Without RICH there is no POOR - ever stop to think about tha

Vikingstar--It's the same system that rewards doing absolutely NOTHING to better yourself.

quote:

It's not like I'm not paying more taxes if the tax rate stayed at 20%--I would be. But, by raising the tax rate to 40%, I would be paying a higher percentage of taxes, making it almost counterproductive to worker harder in the first place.Its the Democrats way to Tax the rich and bussiness and give to the poor. so if you would quit your job and make nothing, you could get Unemployment/foodstamps/local aid/ food bank/ fuel assistance/ and the list gose on. so if you add it all up you could stay home watch TV and make 30k of hand outs.The system pays you to fail instead of rewarding you for improving your self. :mad: :eek: :confused:

Don't you understand "fairness?" Don't you understand "economic and social justice?"The annointed believe that economic and social status should be independent of your effort, inititiative, risk-taking, or other foundations of self-reliance.The real question is: once they confiscate all means of creating economic value, and all income, and redistribute it, who will make the determination of who gets what, and how much will be considered fair?It's all about "rights."

Atlas Shrugged, boys.

And when Atlas did Shrug, Ayn Rand looked at him and said; that's my man, for now and forever. Viva les conservatives.Oracle

God, I don't know where to begin and I've got to get to a trial...First, Mel:"the vast majority of bleeder liberals consider business and capitalism fundamentally profane and the root cause of every social problem."If you define a "bleeder liberal" as the .002% of all liberals on the farthest side of the left you may be right... but if you see most liberals as holding this view you're nuts....If you are correct, why are the biggest donors to the Dems so very very rich? Everyone WANTS to be rich... some who fail are envious and hateful, most just want to be rich and don't see it as evil...What we DO see as evil is a megacorp like Enron having to pay exactly $0 in taxes, or Bush specifically permitting nay, encouraging large corporations to incorporate off shore to completely avoid taxes.The corner store owner and his/her employees can't do that... so why can Tyko and other corporations?THAT is evil in our eyes.. the $7/hour employee has to pay taxes to support the country that Tyko enjoys - and benefits from in the form of army, safe society, trade talks etc...SECOND:As to the 20% on the first $50k and 40% on $80k, so why should I work harder argument... Its complete crap. First the marginal rates are so close now its negligible... second, on the money over $80k you don't pay social security taxes, third, America has the richest people in the world... do you think Bill Gates sits up at night saying "You know, having to pay all these extra taxes is just not worth it... I'm going to get a $16/hour job instead..."Get real.
FINALLY
Bill Gates' net worth is equal to the net worth of the botton 40% of American citizens.That concentration of wealth - which becomes greater every day - is deeply troubling.Yes. The rich provide the money for the jobs for the not-rich. But when the rich do not pay wages sufficient to maintain at least a bare bones living (roof, food, transportation and health care) then things are going awry...Which is the reasoned view of liberals...Not the inane ranting of Mel (who seems to have taken way too many of my Get Mad At the Enemy pills lately...)Chris.

LL:
As I noted, I was using arbitary figures, just to illustrate my example. As for "getting real", I will grant you that if you are in Bill Gates' income class, you could tax him at 90% and he would barely notice. That is NOT true, however, for the rest of us. I offered my question seriously--there are people, apparently including you, who believe that the present tax system of higher rates for higher income is fair. I am trying to grasp why you think it's fair, and to defend it. Some of you who post on AMG are True Believers--explain your belief, please.

I just reread you post, LL, and I would like to make an addendum. If a corporation pays a tax, I would suggest that the people who actually pay the tax are the customers of the corporation, because those taxes will be passed on to them, as the "cost of doing business". In other words, you don't make the Mega-Rich pay, you nail the regular consumers who are already paying (more) taxes. You may have a point on the Social Security taxes, although I have the hives about being forced to participate in the first place (I don't recall anybody asking me if I wanted to, they just took the taxes anyhow). Your statement about wealth being too concentrated makes me a little nervous--it sounds like your solution to that is a forced redistribution of wealth; "we don't like you having that much money, so here we come with guns and lawyers to take away the money you shouldn't have." Who gets to decide how much is too much?

quote:You may have a point on the Social Security taxes, although I have the hives about being forced to participate in the first place (I don't recall anybody asking me if I wanted to, they just took the taxes anyhow).

When are you all going to wake up and realize that the payroll tax for SS and Medicare is just another income tax and has nothing to do with "participation" in anything. When payroll taxes are factored in, the tax system is a lot flatter than anybody will admit. There is no EIC, child tax credit or anything else that can offset the payroll taxes. I'm all for a less progressive tax system, but only if payroll taxes are included.

Viking:You make some good points...I don't know that I am a true believer, and talking well about taxes is kinda like talking philosphoy - you better have studied the masters or you'll come out looking like a dolt...Here are my basic premises:1. In a modern society you need government.
2. Government is needed for various purposes, including defending the country, and helping those who truly cannot help themselves etc.
3. Someone has to pay for it.
4. Taxes are a way for us to put in our share for the privelege of participating in a great country.
5. The tax burden should be "fairly" distributed among the people.
6. The problem is defining fairly."Fairly" Ideals:
1. All citizens should have the OPPORTUNITY (note: not the RIGHT) to have all the basis: a) a) shelter b) transportation c) health care and d) some recreation to make life worthwhile [the pursuit of happiness].
2. A citizen should have the right to make as much money as he possibly can.
3. The right of the citizen to make as much as possible is tempered by the NECESSITY that citizens have the OPPORTUNITY to achieve #1 above.
SO:If wealth becomes so concentrated in a few, and the hiring and firing power of employers so outweighs the power of labor to say no to one employer and seek a better deal at another employer, things will go off kilter.Taxes fit into this whole equiation - the lower your income the less able you are to bear the burden of maintaining a great country.Taxes should be apportioned to best accomodate the "fairness" analysis above...And regulations assuring that wealth not become SO concentrated as to creat civil unrest is also necessary.Taxes are ALL about redistribution of wealth - from those with money to that which inherently none - the government - which then funds the basics of government outlined above..If we recognize that working people are not making enough to get by if we tax them at X% and that the people at the top can still be very rich, just a little less rich if we tax them at X+Y%, then taxing the rich at a higher level is logical.It also offests the disproportionate impact of local taxes...Poor guy pays X% of his income on tax on milk... Rich guy pays infinately less.and on and on and on

LL wrote:

quote:1. In a modern society you need government.
2. Government is needed for various purposes, including defending the country, and helping those who truly cannot help themselves etc.
3. Someone has to pay for it.
4. Taxes are a way for us to put in our share for the privelege of participating in a great country.
5. The tax burden should be "fairly" distributed among the people.
6. The problem is defining fairly."Fairly" Ideals:
1. All citizens should have the OPPORTUNITY (note: not the RIGHT) to have all the basis: a) a) shelter b) transportation c) health care and d) some recreation to make life worthwhile [the pursuit of happiness].
2. A citizen should have the right to make as much money as he possibly can.
3. The right of the citizen to make as much as possible is tempered by the NECESSITY that citizens have the OPPORTUNITY to achieve #1 above.
SO:If wealth becomes so concentrated in a few, and the hiring and firing power of employers so outweighs the power of labor to say no to one employer and seek a better deal at another employer, things will go off kilter.Taxes fit into this whole equiation - the lower your income the less able you are to bear the burden of maintaining a great country.Taxes should be apportioned to best accomodate the "fairness" analysis above...And regulations assuring that wealth not become SO concentrated as to creat civil unrest is also necessary.Taxes are ALL about redistribution of wealth - from those with money to that which inherently none - the government - which then funds the basics of government outlined above..If we recognize that working people are not making enough to get by if we tax them at X% and that the people at the top can still be very rich, just a little less rich if we tax them at X+Y%, then taxing the rich at a higher level is logical.It also offests the disproportionate impact of local taxes...Poor guy pays X% of his income on tax on milk... Rich guy pays infinately less.and on and on and on

1. How much government is necessary?
2. We agree in principle, but would differ on the defination of the "truly needy."
3. Who, how, and how much is the issue.
4. Since when has our citizenship become a privilege and not a fundemental right? It is those kind of comments that make me distrust the left.
5. We agree.
6. We agree.Fairness:1. No one is being denied this opportunity now. No one is being held back. The government has become the biggest obstacle because of excessive taxation and creating giveaways that take individual incentive away. It is more lucrative to stay home than to work.
2. What is stopping people from doing this now?
3. If I understand the premise correctly, you are suggesting that there is not enough opportunity for individuals to achieve, so more transfer of wealth will somehow make this better. You see governmnet as the solution, I see it as the problem. As I see it there are many reasons why the job market (for lack of a better word) has changed over the years.
1. Society has changed. More people are going to college and do not seek the traditional blue collar jobs.
2. Not enough new economy jobs have been created yet.
3. Governmental regulation has stifled some industries from modernizing and expanding. Just look at the Clean Air Act impact on the dirty power plants in the mid-west.
4. Increasing taxation has further hampered job creation and reduced the ability of employers to provide decent benefits.
5. Government programs have continued to expand and become more generous. As I noted above, the incentive to go out and work, has been taken away. Look at your number one from the fairness paragraph. You believe that the government should be providing (or at the very least, require) these benefits, I disagree. I was in a public place recently and heard part of a conversation. One of the individuals had lost a job at the Millinocket mill. He had taken full advantage of the retraining programs (paid for by the government) and his propect of employment was good. So far, so good, right? Here's the kicker. He might have to move and wasn't sure he would do that. If the benefits this individual recieves are so generous he doesn't have to even consider moving, then government is definately a major part of the problem. I do have compassion for those who have lost their jobs and I agree that we should provide assistance, but at what point are we doing too much, and for too many? If we are providing so much that individuals don't have to consider moving for work, isn't that perhaps being too generous?Al

Al..Thanks for the response.. not time to completely reply.. but let me respond to privelege..It is a privelege for immigrants who agree to comply with our laws..It is a right for people born here.. but freedom is a privelege - which may be taken away for not complying with our laws..chris

LL:
Thanks for the good response. I'm a little rushed myself, but let me give you a first impression (or two). Yes, a modern society does need some level of goverment, but I'm troubled by the ever-increasing involvement of goverment in every aspect of society, and what seems to me to be a corresponding loss of individual freedom and responsibility (not to mention an ever-increasing need for new taxes). And we do agree that a modern society cares for those who genuinely can't care for themselves; I don't think, though, that goverment has been highly effective in doing that, and again I'm troubled by how the list of people who allegedly can't care for themselves seems to be ever-expanding. I have a radical thought that if I get the chance I will flesh out later: should goverment get out of some or all of the compassion business, and should we as a society empower private and/or religious organizations that seems to have a much higher efficency rate (I mean that much more of a dollar goes to the needy and less goes to overhead than goverment structures) and success rates (more people brought out of poverty/distress than goverment programs)?

Viking:(Al.. Ive still got to ingest your well thought out response)A few thoughts..Can you name a freedom you have lost?As for the compassion business...1) I agree that there are MANY on social security disability who don't belong there.. they come in my office and I can't help but think "why the hell can't you just assmble widgets or something? Jeez..."2) I don't accept that government's overhead is higher than that of "not for profit" private organizations... look at the compensation levels for a start... Hundreds of thousands for heads of the major charitable organizations.. and while I don't have the info at my fingertips, I have seen shocking distribution levels in private groups... Enron and many of the "celebrity" fundraising events show that private compassion is more about personal gain than philanthropy..chris.

Let me reply to a few prior posts.

quote: Born Yesterday:
In "1984," George Orwell discussed the concept of "doublethink," the acquired ability to sincerely hold two mutually incompatible beliefs at the same time.
This thread has offered two examples of such thinking:First example:
1. Income redistribution is bad, and is class warfare.
2. It is fair and just that (as demonstrated in the link I posted previously) massive amounts of income have been and continue to be redistributed from the poor and middle class to the richest Americans.

To begin with, you apparently don't see any difference between the government confiscating the property of one individual and redistributing it to another, and your average citizen spending their own funds as they wish to buy a good or a service that enriches the provider of said good or service.The former is often motivated by class warfare and envy. It is legalized theft. The latter is a choice. And frankly, the poor and middle class make an awful lot of bad decisions as to where to spend their money.Let's talk about that wealth distribution a bit. If I operate a small business, I make unemployment insurance payments for my employees; I match their social security tax payments; I take on major risk to my own financial welfare to operate the business; I act as a collection agency wherein I take in "wealth" from my customers and redistribute a major portion of it to my employees. And I provide an array of benefits for them, all of which come out of what would have been my "profit", and personal income, had I chosen not to provide these things to my employees.Some of the things I provide voluntarily. Others are mandated by law, and so I am compelled to take the cost of these items from my customers and give it to my employees.Your rhetoric is the classic socialist/collectivist garbage. It borders on "the reason it's so cold outside is because of the low temperatures."Yes our system creates wealth. Is there ill gotten wealth? Of course there is, just like there are ill conceived and abused social programs. But the opportunity to create wealth is what drives this society and it's incredibly high standard of living.If you prefer the socialist model, go to a place where it succeeds, rather than trying to destroy the principles this country was founded on.And just to repeat a favorite, "there are those that think the only reason socialism hasn't worked is because the wrong people have been running it."Your proletariat view of things belies a fundamental lack of understanding of what drives prosperity and this economy. Without value being created by some economic engine, there is no prosperity for anyone in the long run. No social programs, no benefits, no "access" to the basics of life.

quote: LewLib: FINALLYBill Gates' net worth is equal to the net worth of the botton 40% of American citizens.That concentration of wealth - which becomes greater every day - is deeply troubling.Yes. The rich provide the money for the jobs for the not-rich. But when the rich do not pay wages sufficient to maintain at least a bare bones living (roof, food, transportation and health care) then things are going awry...Which is the reasoned view of liberals...Not the inane ranting of Mel (who seems to have taken way too many of my Get Mad At the Enemy pills lately...)

Ah....Bill Gates, capitalist Satan. I have this view of Bill Gates' wealth. Part of it is due to the fact that he built a better mousetrap, did it very well, and the world beat a path to his doorway. Do you have a problem with that?I'm sure he has been paid very handsomely over the years, and that thousands and thousands of Microsoft employees and ten times that many, maybe a 100 times that many, or a thousand times that many, have found gainful employment because of what he created.I'm equally sure that the bulk of his "wealth" is the value of the stock he owns. Interesting point, that. You see, if nobody wants a stock, it's essentially worthless. If everybody wants it, it becomes more valuable as people seek to buy it. Bill Gates' stock holdings make him rich because they make millions of others "rich." Scads of ordinary Americans have decided they want to share in the value/wealth created by Microsoft, and their demand for the stock, reflecting their intent to share in that wealth, drives up Bill Gates' stock value. So as I look at it, at least from the stock side, the only reason he is wealthy is because he has been an enabler for wealth creation for millions of investors.Millions have made very good returns on their investments in Microsoft. Many are rich beyond their dreams as well because of it; this very fact has made Bill Gates' an extraordinarily wealthy man. But he CREATED wealth that didn't exist before; he didn't "take it or transfer it" from some downtrodden working class.Stop acting as if wealth is a zero sum game. The whole idea of capitalism is that it creates NEW wealth, meaning there is a larger pie for all to share in.Does everyone share equally in it? In some ways yes, in many ways no. But watch out what you wish for, because it just might leave you with nothing to be equally redistributed and collectivized.One last part of redistribution. I and many I know redistribute portions of our income, sometimes very generously, through the Salvation Army and other worthy channels. It's not that we aren't aware of the need for others to share in our good fortune; it's that we don't like arbitrary bureaucrats deciding how much, and to whom.You want to complain about big money distorting politics, and the need for real campaign finance reform? Well right now, there are several Democrat candidates out there financing their campaigns with my assets against my will. "If you elect me, every child will attend government funded preschool and day care." "If you elect me, every person in this country will have government provided health care."These campaign promises will be financed with my assets by confiscation. That is the worst kind of campaign financing there is.I much prefer the type where campaign donations are made willingly and publicly.Now all we have to worry about is who will be your modern day Lenin and Marx, and in what years capitalism will be overthrown. I predict there will be at least one skirt involved, and I bet it's someone lurking in the shadows.

:D :D Great post Mel. :D :D Al

Thanks, Al. I'm beginning to sense that there are clandestine forces organizing "the revolution."I reject the characterization of "TRANSFERRANCE of wealth" from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy. They look at distribution statistics and again assume that there is a fixed amount of wealth to be shared among all. That is so far from the truth it's beyond the absurd. But it's the kind of red herring the envy purveyors love to serve to the masses, who lap it up.When these carers and feelers have their way, not only will be waiting in health care lines, we'll be waiting in lines at the bakery, the butcher, and everywhere else as we wait for "the workers" to deliver the 20 or 30% of the product suppply that the market wants to buy.And get ready for little one cylinder cars that weigh about 300 pounds. My John Deere lawn tractor will probably be converted to "public transportation."

quote:Ah....Bill Gates, capitalist Satan. I have this view of Bill Gates' wealth. Part of it is due to the fact that he built a better mousetrap, did it very well, and the world beat a path to his doorway. Do you have a problem with that?

If you really beleive this, you need to go do some research on how Microsoft got started and where all the code for MS-DOS and Windows came from. Bill Gates didn't build anything. He got rich selling things he didn't own.

Microsoft doesn't create, it bundles. Its success is due to its pioneering marketing, not pioneering IT innovations.Excel was purchased (using the term loosely, extorted is closer to accurate) from LOTUS 1-2-3.Early verions of MS Word functioned identically to WordPerfect.Access is very much like DBaseIII.Explorer is very much like Netscape.Windows "introduced" the format that Apple had been using for 5 years. In all of these examples Microsoft introduced new products that were barely different from the emerging market leader, providing no real innovation despite claims otherwise, then used it leverage via the operating system to become the market leader in these segments. They are a case study in horizontal integration.I too highly recommend reading about the history of MS-DOS. It foreshadowed how the company would do business and explains why it doesn't foresee major problems with its products: it adapts them instead of creating them.

Ok....let's have a giant digit head debate over the use of the word "built". Afterall, that's the real heart of this discussion.Obviously there are a bunch of rabid Gates haters out there. I don't really care about the history of who put what feature in excel.The point was the creation of wealth for millions of investors and Gates as a result of MS success.

You want to talk about transference?• How about transference of accountability for personal circumstances, transgressions, and life-wrecking behavior to ABM (anybody but myself)?
• Or the transference of responsibility to solve one's problems, no matter what they might be, or how they came to be, to any Government that is handy.
• And the transference of responsibility for child rearing, character building, sex education, and all the other basics to the loony mind warpers in big education? And their psycho-babbling touchy-feely friends in the psychology and psychiatry fields?
• How about transference of responsibility for the social tone and civil dignity of our society to big entertainment (including sports)?
• How about transference of ego development and plans for personal salvation to celebrity saviors?
• How about transference of responsibility for health care to Government?
• How about transference of responsibility for the economy of Maine to a 30 year Democratic dictatorship that wouldn’t understand economic devastation if it bit them in the tear ducts? And who raise the art of reality denial to “notches unknown?”
• And the transference of moral authority from families, individuals, and churches to a combination of the popular culture and the anointed social engineers?
• Or the transference of responsibility for funding bloated governments to a very small percentage of the population.
• And the transference of problem resolution from nuclear and extended families and friends to a benevolent and funding unlimited government?
• How about transference of responsibility for the basics of providing for your family to the government? Food, housing, transportation, medicines?
• How about transferring responsibility for funding retirement to the government?
• Or transferring baby sitting responsibility to local government: preschool, daycare, aftercare? There are comfortable middle-classers in this town who really believe it is town government’s responsibility to provide after school baby sitting so they can work beyond school hours, and they have no shame in saying so.I invite AMGer’s to add to this list of society’s penchant for “transference” from one element of society to another.Now while you’re at it, compare the state of the “lower class” today to what it was for your parents, and their parents. And you want to drum up envy through demonization of “the wealthy” and a whacko theory of wealth transference that says every dollar made by someone with income above the median comes directly from the pocket of someone below the median?I’m left to ask at what point will you demand that banking and investment regulations be put into place that require asset transfer from accounts with a balance over a certain amount to accounts with a balance below a certain amount? And when will you require that all retail establishments have your tax returns in their computers, so what you pay on the way out will be proportional to your AGI? Wouldn’t this be economic justice?Why should someone who makes $75,000 a year pay the same for a gallon of milk as someone with an AGI of $37,500? And shouldn’t the price of a new car at your local dealership be a function of your income? Surely charging everyone the same is not economic or social justice, is it?Just think….McDonald’s will have to take the prices off their menu boards, along with everyone else. Or they’ll have to show price ranges…a quarter-pounder will cost between $1.25 and $10.00, based solely on last year’s tax return. Each year, after you file with the IRS, they’ll send you a personally coded ID card to be used in the IBP system at your friendly merchant. That’s Income Based Pricing for you who are a little slow on the uptake.There you have it, collectivists….the beginnings of your “vision” for “justice.” But as I told a neighbor who knocked on my apartment door some time ago, “go sell crazy somewhere else; we’re all stocked up around here.”

quote:Obviously there are a bunch of rabid Gates haters out there. I don't really care about the history of who put what feature in excel.The point was the creation of wealth for millions of investors and Gates as a result of MS success.

You also don't seem to care that your assumption that everyone that is wealthy has earned it through hard work and dedication is *FALSE* in a large number of cases. They stole it fair and square, I suppose.

Where did I say that, and what does it have to do with BY's moaning about transference of wealth?Stop making stuff up.

I was hoping to hear more about the classless utopia of social and economic justice BY and ms. ellie have planned for us, but I guess they are too busy plotting the revolution to lay it out for us.

I wonder how many of the people who profess to believe in the leveling ideas of collectivism and egalitarianism really just believe that they themselves are good for nothing. I mean, how many leftists are animated by a quite reasonable self-loathing? In their hearts they know that they are not going to become scholars or inventors or industrialists or even ordinary good kind people. So they need a way to achieve that smugness for which the left is so justifiably famous. They need a way to achieve self-esteem without merit. Well, there is politics. In an egalitarian world everything will be controlled by politics, and politics requires no merit.
- P.J. O'Rourke

quote:Originally posted by Lewiston Liberal:
What we DO see as evil is a megacorp like Enron having to pay exactly $0 in taxes, or Bush specifically permitting nay, encouraging large corporations to incorporate off shore to completely avoid taxes.

A corporation is nothing but a group of people. No corporation pays taxes, people pay taxes. Either the employees pay or the customers pay. In most cases it ends up being a hidden sales tax (which is regressive as I'm sure you love to point out). If you tax a business so much that they can't realistically raise prices or cut benefits anymore, they'll simply close their doors. If they'd rather not close their doors they have to become "an evil megacorp" and either relocate or become big enough to survive on a tiny profit margin.[ 02-06-2004: Message edited by: Poor Richard ]

"Does a man have a right to give his wealth to his children?"The right to dispose of one's income belongs to the producer, and if he wishes to give it to an heir, a charity, or to flush it down the toilet --that is the producer's right. It is not any of your concern, and it certainly is not the concern of the government.""Doesn't capitalism "centralize" wealth via inheritance?"As wealth is not a static quantity, to be looted and stolen, the wealth that you can earn is not affected by how much wealth someone else has, creates, or inherits. Since wealth is the result of man's mind, as long as someone has a mind, and is left free to use it, wealth is his to create.As the creation of wealth is not automatic, those who cannot manage their wealth, will soon lose it. As evidence of this fact witness what happens when a rich man passes on his money to a worthless heir -- the heir soon loses it. Such is the meaning behind the popular American saying, "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.""Capitalism is the social system based upon the principle of individual rights."http://www.capitalism.org/faq/inheritance.htm

"What is the difference between economic power and political power?What is the difference? The difference between political and economic power is the difference between plunder and production, between punishment and reward, between destruction and trade. Plunder, punishment, and destruction belonging to the political realm; production, reward, and trade belonging to the economic realm.The symbol of the businessmen is a positive -- the dollar -- given to you voluntarily by trade. The symbol of a bureaucrat is a negative -- a gun -- pointed at you. The man who prefers the gun to the dollar, is the man who thinks he will be controlling the gun. The joke is on him -- the results are upon all of us."http://www.capitalism.org/faq/power.htm