Income Redistribution

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.

[florelius]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.
[/quote]

you expect to much of the posters here ryan. You should know by now that empathy is not common around here, well empathy for average citizen is not common at PWI to be correct. Empathy for the rich is offcourse extremely common.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[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.

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.[/quote]

No, they have the right to work.

And haha, you have no idea how the economy works. Employing people is the LAST thing a capitalist wants to do. The capitalist wants a profit. He doesn’t care about employing anyone, they’re a drain on his profits, after all, and if he didn’t have to to produce a product, he wouldn’t. The whole process of production is just a bothersome detail. Just look at the exponential growth of the financial sector in western economies. In the financial sector, you don’t have to employ people to make a profit (at least, not nearly as many). You just have to have the right pieces of paper at the right time.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Which ones?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]orion 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]

Every right you claim needs a corresponding obligation of others.

So who is obligated to provide these jobs and why?

[/quote]

Society. But who cares? It’s a formality, a convenience. There’s never any shortage of work to be done. Do you doubt this? Why is unemployment in this country 10% Is it because, gosh darn it, there’s just nothing left for people to do?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:That’s what I’m trying to find out

A “true” marxist would’ve started arguing right away, along the lines of - “profit is teh evilz, the baker can’t make more than the “baking wage” established by the government” etc etc.

[/quote]

There’s nothing evil about it. That’s what none of you understand. Marxism has no ethical objection to capitalism–it’s just that, in its pure form, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t adequately coordinate society’s needs and guarantee its smooth functioning.

[orion]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

They are also five people who had a one in a million chance of living the American dream anyway, with virtually everything against them.

The whole system being set up to keep them poor eventually causes most people to just give up and take the free money, rationalizing that they have the choice of working very hard and being poor or not working and being poor.[/quote]

You have calimed that several times now, what exactly about the “money system” is designed to keep them poor?

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

It doesn’t produce wealth. Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

[/quote]

In and of itself it isnt, but the very fact that people expect “economic rent” ensures that capital is created and employed in a productive manner.

Machines do not fall from the sky, they are built for a reason.

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[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.

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.[/quote]

No, they have the right to work.

And haha, you have no idea how the economy works. Employing people is the LAST thing a capitalist wants to do. The capitalist wants a profit. He doesn’t care about employing anyone, they’re a drain on his profits, after all, and if he didn’t have to to produce a product, he wouldn’t. The whole process of production is just a bothersome detail. Just look at the exponential growth of the financial sector in western economies. In the financial sector, you don’t have to employ people to make a profit (at least, not nearly as many). You just have to have the right pieces of paper at the right time.[/quote]

What you describe is not a capitalist but the outlook of someone who buys a lottery ticket.

The very word implies that he needs capital and that forces him to hire people to operate it.

Of course he tries to do more with less and that is a good thing.

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion 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]

Every right you claim needs a corresponding obligation of others.

So who is obligated to provide these jobs and why?

[/quote]

Society. But who cares? It’s a formality, a convenience. There’s never any shortage of work to be done. Do you doubt this? Why is unemployment in this country 10% Is it because, gosh darn it, there’s just nothing left for people to do?[/quote]

No, it is because wages are not allowed to drop to a point where it reflects their skills and because they can make more by not working.

Back to my point, if they have a right, someone else has an obligation.

So who should be forced to employ them against his will?

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.
[/quote]

you expect to much of the posters here ryan. You should know by now that empathy is not common around here, well empathy for average citizen is not common at PWI to be correct. Empathy for the rich is offcourse extremely common. [/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk-

My empathy is at least big enough to not point a gun at other people so they finance my hare brained schemes.

Yours isnt.

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.
[/quote]

And again, wealth does not fall from the sky but is created, and the wealth of some individuals just reflects the wealth that has been created, usually by them.

If they stop doing that you do not have less but more poor people.

I know that that door is closed to you while subscribing to an objective price theory, but I am hardly to blame for your outdated economic fallacies.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.
[/quote]

you expect to much of the posters here ryan. You should know by now that empathy is not common around here, well empathy for average citizen is not common at PWI to be correct. Empathy for the rich is offcourse extremely common. [/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk-

My empathy is at least big enough to not point a gun at other people so they finance my hare brained schemes.

Yours isnt.

[/quote]

So I guess you didnt see the irony in all the posters here shedding tears for the rich, but at the same time dont give a fuck about the poor. Your gun to the head metaphor is irellevant here. In a anarchist vs statist debate it would make sense.

btw. I know you orion isnt such a bad guy with no empathy. I love it when you argue against the reactionarys love for war and theire hate for muslims.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.
[/quote]

you expect to much of the posters here ryan. You should know by now that empathy is not common around here, well empathy for average citizen is not common at PWI to be correct. Empathy for the rich is offcourse extremely common. [/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk-

My empathy is at least big enough to not point a gun at other people so they finance my hare brained schemes.

Yours isnt.

[/quote]

So I guess you didnt see the irony in all the posters here shedding tears for the rich, but at the same time dont give a fuck about the poor. Your gun to the head metaphor is irellevant here. In a anarchist vs statist debate it would make sense.

btw. I know you orion isnt such a bad guy with no empathy. I love it when you argue against the reactionarys love for war and theire hate for muslims. [/quote]

Noone sheds tears for the rich, but if we concede the principle of wealth redistribution it is only a matter of time before they come after us.

Which is incidentally exactly what happened.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.
[/quote]

you expect to much of the posters here ryan. You should know by now that empathy is not common around here, well empathy for average citizen is not common at PWI to be correct. Empathy for the rich is offcourse extremely common. [/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk-

My empathy is at least big enough to not point a gun at other people so they finance my hare brained schemes.

Yours isnt.

[/quote]

So I guess you didnt see the irony in all the posters here shedding tears for the rich, but at the same time dont give a fuck about the poor. Your gun to the head metaphor is irellevant here. In a anarchist vs statist debate it would make sense.

btw. I know you orion isnt such a bad guy with no empathy. I love it when you argue against the reactionarys love for war and theire hate for muslims. [/quote]

Noone sheds tears for the rich, but if we concede the principle of wealth redistribution it is only a matter of time before they come after us.

Which is incidentally exactly what happened.

[/quote]

wealth redistribution is allready in place in the western world. nobody have come after me yet and my country has had forms of redistribution of wealth for a long time.

In a society with equality in wealth a huge taxrate would be bad an unecessary, but in the western countrys today its necesarry because most property except our bodys are monopolized by a small group of people. Its our only way to get a part of the cake we where contributing to produce.

Let us try to see this topic from a more pragmatic and realistic wiew than ours more extreme positions. The reality is that we have capitalism and a big state. I dont like capitalism and you dont like a big the state, but they are the context we live in. So one solution is to work within this context for change that will improve life for the ordinary citizen. What do you think most people will benefit from: a tax cut of 10% with the consequence of cutting in public education, healthcare, welfare or a tax raise of 10% and a raise in the budget of education, healthcare and welfare. I know your ideological reflex will be the first, but dont follow your reflex, think about it for some time before you respond your answer.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.
[/quote]

you expect to much of the posters here ryan. You should know by now that empathy is not common around here, well empathy for average citizen is not common at PWI to be correct. Empathy for the rich is offcourse extremely common. [/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk-

My empathy is at least big enough to not point a gun at other people so they finance my hare brained schemes.

Yours isnt.

[/quote]

So I guess you didnt see the irony in all the posters here shedding tears for the rich, but at the same time dont give a fuck about the poor. Your gun to the head metaphor is irellevant here. In a anarchist vs statist debate it would make sense.

btw. I know you orion isnt such a bad guy with no empathy. I love it when you argue against the reactionarys love for war and theire hate for muslims. [/quote]

Noone sheds tears for the rich, but if we concede the principle of wealth redistribution it is only a matter of time before they come after us.

Which is incidentally exactly what happened.

[/quote]

wealth redistribution is allready in place in the western world. nobody have come after me yet and my country has had forms of redistribution of wealth for a long time.

In a society with equality in wealth a huge taxrate would be bad an unecessary, but in the western countrys today its necesarry because most property except our bodys are monopolized by a small group of people. Its our only way to get a part of the cake we where contributing to produce.

Let us try to see this topic from a more pragmatic and realistic wiew than ours more extreme positions. The reality is that we have capitalism and a big state. I dont like capitalism and you dont like a big the state, but they are the context we live in. So one solution is to work within this context for change that will improve life for the ordinary citizen. What do you think most people will benefit from: a tax cut of 10% with the consequence of cutting in public education, healthcare, welfare or a tax raise of 10% and a raise in the budget of education, healthcare and welfare. I know your ideological reflex will be the first, but dont follow your reflex, think about it for some time before you respond your answer.

[/quote]

You are assuming that higher taxes=higher revenues which is not necessarily true. Especially the Federal Government in the US does not have the option of raising revenue by raising taxes.

If the cut all the BS spending they could have the finest infrastructure on the planet and balance the budget.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

Temper, temper, orion. You know, you could avoid being made a fool by simply acknowledging reality and changing your opinions.

With that out of the way, who said anything about free? I spend half my posts on here arguing about the importance of being able to find work. How does: “everyone should be able to work,” get translated in your mind to, “the 1000 richest people in the country should support the rest of us while we eat grapes and fan ourselves”? If I committed such an egregious, willful misrepresentation of your argument, you’d be livid, but it’s OK if you do it?

And Americans should have healthcare because it in no way prevents African babies from having food and shelter. What IS impossible, is for Americans to have healthcare, African babies to have food and water, and for someone like Bill Gates to be worth more money than the bottom 110 million US citizens. It’s impossible for us to have healthcare, Africa to have food an water, and for the top 1% to control over 40% of the wealth. That’s what’s impossible. Get it? Is there seriously no amount of exploitation that you will not defend? How skewed do things have to get before orion says, “You know what, maybe some of these guys really could survive with a little bit less?” When will you say, “You know what? Maybe we should pay the workers, for a change?”

I’m not holding my breath.
[/quote]

you expect to much of the posters here ryan. You should know by now that empathy is not common around here, well empathy for average citizen is not common at PWI to be correct. Empathy for the rich is offcourse extremely common. [/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk-

My empathy is at least big enough to not point a gun at other people so they finance my hare brained schemes.

Yours isnt.

[/quote]

So I guess you didnt see the irony in all the posters here shedding tears for the rich, but at the same time dont give a fuck about the poor. Your gun to the head metaphor is irellevant here. In a anarchist vs statist debate it would make sense.

btw. I know you orion isnt such a bad guy with no empathy. I love it when you argue against the reactionarys love for war and theire hate for muslims. [/quote]

Noone sheds tears for the rich, but if we concede the principle of wealth redistribution it is only a matter of time before they come after us.

Which is incidentally exactly what happened.

[/quote]

wealth redistribution is allready in place in the western world. nobody have come after me yet and my country has had forms of redistribution of wealth for a long time.

In a society with equality in wealth a huge taxrate would be bad an unecessary, but in the western countrys today its necesarry because most property except our bodys are monopolized by a small group of people. Its our only way to get a part of the cake we where contributing to produce.

Let us try to see this topic from a more pragmatic and realistic wiew than ours more extreme positions. The reality is that we have capitalism and a big state. I dont like capitalism and you dont like a big the state, but they are the context we live in. So one solution is to work within this context for change that will improve life for the ordinary citizen. What do you think most people will benefit from: a tax cut of 10% with the consequence of cutting in public education, healthcare, welfare or a tax raise of 10% and a raise in the budget of education, healthcare and welfare. I know your ideological reflex will be the first, but dont follow your reflex, think about it for some time before you respond your answer.

[/quote]

You are assuming that higher taxes=higher revenues which is not necessarily true. Especially the Federal Government in the US does not have the option of raising revenue by raising taxes.

If the cut all the BS spending they could have the finest infrastructure on the planet and balance the budget.

[/quote]

can you explain why higher taxes does not equal higher revenues in an american context?

And how can such a simple act as cut all bs spending ( what is bs spending and whats not bs spending btw ) you suggest solve all the problems of america? this is not sarcasme, if you are able to explain this please do.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

And how can such a simple act as cut all bs spending ( what is bs spending and whats not bs spending btw ) you suggest solve all the problems of america? this is not sarcasme, if you are able to explain this please do.
[/quote]

First of all, the US government gets 19% of the GDP max in the long run.

It was never able to get more, no matter what the tax rate. If they raise it tax evasion goes up, people work less and companies flee the country.

Then, they spend more money on their military than all other nations combined, run two unneccessary wars and spend more on education than almost, if not everyone, else with very little to show for it.

Then there is pork, subsidies, redundant organizations that exist on a federal and on a state level like the DOE…

[ZEB]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Jealousy, resentment doesn’t matter. Anyone who is annoyed because another person has more than they do should channel that into more success in their own life. But, I’ve found that those types want to pull the successful person down to their level. They don’t have what it takes to succeed and merely wish that the one who has succeeded start failing until they get to the point where they are over them in some way.

As for equality, it will never happen as it cannot happen. Government can’t do it, business can’t do it. The reason is simple, we are all born with different abilities, desires and into different circumstances and from that will spring success or failure.

That’s pretty much that.
[/quote]

Its not that they’re “annoyed because another person has more than they do”. Its that they’re annoyed that they work hard and barely get by while seeing others benefit from their hard work.

I think I’m done trying to explain these things for a little while.[/quote]

I fully understand your point, I just disagree. If they are annoyed because someone is ahead of them financially they have to realize that there are reasons for this occurance. First, if you look at statistics fully 80% of all millionaires in the US are self-made (Read The Millionaire Next Door). Therefore, if they have enough desire and skill and care to take a chance they can go for it. If they don’t have what it takes then they must he happy with what they have. Not that they cannot still improve their lot in life by saving and jockeying for a better position.

And that’s pretty much that.
[/quote]

Is that your new motto? Be arrogant and dismissive by ending every post with “And that’s pretty much that”? Because its gonna get old, quick.[/quote]

Don’t like it? Okay, I’ll stop that was pretty much that…

The “reasons for this occurance” are artificial inequalities set in place by the rich to keep themselves rich and others poor, because their richess is directly dependant on the work of the poor.

Yes there are what I call natural inequalities. Such as the rich kid being smarter than than average because of the attention focused on the little darling by his father the millionaire and his mother the doctor. Then they send him to Yale and he now has an incredible education, inherited money, his fathers friends etc.

Okay, that happens, but as I said most of the time it’s not like that. About 80% of the time the guy makes it on his own. And these inequalities you speak of have more to do with what the guy coming out of the womb. Drive, intelligence etc.

What can you do about those things? Do you think we should reward the shirker just because he doesn’t have as much going for him as the other guy?

And that’s…oh never mind.
[/quote]

The shirker?[/quote]

Shirk - To evade. A shirker would be one who avoids work. Never heard that before?
[/quote]

The vast, vast majority of poor in america aren’t “shirkers”. Its the work of the poor that fund the rich. Thats the heart of the American economy - get someone elses work to make you a profit. Be the boss. Be an investor. Don’t be the sucker working 60 hours a week for ten bucks an hour – be the guy that gets lots of money from the work the other guy working 60 hours a week for ten bucks an hour does.[/quote]

I don’t think the American worker is a shirker and I never said that. What I said was that we should NOT reward the Shirker. One more point, the recent extension of unemployment benefits does not help the American worker. This extends the time to three years! I interviewed some people the other day to do menial labor at $10 per hour as I refuse to pay anyone minimum wage. Interviewed 5 people and got 5 turn downs! The reason? They all said they could make more, or about the same money on unemployment. I think it’s human nature to continue to get paid to do nothing rather than take a job making about the same money.

I think we both know that here are 5 people who are never going to live the American dream.
[/quote]

They are also five people who had a one in a million chance of living the American dream anyway, with virtually everything against them.

The whole system being set up to keep them poor eventually causes most people to just give up and take the free money, rationalizing that they have the choice of working very hard and being poor or not working and being poor.[/quote]

But if it’s set up to keep them down then how is it that some, in fact many actually become well off if not wealthy.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting its not?

Its possible, yes. But even if one individual can rise above poverty, the system still depends on the majority remaining within it.[/quote]

What’s wrong with that? As I said earlier everyone cannot be a boss. They are not equipped for it. The cream rises - That’s what America is all about.

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]optheta wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Ha ha…not yet. And hopefully never.
[/quote]

Haha, he’s actually right. Industry in the United States was allowed to develop behind trade barriers. Otherwise, it would have been strangled in the cradle by British manufacturers (some of whom actually did set out to do just this).

The government subsidized and steered industry towards building the railroads.

Just a couple examples of historical facts conservatives don’t tell you about (and usually don’t know themselves).
[/quote]

But I do know this : still waiting for you to tell us all where in the world socialism has ever succeeded in a positive way in the long-term. Your ideas are not practical and have failed everywehre for a long time.