The shifting of wealth

No someone making more should pay more money but not a higher percentage. Flat tax is the a fair tax. Rich and productive people should go on strike and reveal just how useless the rest of America is.

SpoonRobber wrote:

It baffles me when people whine about Obama "redistributing the wealth." You do realize that's what a progressive tax system does, right? Even the most red-necked of Republicans wouldn't deny that someone earning $10,000 a year shouldn't be taxed at the same rate as someone making $100,000 a year. Whenever those at the top are being taxed at a higher rate than those at the bottom, we're "redistributing" wealth. Those on the left and on the right only quibble on the degree to which this should be done.

Exactly. And remember the great early 1950's, and era led by Ike and the Republicans controlling congress? You know, that period of american history that so many hear hearken back to. A simpler time when the US was somebody, when the negro and female knew their places (for the most part), and the gay barely existed. You know, the good ol' days ?

Well the top tax bracket was over 90%.

Stop with the SOCIALISM NONSENSE.

Carnivore 69 wrote:

The Swedish model has already failed.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

Oh Carnivore, you should have done some more research before posting that article from 2005. Once again an article posted to make an argument actually supports the other side of the argument. One of the main points of that article is that Ireland has a stong "capitalist" system. From the article: "Ireland has proved that a substantial lowering of the taxation level can become the motor for launching even the most slackish economy". But today we know that much of Ireland's growth was spurred by spending that it's government could not afford and that today Ireland's economy is in far worse shape than any of the Scandinavian nations. Of developed countries Ireland's debt is second only to Greece. Ireland is in big credit trouble and Ireland is having to massively cut it's government spending. In other words, the very point that you are trying to make, that tax cuts help over the long term, is proven wrong by current events. You should really try to stay more up to date Carnivore...or just stop embarrassing yourself.

J. Galt wrote:

No someone making more should pay more money but not a higher percentage. Flat tax is the a fair tax. Rich and productive people should go on strike and reveal just how useless the rest of America is.

You are a complete idiot. Rich does not = "productive." No matter how many times you tell yourself it does, it does not. Yes, of course SOMETIMES it does. But often wealth is acquired via purely luck. I know this first hand (know many who have achieved wealth this way).

And I am sure you think poor = lazy, right? ESPECIALLY "poor black", right?

Why the hell do you think the word "fortune" means both "The turns of luck in the course of one's life" AND "Extensive amounts of material possessions or money; wealth." Why?? Really, ask yourself that J Galt.

Because having "excessive wealth" is often achieve though "luck." This word having those two definitions is not a coincidence. There is a reason that "luck" and "wealth" are so connected with this word.

( and by the way, it is so friggin' annoying when people think it is cool to have "who is John Galt" bumper stickers. so freaking dumb and lame. They think they are saying something deep, but really, they are just revealing their low level of thinking)

wealth transfer wrote:

Accountants and lawyers are busy drumming up new ideas to shelter assets from the looting hands of the federal government. It would be easier for the government to just give up and get out of the way. Let those who can, do. Do not place artificial shackles around them. Hurting the doers only hurts everyone.

Oh my, "the doers" ! Are you a "doer", oh wise one? (you seem a lot more like a "talker" on this thread) Are those great doers that you speak of, the ones that need no "artificial shackles", are those the same guys on wall street that nearly collapsed the world's economy because of their own stupidity and greed? yeah, even Greenspan now admits he was wrong that things like the derivative market didn't need regulation, and this lack of regulation, or "artificial shackles" as you so poetically put it, is what helped crash the economy.

But you know better? You want another shot at the Great Depression part 2 since this last one didn't quite pan out, huh?

don't make me puke.

Sir douche-a-lot,

Good job bringing up "poor black", immediately going after to the hearts of people. "awwwwe, those poor black people." Nice.

I know, I know, it's so unfair that people are born into wealth. They shouldn't get that money, right? Everyone should grow up in the same class, right? Waaa! Waaaa!!

Hey, I have an idea: WHY DON'T THE POOR GUYS PULL OUT ONCE IN A WHILE!? "JUST PULL OUT!! I mean, what do they think, they're doing the kid a favor by bringing him into a poor lifestyle? "But, but...I want a kid too." Shut up.

It's not a right to have a child. It's a very selfish thing to do if you cannot afford to give the child an adequate upbringing. It's no one's responsibility to provide for your child but your own. If you can't do it, don't have one. End of story.

wealth transfer wrote:

-Every attempt at socialism in the history of the world has resulted in hurting those it was supposed to help.

-this has been going on for hundreds of years, it has never even come close to working.

-The current administration is hellbent on reallocating resources from the haves to the have-nots.

This country is great because capitalism has been allowed to flourish for 200 years.

If socialists want the money of the wealthy, I think they should also accept a world without the production of the wealthy.

If you want to tax the shit out of the wealthy, be prepared to give up all your modern day conveniences.

It would be easier for the government to just give up and get out of the way.

I am trying to figure out which one of these sentences is the dumbest. It's a tough call.

Your ignorance would be understandable --even almost tolerable-- if you were a 17 year old kid who just read Ayn Rand for the first time. If you are a 17 year old kid, you should go read some more. Keep learning.

If not, then you are well past the point of help and no amount of reason or logic is going to sway you. I'm not even going to try.

oh my, what an intelligent, and thought provoking response ! (those with sarcasm detectors might want to them off, or they will blow up)

dbag patrol wrote:

It's not a right to have a child. It's a very selfish thing to do if you cannot afford to give the child an adequate upbringing. It's no one's responsibility to provide for your child but your own. If you can't do it, don't have one. End of story.

Of course it is a "selfish thing to do." So what happens when that parents can't provide for the kid? If nothing is provided for him (like let's say a free education and a free lunch at school, which obviously you must be dead-set against), what are the odds that he becomes a selfish scumbag, impregnates some other poor dummy, and the process repeats itself?? Probably a lot higher than if he had been given some education, food, and a life. But your theory is: lets give them a pep talk from Bill Cosby and everything will be ok, or..... plan B is: the poor dummies will eventually all die off on the streets, and we can start over again. Admit it, those were you solutions, right?

And since you conservatives are so against poor people having kids, why not promote contraception and sex ed a little bit more?? No, instead you are like: hey teens: NO condoms, NO birthcontrol pils, no talk about sex, NO abortions, for you. Just go to church and pray, and everything will be ok. And when they screw up and can't feed the kid? Your reaction: too bad, if he dies, he dies.

You are more braindead than Terry Schiavo was.

You have now Justified the Chinese eventually declaring the U.S. bankrupt.

J. Galt wrote:No someone making more should pay more money but not a higher percentage. Flat tax is the a fair tax. Rich and productive people should go on strike and reveal just how useless the rest of America is.

Out of curiosity, how was a hedge fund manager from 2004-2007 "more productive?" Last time I checked, productivity dosen't always directly correlate with how much someone gets paid.

This argument has a number of misconceptions about socialism and capitalism that I would like to address.

wealth transfer wrote:

1. What I don't understand is that this has been going on for hundreds of years, it has never even come close to working, and yet there is always a new generation of people who thinks it will work this time around.

2. The current administration is hellbent on reallocating resources from the haves to the have-nots, conveniently forgetting that the well-being of the lower classes depends nearly entirely on the well-being of the upper classes.

3. This country is great because capitalism has been allowed to flourish for 200 years.

4. Unequal distribution of wealth is a good thing, especially in a capitalist society. Socialists forget that ambition and greed propel society forward, whether they like the associated character traits or not.

5. It would be easier for the government to just give up and get out of the way.

1. Some people develop the idea that they do not like massive inequalities and social injustices that sometimes occur in capitalist societies. Some people get screwed if they live in an area overrun by the effects of our economy, like people who are moved to mine coal or those that live downstream of a large cow farm. So they decide the system does not work for them and the playing field should be equaled a bit. It's called empathy.

2. The idea that our administration wants socialism is ridiculous. Most of Obama's economic advisors helped created massive wealth in the financial industry. Many true progressives and socialists have lambasted the Obama administration because of how vulnerable they are to corporate interests.

3. Sure our country is great now, but it has come at the expense of other countries, lots of suffering and death, and massive environmental destruction that is completely unsustainable in the long-term. Before World War II, the conflict between working people and corporate and government power was very violent. Living in large cities in the 19th century and early 20th century often was horrid. Post WWII has changed things a lot, but also destroyed the environment and outsourced the worst labor practices. If everybody lived like us, the Earth would no longer be fit for humans. That is indisputable if you examine the evidence of our impact. Price signals fail with regards to the environment because they do not account for long term effects, like soil degradation and air pollution.

4. Sometimes the unequal distribution of wealth in capitalism becomes so large that the society can represent the polarized societies of yore. Governments then siddle up to business interests to maintain their control and power because they know the citizenry cannot challenge vested interests. It becomes a plutocracy. A few people rule and limit competition. See Russia. Or Mexico.

5. Ironically, businesses in capitalist societies need government more than government needs them. See financial crisis. A stable government, security and clear regulations provide a good business environment. Without those things, business has no reason to invest in an area because it too risky. If you read US history correctly, you will find that most of the time government helped create the conditions for today, rather than restrict the immaculate efforts of the business world. If government left the picture, things would get worse real quick for most people.

FYI, my political beliefs run the whole gamut, as I do like big government, love and despise aspects of business, wish for electoral reform to allow more than two parties, despise people who suck the system for all its worth, yet understand the need for a limited social safety net. Screw ignorant labels like conservative or liberal. Those labels' best use is for slandering people narrow minds don't like.

as I do like big government

I misquoted myself. I don't like big gov.

A few replies:

1. The idea that unbridled capitalism leads to monopolies, cabals, and the like is a myth that came about during the 1800s as big companies looked to the government for protection against competitors.

http://mises.org/story/621

2. The rich are adept at avoiding taxes. They do this by either escaping the taxation by moving themselves or their wealth overseas, or by buying off politicians and installing numerous loopholes in the tax code. Soaking the rich doesn't hurt the rich so much as incentivize them to move their capital to other places or work within the government to benefit themselves. Goldman Sachs has it down to a science.

3. Socialism fails because people discover they can loaf and ride on the labor of others. To make it work, you have to enslave people and make them work at gunpoint. Capitalism incentivizes people to work for their own well being. Despite the claims of leftists, capitalism enslaves no one. You either work and eat or loaf and starve. The socialist wants to loaf and eat and can't understand why this never works.

Out.

Is it socialism that led to the downfall of those countries or was is a greedy elite that took all power for themselves? C'mon-- have you ever seen the dacha's?

Never come close to working? The whole of human history can be read as progressively redistributing power and money from a concentrated elite (e.g., a king) to the masses.

Just out of curiosity-- where do you draw the line between classes? Who is a "have" and who is a "have-not"?

You do know that:

-aviation research was and mostly still is funded almost exclusively by the gov't;

-most of the roads in this country are paid for by the gov't;

-early computer research was gov't funded (Al Gore might not have invented the Internet, but CERN is gov't-funded.)

Please tell me what, exactly, Wall Street has produced that I can't live without?

You still reaching Douche-a-lot, you're still reaching.

Generalizing all "conservatives" into total religious nuts, bringing up "no sex ed", and even Terry Shiavo? You know, you watch A LOT of TV, don't you? MSNBC, perhaps? Maybe some Daily Show in there? Eh? Am I right?

In your ideological world, there's basically no penalty for anything. "So, you had another kid. It's your 4th. You're not married? You have no job? You're babies' daddy hasn't come around in a while? That's cool, I'll (we'll) pay for all his food for the next 30 years, send him through college (because that's a "right" too now), and even give him a job (because "you can't get a good job without a degree, and now he has one, so you must give him this job)".....all because YOU just had to have it, didn't you?" Now multiply this by 50 million (and growing).

you're right, the peasants should have a limit to the number of kids they're alllowed to have. like in glorious communist china!

Carnivore 69,

If big companies get so saavy at systematically suppressing little-guy competition as they most certainly try to do and it takes whole centuries for new blood to overtake them than must me live whole lives as consumers being taken advantage of? Watching my gas, heat, and food, shelter costs rise beyond my means to at least enjoy a full night's sleep ever again, or give up running? F-U! Won't happen.

Same is happening in gov't: Campaigning is now a four-year process that has gotten so out of hand that noone is actually governing anymore. So what to we do, extend to eight year terms so that we can at least enjoy a few years of bipartisanship?

Carnivore 69,

If big companies get so saavy at systematically suppressing little-guy competition as they most certainly try to do and it takes whole centuries for new blood to overtake them then must we live whole lives as consumers being taken advantage of? Watching my gas, heat, and food, shelter costs rise beyond my means to at least enjoy a full night's sleep ever again, or give up running? F-U!

Same is happening in gov't: Campaigning is now a four-year process that has gotten so out of hand that noone is actually governing anymore. So what do we do, extend to eight year terms so that we can at least enjoy a few years of bipartisanship?