Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.

102

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.

Regulation: All companies that hire fulltime workers must provide healthcare.
Response: Companies only hire, or mostly hire, part time workers.

Regulation: Enforce a minimum wage.
Response: Prices go up.

And so on. I’m convinced the absolute only force powerful enough to effect a change is social condemnation. People want to be super rich because of the social praise they get for it (the improved treatment from society for wearing expensive clothes/driving an expensive car/living in a large home/etc, all the way to the egregious examples of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and "Cribs).

If asinine displays of gross excess were responded to with distain, I doubt we’d see so much of it.[/quote]

It would be limited to gated communities. Good post though.

103

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.

Regulation: All companies that hire fulltime workers must provide healthcare.
Response: Companies only hire, or mostly hire, part time workers.

Regulation: Enforce a minimum wage.
Response: Prices go up.

And so on. I’m convinced the absolute only force powerful enough to effect a change is social condemnation. People want to be super rich because of the social praise they get for it (the improved treatment from society for wearing expensive clothes/driving an expensive car/living in a large home/etc, all the way to the egregious examples of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and "Cribs).

If asinine displays of gross excess were responded to with distain, I doubt we’d see so much of it.[/quote]

It would be limited to gated communities. Good post though.[/quote]

“Oh, you live in one of those vapid greed communities? Well, at least you can all judge each other based on your bank accounts.”

:stuck_out_tongue:

104

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

The money/bodybuilding analogy would work if one person getting super strong directly resulted in a lot of peole being barely able to pick up a pencil.

105

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

That is true, they are better off because of it.

106

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

Sure it does. If everyone ate a protein based diet the costs would skyrocket. This is why the government pushes a grain based diet.

Not everyone can be rich. Not everyone can be jacked.

We have limited but elastic resources.

If we punish the rich then everyone is poor. If everyone is given reasonable opportunity everyone is better off but the top layer is way better off.

107

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

“Oh, you live in one of those vapid greed communities? Well, at least you can all judge each other based on your bank accounts.”

:P[/quote]

They never need face the general public. They send the maid to the grocery store.

108

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

The money/bodybuilding analogy would work if one person getting super strong directly resulted in a lot of peole being barely able to pick up a pencil.[/quote]

No, that is rubbish.

There are at least two wrong ideas in there, the most important one being that business is a zero sum game.

109

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

That is true, they are better off because of it.

[/quote]

Everyone is?

110

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

The money/bodybuilding analogy would work if one person getting super strong directly resulted in a lot of peole being barely able to pick up a pencil.[/quote]

No, that is rubbish.

There are at least two wrong ideas in there, the most important one being that business is a zero sum game.

[/quote]

Meaning the only possible outcome is a few super rich and a majority poor?

111

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
…
[/quote]

Ppl in the top 10% income bracket pay like 80% of all taxes.
[/quote]

So?[/quote]

So that’s the regulation that is helping the poor.
[/quote]

and in response the rich “downsize”, cut hours, cut benefits, “outsource”, and raise prices.

Which ends up hurting the poor.[/quote]

In response to what? Market pressure maybe? Would you like them to go belly up so their employees lose their jobs and those “filthy rich” stop paying taxes on which the poor rely?

[/quote]

In response to tax increases.

Think about it: You’re a business owner. You make a million dollars a year. Your taxes go up. Do you (a) take the hit personally and just have less money, or (b) do one of the aforementioned things to make up the difference?

Which do you think most people would choose?[/quote]

If I cut my employees’ hours/lay them off etc - I will be producing and as a result making less.
So this won’t happen as a result of a tax increase. It will, however, happen as a result of a slump in demand for their products, which is what I’ve seen happen to automotive industry first hand.
Also don’t forget that the tax is progressive - the rich make the more taxes they pay.

Outsourcing is a touchy subject and limiting it is probably the only thing on the “leftist” agenda I agree with.

112

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

Sure it does. If everyone ate a protein based diet the costs would skyrocket. This is why the government pushes a grain based diet.

Not everyone can be rich. Not everyone can be jacked.

We have limited but elastic resources.

If we punish the rich then everyone is poor. If everyone is given reasonable opportunity everyone is better off but the top layer is way better off.[/quote]

What resources are limited, exactly, and why?

Also, everyone isn’t given reasonable opportunity. Some are given lots of opportunity while others have everything against them.

113

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So the richest people in the country set up a system where they can continue getting money without doing work, anquote[/quote]

But, let’s not ignore the fact that the richest people in the country at one time did far and away more work (and most still do) than the average person. And that’s how they became rich.
[/quote]

I disagree. Please expound on this point.

The poor tend to do “more work” in terms of lifetime hours spent working and physical labor. [/quote]

Physical labor perhaps, but we long ago became a society that values mental strength and performance over physical. And I would beg to differ about them even working more lifetime hours. I know one of the top tax attorneys in the country, he works 70 hour weeks, nearly double the 9 to 5 guys, with the stress of knowing that if he shits the bed he could cost someone millions of dollars and potentially lose his client and reputation, and he doesn’t deserve to make more money than them?

The kid who left home at 17 to join the airforce, becoming ostracized by his father and not speaking to him for years, because he realized he didn’t want to work in the coal mines all his life.

The Austrian kid from the middle of nowhere who would break into the gym to workout, who went AWOL to participate in competition, who came to America with nothing but himself, started a construction company to pay for his bodybuilding career. Who then realized he could sell his product 24/7 through films, who then realized he wanted to help people by becoming politically active and eventually became the governor of the most populous state in America.

The guy who slaved in college and got straight A’s so he would get a scholarship to law school, the only way he could afford it, and he wasn’t working harder than the psychology majors?

The young man who took a job as the book keeper of a produce wholesaler, learned the ropes working the night shift, opened his own wholesaler, used the profit from that company to build an oil refinery in nowhere Ohio, an oil refinery that was the tip of the iceberg of the largest oil and rail company ever, Standard Oil.

All we see is the end result of this hard work, the lawyer in the Porsche, Arnold with a cigar in his mouth, Bill Gates on his yacht, Rockefeller owning pretty much whatever he pleased, we don’t see the stress and anger and frustration and hours of meticulous planning, book balancing, sleepless caffeine fueled nights trying to figure out a problem, that they go through to earn those pleasures

114

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Meaning the only possible outcome is a few super rich and a majority poor?[/quote]

How do you define poor? Most of the western worlds poor have a decent lifestyle.

Of course those stuck in crappy government housing have a rough one, but that is the nature of the government running things.

115

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power, and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
…
[/quote]

Ppl in the top 10% income bracket pay like 80% of all taxes.
[/quote]

So?[/quote]

So that’s the regulation that is helping the poor.
[/quote]

and in response the rich “downsize”, cut hours, cut benefits, “outsource”, and raise prices.

Which ends up hurting the poor.[/quote]

In response to what? Market pressure maybe? Would you like them to go belly up so their employees lose their jobs and those “filthy rich” stop paying taxes on which the poor rely?

[/quote]

In response to tax increases.

Think about it: You’re a business owner. You make a million dollars a year. Your taxes go up. Do you (a) take the hit personally and just have less money, or (b) do one of the aforementioned things to make up the difference?

Which do you think most people would choose?[/quote]

If I cut my employees’ hours/lay them off etc - I will be producing and as a result making less.
So this won’t happen as a result of a tax increase. It will, however, happen as a result of a slump in demand for their products, which is what I’ve seen happen to automotive industry first hand.
Also don’t forget that the tax is progressive - the rich make the more taxes they pay.

Outsourcing is a touchy subject and limiting it is probably the only thing on the “leftist” agenda I agree with.

[/quote]

No, you simply demand more productivity in the hours they do work/from the workers you keep.

Limit outsourcing and you’ll just see more efforts to lower or keep low the minimum wage, reduction of benefits, etc.

Again, any regulation on the rich will end up hurting the poor.

116

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

The money/bodybuilding analogy would work if one person getting super strong directly resulted in a lot of peole being barely able to pick up a pencil.[/quote]

No, that is rubbish.

There are at least two wrong ideas in there, the most important one being that business is a zero sum game.

[/quote]

Meaning the only possible outcome is a few super rich and a majority poor?[/quote]

No, you are assuming tha there is a limited amount of wealth so if a few people hog it the others have less.

That however is wrong because wealth does not fall like mana from heaven but is created right here on earth and must then be sold to someone who actually cares to buy it.

It is really quite simple, in voluntary transactions both sides are better off, so rich people actually benefit other people even more than they benefit themselves (technically not 100% true) when they create that wealth.

If you think however that they are somehow siphoning of the wealth of other people that has very real consequences when it comes to public policies that are used to redistribute that “stolen” wealth but in reality prevents the creation of new wealth to some degree.

117

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

What resources are limited, exactly, and why?

Also, everyone isn’t given reasonable opportunity. Some are given lots of opportunity while others have everything against them.[/quote]

Is that a serious question? You could right books about it.

Of course some have advantages but everyone, except some disabled have opportunity.

Stuck in the projects? Join the military and go to college. The sky is the limit but you have to try.

118

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The problem with regulation is the rich people have all the power,and any regulation set into place on the rich to help the poor end up hurting the poor.
[/quote]

Yes, of course that’s why one in five families are currently being fully or at least partially subsidized by the US government. Yes, the rich people really blew it that time -Maybe they were on vacation in their big yachts and didn’t notice. Why not every other cliche is used by socialist might as well throw the yachts in too.

[quote]And so on. I’m convinced the absolute only force powerful enough to effect a change is social condemnation. People want to be super rich because of the social praise they get for it (the improved treatment from society for wearing expensive clothes/driving an expensive car/living in a large home/etc, all the way to the egregious examples of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and "Cribs).

If asinine displays of gross excess were responded to with distain, I doubt we’d see so much of it.[/quote]

And neither would we see individuals taking chances and starting a small business. Nor would we see innovation which brings with it great reward.

The socialist myth lives on…[/quote]

I’d say one in five families being on some government assistance means a failing economic system.

Also, the idea that extreme excessive wealth is the only driving force of “innovation” is cynical even for me.[/quote]

Actually 1 in 5 families being on some form of government assistance means that liberalism does not work. It all began with FDR’s socialist programs, and continued on with LBJ’s great society. And since that time we have only had one real conservative in the White House and he certainly was not strong enough (with a democratic Congress) to reverse 50 years of back sliding.

As to your final point, I don’t think it’s up to you or I to question how much someone makes. If the Yankees want to pay Derek Jeter 25 million per year to play a kids game who are you and I to question it? If a person starts a business with borrowed funds back in 1990 and by 2010 through his hard work and reinvesting into the company he has a net worth of 10 million and pays himself 1 million per year - What’s it to you? What right do you have to say that person doesn’t deserve what they’ve worked hard for? Furthermore, that person has done quite a lot of good by hiring x amount of people and contributing to society through selling quality products.

Socialism doesn’t work capitalism does.

119

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So the richest people in the country set up a system where they can continue getting money without doing work, anquote[/quote]

But, let’s not ignore the fact that the richest people in the country at one time did far and away more work (and most still do) than the average person. And that’s how they became rich.
[/quote]

I disagree. Please expound on this point.

The poor tend to do “more work” in terms of lifetime hours spent working and physical labor. [/quote]

Physical labor perhaps, but we long ago became a society that values mental strength and performance over physical. And I would beg to differ about them even working more lifetime hours. I know one of the top tax attorneys in the country, he works 70 hour weeks, nearly double the 9 to 5 guys, with the stress of knowing that if he shits the bed he could cost someone millions of dollars and potentially lose his client and reputation, and he doesn’t deserve to make more money than them?

The kid who left home at 17 to join the airforce, becoming ostracized by his father and not speaking to him for years, because he realized he didn’t want to work in the coal mines all his life.

The Austrian kid from the middle of nowhere who would break into the gym to workout, who went AWOL to participate in competition, who came to America with nothing but himself, started a construction company to pay for his bodybuilding career. Who then realized he could sell his product 24/7 through films, who then realized he wanted to help people by becoming politically active and eventually became the governor of the most populous state in America.

The guy who slaved in college and got straight A’s so he would get a scholarship to law school, the only way he could afford it, and he wasn’t working harder than the psychology majors?

The young man who took a job as the book keeper of a produce wholesaler, learned the ropes working the night shift, opened his own wholesaler, used the profit from that company to build an oil refinery in nowhere Ohio, an oil refinery that was the tip of the iceberg of the largest oil and rail company ever, Standard Oil.

All we see is the end result of this hard work, the lawyer in the Porsche, Arnold with a cigar in his mouth, Bill Gates on his yacht, Rockefeller owning pretty much whatever he pleased, we don’t see the stress and anger and frustration and hours of meticulous planning, book balancing, sleepless caffeine fueled nights trying to figure out a problem, that they go through to earn those pleasures
[/quote]

Very good points.

However, I’m skeptical as to how many in the top 10% of incomes have similar stories.

Also, I’m not saying weath is unearned, or that nobody “deserves” to be rich.

Just that the problems created by the growing divide of rich and poor come from the cultural affection for worshiping wealth.

120

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[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]

Why not a cap at $ 50,000 a year? No one needs cable TV, cell phones etc. We can all ride our bikes or walk to work.

Why cap anything? Let people earn as much as they possibly can. Tax them at a reasonable rate. Let them spend their money and stimulate the economy. Many high earners don’t really make what is reported. Getting paid in stocks that cannot be sold is not the same as cash.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have billions of dollars. If they tried to cash out stock prices would drop.

[/quote]

I personally like putting things in simple, communal contexts when trying to explain things. So, seeing as how this is a bodybuilding website, lets put this in terms of muscle. Perhaps we should cap the amount of muscle someone can carry, and cap the amount of weight they can lift. I mean, no one really needs to weigh +200 pounds or be able to deadlift +500 pounds. It’s just not necessary. Well it might not be necessary, but people want to do it damnit. It’s their passion, they are driving to find new and better, fast, more effective ways to add muscle and increase strength. Limiting what they are allowed to achieve will limit their innovation, because the current methods are good enough to achieve the limited goals. This will lead to stagnation within the industry and eventually it will fall out of interest. Its not that we need to, its that we want to. We WANT to be the best in something, WANT to find the better way of doing things, its human nature.

I’ve got a great analogy I use to explain taxes in terms of school grades to put it in perspective for people who haven’t held a real job (and being a young guy that’s all of my friends) I’ll be sure to add it when I have the time[/quote]

Bad analogy. One persons building muscle doesnt affect anyone elses. However, one persons accrual of wealth does affect others.[/quote]

Within the weightlifting economy it does affect others. If the only group we look at are people trying to gain muscle and strength (the real world the group is everyone, since most everyone is trying to gain money) it is very applicable.