfoolery, but recognize that just by being born in the United States you are already guaranteed a higher income and quality of life than <some huge %> of the rest of the world

i can't really say nothin about how wealth transfers from generation to generation and other such upkeepity things. but many rich people definitely deserve their wealth, so off their nuts imo

also, don't underestimate the draw of money. it has such a draw that people try to get filthy rich for it. i can't say all paths to filthy richdom are ethical, but at least one of them is -- and that is to actually create value for society

we would not have many of the advancements we do if it were not for the draw of moneys

[floid]

we would not have many of the advancements we do if it were not for the draw of moneys

Some of these "advancements" were huge steps backwards for a species whose overall ability to live together in peace and work co-operatively on mutually beneficial goals has not developed in concert with it's technical skills.

The same technologically enhanced forces that have been used to multiply the power of human muscles to our advantage have also been used to blow lots of people up with the push of button.

It is, at best, a mixed blessing.
At worst the equivalent of giving four year olds loaded handguns to play with.

A more mature species would know what to do with them.
Ours, on the whole, does not.

Now if someone invented a way for ethical awareness to multiply according to Moore's Law we certainly might say they "deserved to be rich" even though, due to that expanded awareness, they would decline it seeing that it is no more than the infantile urge to blindly have more than one needs at the expense taking it away from of the world one is an integral part of.

[Faust06]

Well that sure sounds fair. Let's reward failure some more.

The point is to offer help in order to break out of poverty, and on condition that one cooperates to do so. I don't see any reason the poor should be handed out money to live on indefinitely. These are just technicalities that need to be worked out. The vast majority of people who set out to make a decent living in this country (er, continent) end up doing just that, so if the poor have a) the means, and b) don't have a choice if they want cash then you'd probably see a decrease in "poverty", which seems obvious enough.

[mrj171]

It's called communism and discourages the best and brightest from becoming anything special like doctors because they wouldn't end up any better off than the garbage men who didn't better themselves and make very little in comparison but don't pay shit for taxes.

Tax codes do need to be improved but a better way to end greed would be to penalize the corporations who outsource to other countries or import cheap products because the tariffs are too low. We also need to end the practice of companies setting up tax shelters in foreign countries to get around paying US taxes.

An economy controlled entirely by the government is downright scary, but it wouldn't hurt to have more transparency and regulations for the banking institutions to snuff out the predatory and irresponsible lending practices that have enslaved the little guys. While our habit of consumerism has to change, speculators and bankers are the main culprit behind our economic situation.

[C.J.Woolf]

It's called communism and discourages the best and brightest from becoming anything special like doctors because they wouldn't end up any better off than the garbage men who didn't better themselves and make very little in comparison but don't pay shit for taxes.
Communism like this?


Cuba has nearly twice as many physicians as the U.S. -- 5.91 doctors per thousand people compared to 2.56 doctors per thousand, according to WHO.
I don't mean to say you're necessarily wrong, but workers are motivated by much more than money. Civic service is one. Firefighters, police officers, and soldiers deserve to make more than they do considering the importance of their jobs, but only the state employs them (so there's no competition to drive up their salaries), and taxpayers are notoriously cheap. ;) As far as firefighters, cops, and soldiers are concerned, the US might as well be a communist state. Same deal with doctors in Cuba, yet Cuba recruits enough doctors.

[CEOofRawness]

something that i think is relevant here is an essay by Paul Graham that opines on the distribution of wealth: http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html

here's a nice quote from it:


eg how does a country with 100 hard-working farmhands compare to a country with 99 hard-working farmhands... and a single person who invents the tractor?

does tractor-inventing person get filthy rich? they better, considering they just elevated the living conditions of the entire nation. how many farmhands lose their jobs? maybe 80 of them. sounds like a bad thing almost, except society can now have those 80 work on other things. maybe the milk-designing industry is short on designers? they can also work on things that were previously not of high enough priority. higher-level things

it might seem like tomfoolery, but recognize that just by being born in the United States you are already guaranteed a higher income and quality of life than <some huge %> of the rest of the world

i can't really say nothin about how wealth transfers from generation to generation and other such upkeepity things. but many rich people definitely deserve their wealth, so off their nuts imo

also, don't underestimate the draw of money. it has such a draw that people try to get filthy rich for it. i can't say all paths to filthy richdom are ethical, but at least one of them is -- and that is to actually create value for society

we would not have many of the advancements we do if it were not for the draw of moneys

So the guy who invented the tractor deserves an infinite amount of money? What about the person who invented computers? Radio? Refrigeration?

Not all of these people can have the amount of money that they feel they deserve. If they already have 100 times more than the average person makes in a lifetime, why should they need any more?

"I invented silly putty. Now crown me king!"

I agree though, that inventing more and more things that make our lives easier forces others to find a higher-level job or to invent something. At some point (which I believe is now or in the near future), there will be some people that can't produce value because they're incapable of inventing new products to better our living conditions. What do we do with them?

[kendoiwan]

Bah, that whole line of thinking is a fallacy, it's not who can invent, it's who can own the patent. As much credit as Edison gets, he didn't invent much of what is credited to him, he just owned the patents while the schumck who invented it, got kicked to the proverbial curb...

[CEOofRawness]

It's called communism and discourages the best and brightest from becoming anything special like doctors because they wouldn't end up any better off than the garbage men who didn't better themselves and make very little in comparison but don't pay shit for taxes.

Tax codes do need to be improved but a better way to end greed would be to penalize the corporations who outsource to other countries or import cheap products because the tariffs are too low. We also need to end the practice of companies setting up tax shelters in foreign countries to get around paying US taxes.

An economy controlled entirely by the government is downright scary, but it wouldn't hurt to have more transparency and regulations for the banking institutions to snuff out the predatory and irresponsible lending practices that have enslaved the little guys. While our habit of consumerism has to change, speculators and bankers are the main culprit behind our economic situation.

Communism doesn't work, but neither does pure capitalism (i.e. economic despotism). Both have their pros and cons. Under communism, everyone would have health care, but it would soon be outdated because there's no incentive in making new medicine. Under capitalism, you will end up poor just trying to pay your medical expenses because the demand for it is inflexible and prices can be manipulated to ridiculous proportions before people stop paying for medical care.

[Nighthawk]

I agree though, that inventing more and more things that make our lives easier forces others to find a higher-level job or to invent something. At some point (which I believe is now or in the near future), there will be some people that can't produce value because they're incapable of inventing new products to better our living conditions. What do we do with them?

Helpdesk.

[CEOofRawness]

Bah, that whole line of thinking is a fallacy, it's not who can invent, it's who can own the patent. As much credit as Edison gets, he didn't invent much of what is credited to him, he just owned the patents while the schumck who invented it, got kicked to the proverbial curb...

Ah, but that's the spirit of the American Dream, to not have to work hard and still get credit for it.

Like Chris Rock said, we worship money. And it's sickening.

I find it funny when Americans swear that America is the best nation in the world when they've never lived anywhere else. They also swear that capitalism is the answer to everything, and that the "free market" will always correct itself, and that even tipping the scale towards socialism will destroy the country.

They also believe that we live in a democracy where the people rule. We don't live in a democracy, but a republic. And those that represent us (99% anyway) are more concerned with lining their pockets with bribes than actually helping us out. I like how Bill Maher put it:

"You do realize that your represented by soulless cash whores. And when I say that I don't mean any disrespect to actual whores."

[CEOofRawness]

Helpdesk.

What happens when we run out of desks and people still need help?

I agree with George Carlin in that we should have sports where the losers lose their lives. Like some sort of Roman gladiator shit going down. It's good business and it will give the jobless some work while entertaining the rest of us.

:gm:

[Nighthawk]

What happens when we run out of desks and people still need help?

I agree with George Carlin in that we should have sports where the losers lose their lives. Like some sort of Roman gladiator shit going down. It's good business and it will give the jobless some work while entertaining the rest of us.


Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

-- Lazarus Long (Robert Heinlein)

[CEOofRawness]

Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

-- Lazarus Long (Robert Heinlein)

Hence the gladiator idea. At least they'll produce some sort of value for the economy, even if it is in the form of entertainment.

Personally I would go for a more humane approach: find the dumb ones early enough and sterilize them (preferably through castration) so they can't pass their genes on. They're out-fucking everyone else and I fear the future will be composed entirely of idiots.

Or maybe we need less safety in this country. Eliminate seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws as a start. There's another thread about laws limiting other people's stupidity on here. Personally, I don't think we should have those laws if the act involves only damaging themselves and no one else.

Don't want to wear a seat belt and get ejected from the car and die almost instantly? Sure! Go ahead, knock yourself out (pun intended).

[mrj171]

I should have been more clear, I was just trying to make the point that there would be little incentive for anyone to work harder because big brother would just kick you in the nuts and take it away. The only reason communists become doctors and scientists is the perks, living in a luxurious compound with tons of amenities looks pretty good when compared to the shitholes the rest of the normal people had to live in. At least until you say something bad about the leader and disappear in the middle of the night...

[Oso Mocoso]

I should have been more clear, I was just trying to make the point that there would be little incentive for anyone to work harder because big brother would just kick you in the nuts and take it away.

The other problem with the idea is that it wouldn't help the poor people very much to steal from the wealthy. It would cripple the economy's engine of creation, and when you slice up one millionaire's money and distribute it to everyone else it means everyone who wasn't a millionaire would get a check for something like $3.41. Yay! Now we're all rich! Meanwhile you, you, you and you are now unemployed because the rich guy closed his factory which is now no longer profitable for him to run.

[Faust06]

Under communism, everyone would have health care, but it would soon be outdated because there's no incentive in making new medicine. Under capitalism, you will end up poor just trying to pay your medical expenses because the demand for it is inflexible and prices can be manipulated to ridiculous proportions before people stop paying for medical care.


Sounds like stability versus progress. Really, I guess it takes a kind of balance, but I'd like to know where that sweet spot is if it exists.

[Nighthawk]

Personally I would go for a more humane approach: find the dumb ones early enough and sterilize them (preferably through castration) so they can't pass their genes on. They're out-fucking everyone else and I fear the future will be composed entirely of idiots.

I take it you've seen Idiocracy? I love the opening part where the moron football player exclaims, "I'm gonna fuck all y'all" ... and his family tree exands exponentially on the screen. Meanwhile, the two geniuses die without ever procreating.

[Ferrus]

I take it you've seen Idiocracy? I love the opening part where the moron football player exclaims, "I'm gonna fuck all y'all" ... and his family tree exands exponentially on the screen. Meanwhile, the two geniuses die without ever procreating.
Of course Nazi-like rightwing governments (I mean in terms of worship of fertility) and their idolisation of the family have helped give this process a push.

[CEOofRawness]

Of course Nazi-like rightwing governments (I mean in terms of worship of fertility) and their idolisation of the family have helped give this process a push.

Wasn't that part of Palin's platform? "Babies, guns, and Jesus"

[Wise Fool]

Originally Posted by Melody

something that i think is relevant here is an essay by Paul Graham that opines on the distribution of wealth: http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html

here's a nice quote from it:
If your society has no variation in productivity, it's probably not because everyone is Thomas Edison. It's probably because you have no Thomas Edisons.



eg how does a country with 100 hard-working farmhands compare to a country with 99 hard-working farmhands... and a single person who invents the tractor?

does tractor-inventing person get filthy rich? they better, considering they just elevated the living conditions of the entire nation. how many farmhands lose their jobs? maybe 80 of them. sounds like a bad thing almost, except society can now have those 80 work on other things. maybe the milk-designing industry is short on designers? they can also work on things that were previously not of high enough priority. higher-level things

it might seem like tomfoolery, but recognize that just by being born in the United States you are already guaranteed a higher income and quality of life than <some huge &#37;> of the rest of the world

i can't really say nothin about how wealth transfers from generation to generation and other such upkeepity things. but many rich people definitely deserve their wealth, so off their nuts imo

also, don't underestimate the draw of money. it has such a draw that people try to get filthy rich for it. i can't say all paths to filthy richdom are ethical, but at least one of them is -- and that is to actually create value for society

we would not have many of the advancements we do if it were not for the draw of moneys

Originally posted by CEOofRawness


So the guy who invented the tractor deserves an infinite amount of money? What about the person who invented computers? Radio? Refrigeration?

Not all of these people can have the amount of money that they feel they deserve. If they already have 100 times more than the average person makes in a lifetime, why should they need any more?

"I invented silly putty. Now crown me king!"

I agree though, that inventing more and more things that make our lives easier forces others to find a higher-level job or to invent something. At some point (which I believe is now or in the near future), there will be some people that can't produce value because they're incapable of inventing new products to better our living conditions. What do we do with them?




Bah, that whole line of thinking is a fallacy, it's not who can invent, it's who can own the patent. As much credit as Edison gets, he didn't invent much of what is credited to him, he just owned the patents while the schumck who invented it, got kicked to the proverbial curb...

Following along with this line of thought:

Nikola Tesla Conspiracy

[kendoiwan]

Yeah, he got hosed. All these neat economics theories never pan out irl...

Edit: After listening to this, Edison was even more over-rated than I thought he was.

[Wise Fool]

I find Tesla to be a fascinating human being.

[kendoiwan]

Yeah, a guy who invented stuff, just to help mankind, with no interest in monetary gain... The guy all these theories say can't exist...:ph34r:

[Wise Fool]

mmhmp.

and his being shows how closely altruism and destruction are connected.

[Melody]

So the guy who invented the tractor deserves an infinite amount of money? What about the person who invented computers? Radio? Refrigeration?

Not all of these people can have the amount of money that they feel they deserve. If they already have 100 times more than the average person makes in a lifetime, why should they need any more?precisely. they effectively do have an infinite amount of money, so they are adequately compensated


I agree though, that inventing more and more things that make our lives easier forces others to find a higher-level job or to invent something. At some point (which I believe is now or in the near future), there will be some people that can't produce value because they're incapable of inventing new products to better our living conditions. What do we do with them?we've been at that point like throughout the whole history of humankind. most people can't produce any value beyond their direct labor. that's why throwing $ at poor people doesn't do much... they throw it right back to the rich people

i can see an era where people will not have to work if they don't want to... the key to making it work, i believe, is to have it set up so that people can live decently without working (like say, housing and food payed for,) but if they want to make money to buy more stuff or something, then they have to work or create value otherwise. it would be a kind of communism "base" with capitalism on top

so if we reach a point where people can't produce value even from their labor... cuz iono maybe their jobs are all done by robots or something... then it will be O.K. because such a society would probably have to be very technologically advanced for it to come to that point in the first place

----------------

as for patents and other stuff of this sort, yea i can see how issues like it suck. however i'm not an idealist when it comes to ideas. just cuz you have a great idea doesn't mean you're guaranteed to be rich

what if you invent the mp3 player? nice. what if you don't know shit about how to make it not look like shit? do you deserve to get rich? i don't think so. will it suck when Apple comes out with an mp3 player of their own and pwns your product? no it won't, because your shitty product deserved to get destroyed by someone who constantly keeps the consumer in mind

i consider patents and whatnot to be in this domain. you have to know the rules of the game you're playing. you have to foresee maliciousness and tread with eyes in the back of your head. not that that should be necessary. but it is

i think patent mechanisms will be changed in the near future, especially around software patents

[CEOofRawness]

I also strongly believe in a sort of communist "base", where people get money for housing, food, and limited electricity/water (monthly quota), and then need to earn money for anything else above basic survival needs. I don't mean welfare, either. I mean some sort of currency only accepted for housing, only accepted for food, etc. That way they can't just use it on something they don't need.

And the money should be for basic housing. 1/1 for just one person, X/Y for X amount of people living in the same house. If they wanna live somewhere nice, make more money.

[weebolj]

I also strongly believe in a sort of communist "base", where people get money for housing, food, and limited electricity/water (monthly quota), and then need to earn money for anything else above basic survival needs. I don't mean welfare, either. I mean some sort of currency only accepted for housing, only accepted for food, etc. That way they can't just use it on something they don't need.

And the money should be for basic housing. 1/1 for just one person, X/Y for X amount of people living in the same house. If they wanna live somewhere nice, make more money.
That sort of micromanagement is inefficient. Everybody spends on what they need.

What about the ones who don't give a fuck where they live or how spaciously, or the ones who don't care for food further than getting nutrients (i.e porridge and carrots or something like that every day)? They will use space or food beyond their preferences. It's basic microeconomics.

I think you're trying to address the issue of self-destructive drunkards and junkies. Now their preferences are about as much booze or drugs as they can get and nothing else, and that should be just fine if that's what they want to do, except that they cause all sorts of negative externalities, which makes them a special case to be handled separately.

Welfare is your communist base, except with options instead of oppression.

[CEOofRawness]

That sort of micromanagement is inefficient. Everybody spends on what they need.

What about the ones who don't give a fuck where they live or how spaciously, or the ones who don't care for food further than getting nutrients (i.e porridge and carrots or something like that every day)? They will use space or food beyond their preferences. It's basic microeconomics.

I think you're trying to address the issue of self-destructive drunkards and junkies. Now their preferences are about as much booze or drugs as they can get and nothing else, and that should be just fine if that's what they want to do, except that they cause all sorts of negative externalities, which makes them a special case to be handled separately.

Welfare is your communist base, except with options instead of oppression.

All I'm saying is to supply everyone with basic necessities like food and housing, then leave the rest up to them. Isn't that what we try to do when we help the poor anyway?

At least this way everyone has a free shot at life. Maybe have some sort of stipulation attached to it, like community service?

[weebolj]

All I'm saying is to supply everyone with basic necessities like food and housing, then leave the rest up to them. Isn't that what we try to do when we help the poor anyway?

At least this way everyone has a free shot at life. Maybe have some sort of stipulation attached to it, like community service?
Heh, you might want to read about the scandinavian model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_model). :)

The stipulations are some sort of combination of adult education, job searching and interning(?) (even if employed by private corp, getting paid by government).

[weebolj]

A few things to add to the topic.

Worrying about curbing the labor supply with high taxes is in my (although somewhat uneducated) opinion, foolish. Labor supply is rather inelastic after the lowest income brackets. There are other work-related issues apart from marginal income at work when deciding how much one works. "Do I get the can?" "How will this look on my CV?" etc. INTPs if anyone should acknowledge that the ones to worry about (ones that will enhance overall level of technology/productivity); engineers, researchers, scientists, are not motivated only by money. Like it was mentioned earlier, they're the highly educated folks who put their asses to work instead of the ones who put the asses of their forefathers to work. My grief with capitalism is the way it works for the old money.

The problem with levying a lot of the tax on the wealthy is that they get paid in capital income. To give an example; in Finland, in the highest tax bracket, the marginal (paycheck??) income tax is over 50%. Doctors and lawyers in particular have started to take their paychecks in dividends through their private companies, in capital income. Which is tax-capped at 27% or so.
Now raising the capital income tax in the global race between nations for capital is an economic suicide via diminished investments.

Was it in this thread that Warren Buffett was quoted to have said that his company's secretaries have a higher tax rate than he has..

[Architectonic]

Taxing 75% of all income to come in at a fixed level such as $10 million is silly. Taxing the income over a high threshold at a high rate however has some validity.

The question is whether such a policy will result in a loss competitive businesses to other regions which do not have such a tax. If it was company tax, then it would have a direct result in terms of lowering international competitiveness. But if a high rate of personal income tax was only implemented above a high threshold (there have been proposals from $10 million to $100 million), it is less likely to cause a disincentive. Most entrepreneurs don't actually expect to earn over $10 million per year - so it is less likely to effect behaviour. Of course there will be some who make it past the threshold, however once the business is established it is questionable whether the costs of relocation will offset the loss of income through taxation.

Of course the other question is the overall level of taxation - if taxation is increased in one area, it should be reduced in other areas so that the overall tax burden remains the same.


Now raising the capital income tax in the global race between nations for capital is an economic suicide via diminished investments.

The idea is that all personal income regardless of source should be subject to income tax, whereas the 25% tax rates should apply to companies regardless of source.

[jyakulis]

I don't know why anyone would propose high income tax as a cure to our problem. There's a shortage in capital in the economy so, your solution is to tax more capital? Where do these people come up with these brilliant ideas?

A heavy graduated income tax was an invention of the soviet union. When they sold it to the people in the US it was a mere 1%. Now look at it. That's a good example of why you never give the government one fucking inch.

Income tax is the most destructive tax to the individual that was ever conceived. Not to mention it's pretty ridiculous to work for a corporation that produces a good or service. The government taxes the corporations earnings. Then turns around and taxes everyones wages who worked together to produce the good or service collectiviely. Then the company ships the goods and needs to buy gasoline, which is again taxed. Then once the product is sold there is sales tax. And god knows where else they suck money out of us at.

You people that think raising taxes and lack of revenue for the government is the problem seriously need to burn in hell. The total cost of government is their spending. Whether they deficit spend or raise taxes it doesn't matter. We either pay for it through inflation or higher taxes. The solution is for the government to CUT SPENDING. It's very simple.

So, everyone in the economy is cutting back. The consumer is cutting back. Corporations are cutting jobs. States that are close to bankruptcy are cutting their spending. Yet the federal government needs to spend even more money to solve the problems. Hmmm something doesn't add up here. I mean seriously some of these people in government must be yucking it up about how dumb we are.