[quote]orion wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Yup. Resources are limited but with elasticity. If you give people opportunity they can increase resources but not infinitely. If you stifle people then everyone has less.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Productivity does not increase on demand unfortunately lol.
As for the regulation - it’s all connected, I’ll agree with that.
If enterprise becomes unsustainable because of higher taxes or higher healthcare costs (which quite a few businesses are about to experience thanks to obamacare) - you bet yer ass the workers will suffer.
So yeah, you can’t target the group that is already paying 80% of taxes and expect this to work for everyone, this I agree with.
As for the outsourcing - once rampant outsourcing begins everybody HAS to jump on board just to stay competitive. Introduce an extra tax break for those who don’t outsource - and you have a level playing field.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[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.[/quote]
I dont mean to be rude, but I think its an ivory tower mindset to say “Oh, just work your ass off for 20 years to get out of poverty”, and another thing to do it. Its impossible to grasp unless you’re there and doing it.
My point about “limited resources” is that we have enough food, shelter, medicine, etc, in the world to take care of everyone. The only thing that “limits” the resources is greed.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Within the top 10% of earners it hold true, the top 10% of wealth, no probably not, but wealth isn’t taxed, income is. To earn that money though, someone had to work balls out. Wealth (in the form of power, money, status, etc) has always been worshiped globally, so wouldn’t it just be easier for us to say “ok kids, the goal in life is to become the most successful you can, to try to be the top dog?” We say it in schools, where grades are in effect currency, what you use to by your way into college and then to buy a good job, but I feel as if we are trending away from it in the real world
[quote]Tex32 wrote:
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.[/quote]
No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle.
[quote]Tex32 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Within the top 10% of earners it hold true, the top 10% of wealth, no probably not, but wealth isn’t taxed, income is. To earn that money though, someone had to work balls out. Wealth (in the form of power, money, status, etc) has always been worshiped globally, so wouldn’t it just be easier for us to say “ok kids, the goal in life is to become the most successful you can, to try to be the top dog?” We say it in schools, where grades are in effect currency, what you use to by your way into college and then to buy a good job, but I feel as if we are trending away from it in the real world[/quote]
But how do you define success?
If you define it only in terms of making more money, you end up with a select few super rich and a majority poor, unethical behavior in the name of making money, and a whole slew of other problems we see today.
We should work to define success in other ways in our culture.
[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]
That’s horses##t, prove it. Do you really think that big government is the only thing hurting Americans right now? I can think of something else that’s big and useless thats sucking the life out of us like a tumor.
[quote]orion wrote:
No, you are assuming that 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.
[/quote]
Wealth is limited.
The value of work performed is limited by the spending power of the buyers and the amount of work that can be done.
And, yes, if one person hogs it the others have less. A company only makes X dollars a year, the more the CEO takes, the less the workers get.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Yeah that’s life. Some people end up 5’4" others over 6 feet. Some good looking some not so good looking. Life.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
We should work to define success in other ways in our culture.[/quote]
We already do that. I don’t think that anyone can call themselves a success if they have children that they ignore, or a spouse that they beat. Money doesn’t make anyone a better person it only makes them a richer person.
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.
If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.
Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.
And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.
And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.
So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
We should work to define success in other ways in our culture.[/quote]
We already do that. I don’t think that anyone can call themselves a success if they have children that they ignore, or a spouse that they beat. Money doesn’t make anyone a better person it only makes them a richer person.[/quote]
Is this why we use the term “upper class” to describe people with lots of money?
Real world test: ask a few people today to name two or three “successful” people. See how many are chosen because they have lots of money.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Yeah that’s life. Some people end up 5’4" others over 6 feet. Some good looking some not so good looking. Life.
[/quote]
Sigh.
Economies are not natural forces.
An economy designed to make it easy for a rich person to get richer and harder for a poor person to get out of poverty is not comparable to height differences.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.
If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.
Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.
And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.
And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.
So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.[/quote]
But you are getting money from a service you are offering, and from money that you already made. The bank said “hey, we’ll pay 1% interest on that money that you if you’ll give it to us so we can use it to make loans.” You are a service provider, no different than you going the internet company and saying “hey I’ll pay you X if you let me use your means of communication for my business.” That’s the difference, you are providing something someone needs and you are being compensated for it while the person on welfare is truly getting something for nothing.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tex32 wrote:
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.[/quote]
No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle. [/quote]
But it does stop you from winning competitions, and the status and recognition from them, if I have found a better way to make myself stronger.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
We should work to define success in other ways in our culture.[/quote]
We already do that. I don’t think that anyone can call themselves a success if they have children that they ignore, or a spouse that they beat. Money doesn’t make anyone a better person it only makes them a richer person.[/quote]
Is this why we use the term “upper class” to describe people with lots of money?
Real world test: ask a few people today to name two or three “successful” people. See how many are chosen because they have lots of money.[/quote]
They do this because money is the easiest way to keep score. And while it’s not a complete way it does encourage economic growth which is a good thing. As I said earlier, new business creates jobs for those not eager enough or smart enough to start their own. In addition to this innovation creates an environment which benefits the masses by delviering quality products to the market place. This creates competition which drives prices down so that the masses benefit once again.
There is no possible way to make every one equal without great detriment to our culture and our way of life. With that said I have asked myself many times why do some people struggle all their lives and others not? So, I freely give to local charities and to my church. Not out of guilt, but out of a sense of wanting to help others who, for whatever reason, have not done as well as I have. But that doesn’t means that the system is broken, it only means that like any other system some are going to be able to operate efficiently within it and others not so much. I know this system works.
Capitalism: I choose my destiny. I am responsible for my own success story.
Socialism: I choose a fixed path. I have little ambition to do better.
Capitalism works. Yes the rich are sucking up the wealth, but it’s because they look for those opportunities. Most broke people are dumb and do not attempt to better their situation. Many super rich people started out poor. They have a rare desire to succeed and do so.
There are situations where super rich basically steal wealth by lying or deceiving. We have laws for these situations, but the problem is you can almost buy your court ruling. We need to make examples of the super rich thiefs like we do poor ones. That and get off our fat asses, quit crying, and get to work.
[quote]Tex32 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tex32 wrote:
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.[/quote]
No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle. [/quote]
But it does stop you from winning competitions, and the status and recognition from them, if I have found a better way to make myself stronger.[/quote]
I’m trying to find a way to word this right.
What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?
Would you consider that a fair system?
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Capitalism: I choose my destiny. I am responsible for my own success story.
Socialism: I choose a fixed path. I have little ambition to do better.
Capitalism works. Yes the rich are sucking up the wealth, but it’s because they look for those opportunities. Most broke people are dumb and do not attempt to better their situation. Many super rich people started out poor. They have a rare desire to succeed and do so.
There are situations where super rich basically steal wealth by lying or deceiving. We have laws for these situations, but the problem is you can almost buy your court ruling. We need to make examples of the super rich thiefs like we do poor ones. That and get off our fat asses, quit crying, and get to work. [/quote]
This post is exactly the problem I’m talking about. “The poor are dumb!”
Asshole.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Yeah that’s life. Some people end up 5’4" others over 6 feet. Some good looking some not so good looking. Life.
[/quote]
Sigh.
Economies are not natural forces.
An economy designed to make it easy for a rich person to get richer and harder for a poor person to get out of poverty is not comparable to height differences.
[/quote]
My point by the comparison is that not one of us is born equal to another in any way. And it’s certainly not the governments job to try to equalize the masses. That only creates disillusionment for those capable of creating jobs and thus helping the masses.
Stop looking for equality through some sort of "economic “justice”. That has been tried and doesn’t work. The government ends up with all the power and control. You’re a bright person you know that eventually leads to pain for the masses.