Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:And that solves the problem how exacty?

So he writes a programm and wants 2 billion for it.

His personal income does not change, but the motions we would go through would be more to your liking.[/quote]

Strange that you’ve forgotten about the “magic of the market” so quickly. No one would pay him $2 billion for a software program. Competition would come in! You’ve got computer geeks making custom Linux distros and smartphone ROMS for free. Here, look at all of them:

There’s no other industry that better illustrates how full of shit your economic theories are than the computer industry. The only reason that the majority of computer operating systems and many applications are not distributed either for free, or for a minimal charge is that big companies won’t allow it. The Internet is a great place to see the conflict between profit and the public welfare.
[/quote]

I do not forget how the markets work, you do.

Gates does not make money by making programms but by selling them. Incidentally, so does every baker, tailor, butcher and bricklayer.

It does not matter how much you work unless you find a buyer.

Now someone has to upfront the money in order to develop those things that might or might not find a buyer and he better profit when they do, or else he wont do it.

42

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]

Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. …
[/quote]

Who does then? Also, who decides how much he should be making ?
Yeah, there are some gray areas with IP which is a whole another topic of discussion, that’s not what we’re talking about though.

So let’s stick to the baker example if you’re more comfortable with that.
Simplest case - he bakes the bread and sells it for the current market value. He profits.
Are you saying he has no right to pocket the profit minus the income tax?
[/quote]

Supply and demand will largely determine what his salary should be.

[/quote]

It already does.

43

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]

Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. …
[/quote]

Who does then? Also, who decides how much he should be making ?
Yeah, there are some gray areas with IP which is a whole another topic of discussion, that’s not what we’re talking about though.

So let’s stick to the baker example if you’re more comfortable with that.
Simplest case - he bakes the bread and sells it for the current market value. He profits.
Are you saying he has no right to pocket the profit minus the income tax?
[/quote]

Supply and demand will largely determine what his salary should be.

As for the baker, in this example, no, he does not profit. He did the work himself, and so he is entitled to the wages.
[/quote]

but he owns his own bakery. so the cost of ingredients and operating costs etc add up to X.
he sells it for Y.
Y-X = Z.
Z is the profit. simple stuff eh :slight_smile:

44

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]

Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. …
[/quote]

Who does then? Also, who decides how much he should be making ?
Yeah, there are some gray areas with IP which is a whole another topic of discussion, that’s not what we’re talking about though.

So let’s stick to the baker example if you’re more comfortable with that.
Simplest case - he bakes the bread and sells it for the current market value. He profits.
Are you saying he has no right to pocket the profit minus the income tax?
[/quote]

Supply and demand will largely determine what his salary should be.

As for the baker, in this example, no, he does not profit. He did the work himself, and so he is entitled to the wages.
[/quote]

but he owns his own bakery. so the cost of ingredients and operating costs etc add up to X.
he sells it for Y.
Y-X = Z.
Z is the profit. simple stuff eh :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Nononono.

You see, there is no profit.

What you call profit is the value of his labor.

So, if other people work for him and he pays them less then the whole profit, he is expoliting them by not paying them the full worth of their labor.

45

Ryan’s arguments demonstrate why socialism fails: No one takes any risks living in a socialist society; in fact, Ryan doesn’t even know what risk is because it’s been brainwashed out of him by socialist dogma.

He’d be starving and he would still wait for the overlords to tell him what he should eat.

edit: and I should also add, rather than taking calculated risks people tend to miscalculate risk under socialism because government spending interferes with market signals.

46

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan’s arguments demonstrate why socialism fails: No one takes any risks living in a socialist society; in fact, Ryan doesn’t even know what risk is because it’s been brainwashed out of him by socialist dogma.

He’d be starving and he would still wait for the overlords to tell him what he should eat.

edit: and I should also add, rather than taking calculated risks people tend to miscalculate risk under socialism because government spending interferes with market signals.[/quote]

That is not how it works.

Socialist countries have famines all the time because God hates socialism and so in turn they hate him right back.

So its really not their fault.

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan’s arguments demonstrate why socialism fails: No one takes any risks living in a socialist society; in fact, Ryan doesn’t even know what risk is because it’s been brainwashed out of him by socialist dogma.

He’d be starving and he would still wait for the overlords to tell him what he should eat.

edit: and I should also add, rather than taking calculated risks people tend to miscalculate risk under socialism because government spending interferes with market signals.[/quote]

I think little ryan-Poo should go live under the government he proposes.

Ryan…we won’t accept your philosophy here. We, here in the US of A know we can make it or not based on our own individual drive and competitiveness, and a free market gives everyone the chance.

You propose equal outcomes no matter…fuck that.

Fuck your communism.

48

this “socialism=failure” myth was already amusing in 1990.
now, it’s just retarded.

FYI
capitalist economies are crashing one by one.
in the meantime, socialist China will soon be the first economic power in the world.

actually, socialism has probably already won by demographic KO.

the last advantage you have is your military, and you are wasting it in lost-in-advance battles.

49

[quote]kamui wrote:

FYI
capitalist economies are crashing one by one.

[/quote]

Only, and ONLY because of socialistic programs and policies enacted by said “Capitalist” economies.

50

[quote]kamui wrote:

this “socialism=failure” myth was already amusing in 1990.
now, it’s just retarded.

FYI
capitalist economies are crashing one by one.
in the meantime, socialist China will soon be the first economic power in the world.

actually, socialism has probably already won by demographic KO.

the last advantage you have is your military, and you are wasting it in lost-in-advance battles.

[/quote]

Actually, if we all were as “socialist” as China, I could live with that.

51

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

FYI
capitalist economies are crashing one by one.

[/quote]

Only, and ONLY because of socialistic programs and policies enacted by said “Capitalist” economies.[/quote]

Of course.

If fiat money blows up the two most regulated sectors of the whole economy, the free market is to blame.

Who or what else?

Get with the programm man, free healthcare!

52

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

this “socialism=failure” myth was already amusing in 1990.
now, it’s just retarded.

FYI
capitalist economies are crashing one by one.
in the meantime, socialist China will soon be the first economic power in the world.

actually, socialism has probably already won by demographic KO.

the last advantage you have is your military, and you are wasting it in lost-in-advance battles.

[/quote]

Actually, if we all were as “socialist” as China, I could live with that.

[/quote]
Which is the definition of irony.

53

Economics isn’t my forte, so I’m just going to say this.
I’ve wondered why not have a cap on income per year. Realistically no one needs 20+ million dollars a year to live. Seems like it just becomes a power struggle, wanting to control this and that, control the gov’t, set-up monopolies, so-called exploitation (whether you agree with it being labelled that exploitation or not) of people etc.
They do it in sports to keep a level ~playing field(or this is how I understand it to be).

Anyone want to tell me why this would or wouldn’t be a terrible idea?

54

ok
let me see if i understand your libertarian logic :

rockskar + orion and lifticus =

-western democracies are not really capitalist because the evil politicians you just elected keep taxing you.
-totalitarian China is actually less socialist than Europe because taxe rates are lower.

right ?

55

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Economics isn’t my forte, so I’m just going to say this.
I’ve wondered why not have a cap on income per year. Realistically no one needs 20+ million dollars a year to live.[/quote]

No, perhaps no one “needs” $20+ million dollars to live but what if one wanted to invest a large portion of it to build a business from the ground up? If the government takes any of it from him society loses out on any work that would have come about with that investment; furthermore, that money would likely be misdirected to things that don’t build any wealth at all. Think bombs and the like.

The capitalist takes the risk and fronts his money because he expect a profit.

56

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Economics isn’t my forte, so I’m just going to say this.
I’ve wondered why not have a cap on income per year. Realistically no one needs 20+ million dollars a year to live. Seems like it just becomes a power struggle, wanting to control this and that, control the gov’t, set-up monopolies, so-called exploitation (whether you agree with it being labelled that exploitation or not) of people etc.
They do it in sports to keep a level ~playing field(or this is how I understand it to be).

Anyone want to tell me why this would or wouldn’t be a terrible idea?[/quote]

Noone “needs” that kind of money, sure.

Who is going to invest in the more risky ventures though if not those people?

If they do not make this kind of money who is going to hurt more, them, or the people who will not build their yachts, or private airplanes or whatever other toys they desire?

That already somewhat happened, Clinton taxed yachts, because those people were loaded anyway.

Turns out they did not take in more money but less, those yachts were built outside of the US, and thousands of American shipbuilders lost their jobs.

57

[quote]kamui wrote:
ok
let me see if i understand your libertarian logic :

rockskar + orion and lifticus =

-western democracies are not really capitalist because the evil politicians you just elected keep taxing you.
-totalitarian China is actually less socialist than Europe because taxe rates are lower.

right ? [/quote]

More authoritarian but less totalitarian and much more capitalist, yes.

58

[quote]kamui wrote:
ok
let me see if i understand your libertarian logic :

rockskar + orion and lifticus =

-western democracies are not really capitalist because the evil politicians you just elected keep taxing you.
-totalitarian China is actually less socialist than Europe because taxe rates are lower.

right ? [/quote]

China’s government is totalitarian.

China’s citizens are net savers and producers of real goods.

China does not have free trade within its own borders but the government essentially allows free trade through its exports and that is a very good position to be in if the Chinese government should ever liberalize.

On the contrary, the US is in debt big time to China and doesn’t have much to trade them and the US government continues to strangle its citizens with ridiculous economic policies.

59

Ah, I see now, the businessmen would simply take their business elesewhere.

60

[quote]orion wrote:I do not forget how the markets work, you do.

Gates does not make money by making programms but by selling them. Incidentally, so does every baker, tailor, butcher and bricklayer.

It does not matter how much you work unless you find a buyer.

Now someone has to upfront the money in order to develop those things that might or might not find a buyer and he better profit when they do, or else he wont do it.
[/quote]

This is irrelevant. You simply assume this money must be provided by private parties. Your assertion that Gates would be paid billions of dollars to simply the software is asinine, as there are many people who do this sort of thing for fun. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be paid for it, quite the opposite, in fact, but you simply assume the need for private investment. Capitalists are no longer necessary.