Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But they haven’t, you’re continuing to ignore facts. Income tax contributes only about half the total taxes in this country. Seeing as how they’ve gotten the far greater part of the benefits, they’re getting off easy. They should pay more.[/quote]

  1. They risked their own capital, or borrowed capital.

2-They’ve usually worked long and hard hours

3-They’ve sacrificed time away from friends and family to do it.

They deserve to keep the money they’ve earned and not have it stolen from them only to be given to those who refuse to contribute to society in a positive way.

Facts.

242

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ryan has yet to point out even one major socialist government that has succeeded long-term.

Gee, Ryan, I guess theory is one thing and reality is another -The difference between college and real life.

Calm down now son…keep it calm ;)[/quote]

The United State, if you’re to be believed.

You see, you change your definitions of socialism and capitalism so often as it’s convenient, it would be pointless to name any country. If you want a country to be socialists, then it’s socialist to you. But later, if it’s convenient for you to call it capitalist, then it’s capitalist.[/quote]

I never said the US was socialist - Maybe you’re confusing our debate with the 32 others you’re involved in, so no problem. I have said that it is far too liberal.

Now go ahead and name a country where socialism has worked in a positive way long-term.

I’m waiting.

243

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
By the way, I would very much love to see you finally start dealing with some numbers, which so far you refuse to do. Probably because they show that you’re wrong.[/quote]

And I’d very much like you to point out a country where socialism has worked in a positive way in the long-term. The US on the other hand has been successful for a long time with capitalism. As my grandmother used to say “the proof is in the pudding”. And my grandfather used to say “you kids get off my lawn” but of course that doesn’t have anything to do with socialism. Or does it? It was his lawn, he owned it and…ah never mind.

244

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Define damage. It’s not the rich that die in the wars.[/quote]

No? How can you make such an insensitive comment like that? Many young guys from wealthy family’s have fought and died for this country.

True, they worked hard and own their own homes or at least pay their rent on time. What right does anyone have to stay on another persons property without compensating them for that? What do you think this is a socialist state?

If you don’t work you shouldn’t eat. Simple man, they’re lucky they have food stamps were it up to me that would be a limited program for children only.

Barney Frank and his band of incompetent liberal idiots crashed the economy with freddie and fannie - Read about Ryan it won’t be assigned by your socialist professors, but it’s good reading.

More insensitive comments. A man works hard and makes it big in the US and if he loses it all you don’t care? Sad.

245

[quote]Big Banana wrote:
The rich also pay the corporate taxes and much of the sales tax. [/quote]

And don’t forget property tax as well.

246

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
If you want to work, you will be found a job.[/quote]

“Come over here young Ryan, it seems that Vladamere has been watching you and you are not as productive as the other boys-----DEEP SEEEX HEEM”

Herding the sheep, haying the field—getting the food for the government elite. A little socialist day is never done.

247

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

No fairyland here. Just the ability to get medical care if you become seriously ill, or ill for an extended period of time, without having to file for bankruptcy. Just the ability to give retirees enough money so they don’t have to choose between buying food and their prescription medications.

[/quote]

You know I think you won me over. Free medical care, free food, free money when you retire, free jobs. I think I like that. The government takes care of you from cradle to grave. You make no decisions and you clear any sort of independent thought with the government first before you actually think it.

Of course a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have - Beginning with your freedom!

248

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:Well, lets not get into investing just yet.
So now, the baker who now has a part time accountant hired and is working 12 hour days to cope with the demand realizes that demand has increased again and he needs some help around the bakery, mostly cleaning stuff. Basically he needs a janitor.
So he sits down with his accountant, they look at the books and figure out that he can hire one and pay him.
He don’t want a high school kid or someone just looking to get by so he is willing to pay over the minimum wage even though obviously the work can be performed by anyone physically capable of wiping their ass. His “Help Wanted” sign attracts a few ppl and he chooses one to work for him full time .

Now he has an accountant and a janitor. So far so good aka no unfair exploitation of proletariat noticed? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

So long as the baker is not receiving an extra portion of the income simply because he owns the shop, it is not exploitation. Basically, worker ownership is the idea, so everyone who works there gets to help decide what to do with profits. A cooperative.

Now, in reality, a single bakery with three people working there probably needn’t be a cooperative. Socialism is designed to apply to advanced industrial economies. It doesn’t really come into as much on smaller scales because there’s simply not much room for exploitation. I mean how much could that baker be selling? After he pays the salaries of his two employees, and his wages, and expenses, he probably doens’t have a whole lot left.
[/quote]

k, then so a baker with 2 employees is OK.
good.
now his neighbor who also has a bakery decides to retire and move to Florida.
our baker sees an opportunity and decides to buy neighbor’s bakery as well.
he however doesn’t have enough cash so he decides to apply for a business loan.
he sits down with his accountant, they put a business plan together and go to the bank.
long story short - he gets a loan in his name and buys his neighbor’s bakery.
there is some risk involved since he’s not 100% sure the demand will stay high enough to pay for the increased cost of operation which now includes loan payments but he takes the risk.

so far so good?
[/quote]

I think Ryan will like that - He’s not yet evil. I don’t think the guy becomes evil until he hits the 1 million dollar mark in sales. Or, does he base it on employees? Wait I think if he actually employs people he’s evil. No wait it might be a certain number of people then he’s evil because only the government is supposed to employ people. Hmm, RYAN? Can you clear this up for us? Just when does this hard working guy become evil?

249

You guys should take a look at the Mondragon Corporation. It’s a worker coop.

Something I came across before in some bank/tax documentary was some time in the past, whoever had the money at the end of the year paid taxes on it. If you spent all your money, then you don’t have to pay taxes on it, but the money ends up somewhere, and that person pays tax on it.

250

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

what are you a freaking idiot, you are arguing that manual labor is the only form of work.

Trading of goods or services for a return.

when people say work read that.

welfare is giving for nothing. no return. And if you think from the standpoint of society, it is giving not only for no return, but to have to give more in the future.[/quote]

Perhaps if the system wasn’t designed to screw the poor, the poor wouldn’t be trying to screw the system.[/quote]

Not giving things out for free is not screwing anyone.

[/quote]

I must be expresing myself really poorly if you think I’ve been talking about income redistribution or “giving things out for free”.

251

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

then they are rich because others are poor. So yours is a strange definition of “earn,” one that many people do not accept.
[/quote]

There will always be poor and most people will always have to work. It seems you are mad because the rich exist.

If being rich were not allowed we would have few advancements. Why bother to work harder and invent things if you cannot benefit?

You have a massive misunderstanding of history, human nature and facts. Enjoy school while you can because te real world will be a wakeup call.
[/quote]

There might always be poor, but there needn’t be. Look around you. We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]

I do not know if you noticed, but we do.

Not compared to your fairyland nirvana, just compared to pretty much any other time period ever.
[/quote]

No fairyland here. Just the ability to get medical care if you become seriously ill, or ill for an extended period of time, without having to file for bankruptcy. Just the ability to give retirees enough money so they don’t have to choose between buying food and their prescription medications.

If this is fairyland to you, you’ve got more problems than I thought.[/quote]

And a free pony for anybody?

Cause all that shit aint free.

Plus, why should US citizens havge healthcare if poor African babies lack food and shelter?

Why would anybody deserve anything as long as there is someone whose needs are even greater?

252

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]

Take that back to the old world. Nope,…sorry. Your own drive determines your own worth, and you don’t need any government to intervene on that.

I applaud your tireless rhetoric, yet it has no place in the USA. [/quote]

Are you suggesting “drive” is the only thing that determines a persons financial situation?

253

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:“at the expense of others” ?

That sounds as if anyone had the right to do a particular job.
[/quote]

Not a particular job, but a job. People have the right to a job. They have the right to work to support themselves. Capitalism has never been able to supply enough jobs. I’m sure that after 200 years, though, it’s about to happen.[/quote]

People do not have the right to work. They have the right to exist and compete with other like skilled workers for a wage.

In a world with so much to do why is anyone unemployed? It is not because capitalists do not want to employ unemployed labor but because government prevents them from doing so.

254

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
By the way, I would very much love to see you finally start dealing with some numbers, which so far you refuse to do. Probably because they show that you’re wrong.[/quote]

This coming from a person arguing in defense of an ethical system that has collapsed entire civilizations.

255

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:“at the expense of others” ?

That sounds as if anyone had the right to do a particular job.
[/quote]

Not a particular job, but a job. People have the right to a job. They have the right to work to support themselves. Capitalism has never been able to supply enough jobs. I’m sure that after 200 years, though, it’s about to happen.[/quote]

People do not have the right to work. They have the right to exist and compete with other like skilled workers for a wage.
[/quote]

Exactly.

256

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:“at the expense of others” ?

That sounds as if anyone had the right to do a particular job.
[/quote]

Not a particular job, but a job. People have the right to a job. They have the right to work to support themselves. Capitalism has never been able to supply enough jobs. I’m sure that after 200 years, though, it’s about to happen.[/quote]

Every right you claim needs a corresponding obligation of others.

So who is obligated to provide these jobs and why?

257

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]

Take that back to the old world. Nope,…sorry. Your own drive determines your own worth, and you don’t need any government to intervene on that.

I applaud your tireless rhetoric, yet it has no place in the USA. [/quote]

Haha, it especially has a place in the USA, one of the most unequal places on earth. Sorry buddy, your ideas have failed.

258

Pure propaganda: which professor? Physics, math, or engineering? Or is it you just need some reason to try to wave my arguments away, because you can’t find any facts that support you?

Even if it did happen like that, it still wouldn’t matter. The fact that anyone can be a slave owner doesn’t legitimize slavery (I’m not actually calling them slave owners, it’s just an illustration).

Because in most cases, he didn’t work really hard to get it, and even if he did, it’s not productive labor. Bear in mind, I’m talking returns on investments, not wages, in case you’re confused. It’s the same thing as digging a hole in a field and demanding payment for it, and when nobody pays you, you complain, “But I worked really hard for it!” It may be true, but it’s not productive labor.

It’s only criminal if it’s against the law, and it’s not against the law. Sorry.

[quote]Wrong, you make money from your labor AND wise investments with the money that you made with your labor (stock market investments promote growth for that company). Saying that a guy who grosses 10 mil per year because he owns 10 ice cream shops (for example) doesn’t deserve it
is an insane comment to make.[/quote]

It’s not an insane comment, it’s grounded in an understand of what actually happens in the economy. It’s your opinion that he deserves it, which is fine, but it is my opinion that he does not. Both are valid.

But then again, none of this has anything to do with the failure of capitalism or the necessity of socialiization.

259

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
We have the capacity to provide a fantastic standard of living for everyone. [/quote]

Take that back to the old world. Nope,…sorry. Your own drive determines your own worth, and you don’t need any government to intervene on that.

I applaud your tireless rhetoric, yet it has no place in the USA. [/quote]

Haha, it especially has a place in the USA, one of the most unequal places on earth. Sorry buddy, your ideas have failed.[/quote]

Yeah buddy your ideas have failed. They only produced the single biggest economy in the history of the world - And I’m still waiting for Ryan to tell us all where in the world socialism has ever succeeded in a positive way in the long-term.

260

[quote]ZEB wrote:
…And I’m still waiting for Ryan to tell us all where in the world socialism has ever succeeded in a positive way in the long-term.
[/quote]

United States?