Nine Pictures of the Extreme Income/Wealth Gap

Quote:

---

Many people don’t understand our country’s problem of concentration of income and wealth because they don’t see it. People just don't understand how much wealth there is at the top now. The wealth at the top is so extreme that it is beyond most people’s ability to comprehend.

If people understood just how concentrated wealth has become in our country and the effect is has on our politics, our democracy and our people, they would demand our politicians do something about it.

---

Nine Pictures of the Extreme Income/Wealth Gap

I'm not going to disagree that there is a huge concentration of wealth. However, I will disagree that those wealthy people could ever pay off the national debt. Every single American, rich and poor, could put every dollar we have in a bucket and we still would not have enough.

nevertheless, I'm not so worried about what others have, as I am more worried about what I have and the opportunities to grow what I have.

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

The American Dream: WC Must Be Asleep Because He Thinks The Dream Is Real.

WC's conservatives got what they wanted (regression to the 1920s), and everybody else sucks hind tit.

So if we give these people tax cuts then they'd consider giving us jobs right? Or.... bring back the jobs they sent to India in the early 2000's?

There is a reason why 90% of the wealth is carried by the top 10%... they keep it that way (the drawback of capitalism). It's been this way for more than a century! The U.S. government is democracy heavily influenced by aristocracy.

Anyway, even knowing this before reading the article I found some of it shocking. 400 people account for HALF of the wealth?! My God. Even Egypt had a better distribution of wealth and they just overthrew their government.

What percentage of people in the us are millinaires? About 3 million, or 1% of the population.

What percentage of people in the us are billionaires? About 400, or 0.00013%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halberto

400 people account for HALF of the wealth?! My God.

---

No, you misunderstood that statistic. 400 people have as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the population (so according to the pie chart, they have ~2.5% of the wealth).

Granted, that's still a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

---

So a few people own most of the wealth..and you want to give them tax cuts... 'for job creation'... funny thing is though the economy went into the tank after GW Bush passed his tax cuts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stump

No, you misunderstood that statistic. 400 people have as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the population (so according to the pie chart, they have ~2.5% of the wealth).

Granted, that's still a lot.

---

Poor people in our country are wealthy compared to poor people around the world. Most have car, cable, A/C and food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

So a few people own most of the wealth..and you want to give them tax cuts... 'for job creation'... funny thing is though the economy went into the tank after GW Bush passed his tax cuts...

---

honest question. I'm not going to attack you. What is the purpose of the federal income tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halberto

So if we give these people tax cuts then the y'd consider giving us jobs right? Or.... bring back the jobs they sent to India in the early 2000's?

---

Business is driven by a cost control and quality standards. India provides cheap labor for mostly menial jobs, which doesn't seem to affect the quality enough to chase away American Shoppers. Foreign businesses are doing the same thing. Shop for a website programmer and you'll find there are really inexpensive foreign options.

so the question becomes, do I save money by employing a foreigner or do I become an altruist in the face of stiff competition?

Quote:

---

There is a reason why 90% of the wealth is carried by the top 10%... they keep it that way (the drawback of capitalism).

---

we are not all going to be equal, but capitalism raises the standard of living of the poor. China is a perfect example. However, in a capitalistic society a lot of people will always want more and be dissatisfied with what they have, so you'll always hear a lot of bitching and complaining about what someone else has.

Quote:

---

It's been this way for more than a century! The U.S. government is democracy heavily influenced by aristocracy.

Anyway, even knowing this before reading the article I found some of it shocking. 400 people account for HALF of the wealth?! My God. Even Egypt had a better distribution of wealth and they just overthrew their government.

---

our poor is upper middle class in Egypt, so it's relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

---

Wild Cobra's true American dream: One man owning every single piece of land and stock in the entire country, and everyone else in food shelters. It's the dream, people! The dream! There is nothing wrong with that dream, no matter how many people starve to death! Because an esoteric ephemeral idea is more important than an 8 year old getting medical treatment for a potentially fatal condition! It's the dream, people! It matters more than human beings!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

Business is driven by a cost control and quality standards. India provides cheap labor for mostly menial jobs, which doesn't seem to affect the quality enough to chase away American Shoppers. Foreign businesses are doing the same thing. Shop for a website programmer and you'll find there are really inexpensive foreign options.

so the question becomes, do I save money buy employing a foreigner or do I become an altruist in the face of stiff competition?

---

So I guess all those companies in Europe that are doing fine despite being CLOSER to India are just magic pixie dust, then?

Quote:

---

we are not all going to be equal, but capitalism raises the standard of living of the poor. China is a perfect example. However, in a capitalistic society a lot of people will always want more and be dissatisfied with what they have, so you'll always hear a lot of bitching and complaining about what someone else has.

---

No, you'll hear bitching and complaining because other countries in the world are doing it far better and more effectively than we are despite not having anything close to our GNP.

Quote:

---

our poor is upper middle class in Egypt, so it's relative.

---

So that's the standard we're going by now? We're comparing ourselves to dictatorships to make us feel better about our financial situation in this country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

honest question. I'm not going to attack you. What is the purpose of the federal income tax?

---

Quote:

---

The federal income tax provides for national programs such as defense, foreign affairs, law enforcement, and interest on the national debt.

---

Quote:

---

16th Amendment
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

---

I don't know if there is one purpose for the federal income tax. Generally speaking it provides to the govt income to do what is necessary to keep the govt operating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

So I guess all those companies in Europe that are doing fine despite being CLOSER to India are just magic pixie dust, then?

---

You're lost in the conversation. India was given as an example by another poster. You could use China if you would like. The complaint is that we have a trade deficit. I would argue the trade deficit is a net positive than negative. nevertheless, are you saying the average salary in Europe is higher than the US? Or you just "FEEL" Europe is better than the US.

Quote:

---

No, you'll hear bitching and complaining because other countries in the world are doing it far better and more effectively than we are despite not having anything close to our GNP.

---

If they are so much better why do we have the largest Economy in the world by a long shot? Why do most countries us the American Dollar for their international transactions?

What are they doing so much better besides draconian cuts in entitlement spending?

Quote:

---

So that's the standard we're going by now? We're comparing ourselves to dictatorships to make us feel better about our financial situation in this country?

---

Again, Egypt was used as an example by the other poster. I pointed out the foolish comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

So that's the standard we're going by now? We're comparing ourselves to dictatorships to make us feel better about our financial situation in this country?

---

By that logic, compare under-performing U.S. students to the average teen in Afghanistan--we're fucking geniuses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bartleby

By that logic, compare under-performing U.S. students to the average teen in Afghanistan--we're fucking geniuses!

---

no, you have proven US students are stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

no, you have proven US students are stupid.

---

:rolleyes

Come on, bible boy, you can do better than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

our poor is upper middle class in Egypt, so it's relative.

---

I can respect all of your reply except for this bit. Basically you're saying "hey, we have it good so who cares?" I wonder what percentage of the top 10%'s wealth it would take to allow for twice as many people to attend college. Little things like that can go a long way. Imagine how many more doctors and engineers would be around if college wasn't so expensive. Or how about health care? Cancer patients would get the treatment they wouldn't afford and so on. I'm not saying that it would help everyone, but maybe if the top 20% owned 80% of the wealth things would be better for a lot of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

I don't know if there is one purpose for the federal income tax. Generally speaking it provides to the govt income to do what is necessary to keep the govt operating.

---

the reason I ask is because I think raising or lowering taxes should have an impact on the Average American. I'm not sure how raising taxes on the wealthy, though I'm not necessarily opposed, would affect me and everyone else. I don't think we should levy taxes to punish success, but if it would create more jobs to raise taxes on the wealthy then I'm all ears.

All the other stuff, military, ss, etc are all being paid and we are in no danger of not paying those bills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halberto

I can respect all of your reply except for this bit. Basically you're saying "hey, we have it good so who cares?" I wonder what kind of percentage of the top 10%'s wealth to allow for twice as many to attend college. Little things like that can go a long way. Imagine how many more doctors and engineers would be around if college wasn't so expensive. Or how about health care? Cancer patients would get the treatment they wouldn't afford and so on. I'm not saying that it would help everyone, but maybe if the top 20% owned 80% of the wealth things would be better for a lot of people.

---

I appreciate that you see the cost of higher education is way too high. In fact, I've argued and have provided evidence that the cost of higher education has reached bubble status (here). Evidence suggest that the explosion in the cost of higher education coincides with government subsidies. It makes sense, easy to raise prices when someone else is paying for it.

Nevertheless, I'm way more interested in how to help the lower classes become financially independent. At this point, I don't see the connection between taxes/punishing the wealthy and me becoming financially independent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

So a few people own most of the wealth..and you want to give them tax cuts... 'for job creation'... funny thing is though the economy went into the tank after GW Bush passed his tax cuts...

---

And, all experts agree, this is exactly WHY it happened. :lmao

This just in...


Some people unfairly brilliant.


http://www.iqtestnow.com/img/iqchildren-graph.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

And, all experts agree, this is exactly WHY it happened. :lmao

---

Sort of like the deficit being an Obama problem right..:lmao

I keep hearing that lowering taxes always works..did it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Sort of like the deficit being an Obama problem right..:lmao

---

There was already a deficit when he became president, but he's definitely not helping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

---

Awesome strawman. I'm impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Awesome strawman. I'm impressed.

---

He's actually on to something for once. There is nothing wrong with successful people who amass large amounts of wealth in their lifetimes. They're free to do with it what they want. That article is full of whiny resentment for people who have done well in life.

There is a separate question about 1) inheritance 2) the death tax and 3) tax cuts. I understand why people bitch and complain about the concentration of power in the hands of the already-powerful, but if you were in that position, would you do anything else? What does that 10% owe the remaining 90%

And no, I'm not saying tax cuts for the rich are good, or that there is no problem with these lop-sided demographics.

WC supports a punitively regressive flat tax, like the 17% that Warren Buffet says he pays, to be paid by Wal-Marters @$20K/year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

He's actually on to something for once. There is nothing wrong with successful people who amass large amounts of wealth in their lifetimes. They're free to do with it what they want.

---

WC tried to represent that the poster hated the American Dream because the poster was concerned about wealth inequality. That's obviously a non-sequitur/logical fallacy.

Just because you are concerned about wealth inequality doesn't mean you hate America.

I'll take the thought experiment upthread and tweak it slightly.

(This is a bit wordy, so forgive me in advance.) If America were making a GDP of 15 billion a year, but 14.9 of that billion was controlled by three people, would that be better than America making 13 billion a year, where 12.9 billion was controlled by 5,000?

IOW, is the "bottom line" of how much America is making really the most important statistic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

There is a separate question about 1) inheritance 2) the death tax and 3) tax cuts. I understand why people bitch and complain about the concentration of power in the hands of the already-powerful, but if you were in that position, would you do anything else? What does that 10% owe the remaining 90%

---

There's an argument to be made that the 10% made their money off the backs of the 90%, but I won't go into that. I also don't agree with the inheritance/death taxes, personally.

While something might not be justified "morally", per se, we run into issues where what's best for the nation isn't justifiable on an individual basis. For instance, education taxes. If I don't have a kid in school, is it morally justifiable for the gov't to require money from me?

But long term, said child's education will be supporting our nation's infrastructure/future.

If an extreme gap in wealth equality leads to an increased likelihood of mass riots/protests/etc etc, shouldn't we look for ways to avoid those outcomes?

Sometimes the "optimal" way to do things isn't really optimal. (See Game Theory and actual outcomes.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

WC tried to represent that the poster hated the American Dream because the poster was concerned about wealth inequality. That's obviously a non-sequitur/logical fallacy.

Just because you are concerned about wealth inequality doesn't mean you hate America.

---

Fair point. WC is a fucking retard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I'll take the thought experiment upthread and tweak it slightly.

(This is a bit wordy, so forgive me in advance.) If America were making a GDP of 15 billion a year, but 14.9 of that billion was controlled by three people, would that be better than America making 13 billion a year, where 12.9 billion was controlled by 5,000?

IOW, is the "bottom line" of how much America is making really the most important statistic?

---

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing. If we really were stringent on equally-amassed levels of wealth, what'd be the point of working real hard? But that's probably besides the point too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

There's an argument to be made that the 10% made their money off the backs of the 90%, but I won't go into that. I also don't agree with the inheritance/death taxes, personally.

While something might not be justified "morally", per se, we run into issues where what's best for the nation isn't justifiable on an individual basis. For instance, education taxes. If I don't have a kid in school, is it morally justifiable for the gov't to require money from me?

But long term, said child's education will be supporting our nation's infrastructure/future.

If an extreme gap in wealth equality leads to an increased likelihood of mass riots/protests/etc etc, shouldn't we look for ways to avoid those outcomes?

Sometimes the "optimal" way to do things isn't really optimal. (See Game Theory and actual outcomes.)

---

I guess that's really the debate. But it's not like the rich are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the USFG in taxes. I'd also be curious to see how much that 10% actually ends up paying (like a gross amount) compared to the other 90%.

My point was more along the lines of: if you were rich and powerful, wouldn't you try to "buy politicians" and protect the wealth you've amassed via lenient tax rates? And can you really blame the rich for doing so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing.

---

The wealth gap is a very bad thing, since having money in the hands of those with higher marginal utilities for their dollars is what keeps the economy going. It's much better for our country to have its money being spent on tangible goods than it is for it to be used in speculation on real estate and commodities that serve to raid even more of the wealth of the vast majority of our population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing. If we really were stringent on equally-amassed levels of wealth, what'd be the point of working real hard? But that's probably besides the point too.

---

I don't think ANYONE knows. If they did, they'd be anointed world president/leader. :lol I also don't think it's some static number that will work for all time.

But the way that some conservatives decry unequal taxation is a bit extreme, in my eyes. They make a 30% tax bracket sound like a death knell, when it was 70% or so IIRC only a few decades ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I guess that's really the debate. But it's not like the rich are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the USFG in taxes. I'd also be curious to see how much that 10% actually ends up paying (like a gross amount) compared to the other 90%.

---

The biggest problem is that wealth tends to make more wealth, so without any controlling factors you'll get what we have today, which is an increasing inequality gap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

My point was more along the lines of: if you were rich and powerful, wouldn't you try to "buy politicians" and protect the wealth you've amassed via lenient tax rates? And can you really blame the rich for doing so?

---

Can't really blame the rich for trying to work the system, no. Then again, I guess on the flip side you can't complain about the masses trying to get taxation laws written that try to equalize that income, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

The wealth gap is a very bad thing, since having money in the hands of those with higher marginal utilities for their dollars is what keeps the economy going. It's much better for our country to have its money being spent on tangible goods than it is for it to be used in speculation on real estate and commodities that serve to raid even more of the wealth of the vast majority of our population.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

The biggest problem is that wealth tends to make more wealth, so without any controlling factors you'll get what we have today, which is an increasing inequality gap.

---

I'd want to know how you can control how the wealthy decide to spend their wealth. I can see how speculation can harm people, but to restrict the rich's ability to do so seems more destructive because, by limiting what peolpe can do with their property, you disincentivize innovation, labor, etc... Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

And no, I can't blame the "90%" from trying to game the system - but frankly it doesn't seem like a fair fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

---

I could sell heroin to your kids for their lunch money, their playstation, their ipod, bike, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I could sell heroin to your kids for their lunch money, their playstation, their ipod, bike, and so on.

---

True, because legitimately accumulated wealth = heroin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

True, because legitimately accumulated wealth = heroin.

---

But I don't have any social responsibility. So why can't I sell your kids heroin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

But I don't have any social responsibility. So why can't I sell your kids heroin?

---

Because I never said you don't have any social responsibility.

Don't over-generalize what I said - it makes you look as retarded as WC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I'd want to know how you can control how the wealthy decide to spend their wealth. I can see how speculation can harm people, but to restrict the rich's ability to do so seems more destructive because, by limiting what peolpe can do with their property, you disincentivize innovation, labor, etc...

---

Yes, it's a thorny situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

---

If that's your line of thought, how do you accept any taxation as moral that isn't specifically agreed upon by the party being taxed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

And no, I can't blame the "90%" from trying to game the system - but frankly it doesn't seem like a fair fight.

---

It certainly isn't. Those 10% are like heavyweights against a lightweight.

Quick question! How many Senators are middle-class? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Because I never said you don't have any social responsibility.

Don't over-generalize what I said - it makes you look as retarded as WC.

---

Quote:

---

Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

---

I please to screw people over to grow my wealth.

^^ I dunno about moral, but to a certain extent, everyone benefits from being within the country (ability to do business here, military/police protection, etc...). I guess consent to taxation comes from accepting the benefits of such services

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

The wealth gap is a very bad thing, since having money in the hands of those with higher marginal utilities for their dollars is what keeps the economy going. It's much better for our country to have its money being spent on tangible goods than it is for it to be used in speculation on real estate and commodities that serve to raid even more of the wealth of the vast majority of our population.

---

Bill Gates is the beneficiary of a pretty big wealth gap. He also gives away over a billion dollars a year to charity. Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on junk food, video games, booze, cigarettes or whatever other tangible goods you think people would be spending their re-distributed income on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I please to screw people over to grow my wealth.

---

which = selling heroin.

Congrats on being a mouth-breathing reductionist.

The whole point about "what's best for the country" is that once an income gap grows too large, it hurts everyone. (See the Great Depression.) And since the nation is made up of, well, ya know, every citizen, then citizens surely have a right to do what's best for the nation (legally), correct?

After all, citizens who don't like being taxed still have two options: influence the legislature, or leave the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

^^ I dunno about moral, but to a certain extent, everyone benefits from being within the country (ability to do business here, military/police protection, etc...). I guess consent to taxation comes from accepting the benefits of such services

---

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

The whole point about "what's best for the country" is that once an income gap grows too large, it hurts everyone. (See the Great Depression.) And since the nation is made up of, well, ya know, every citizen, then citizens surely have a right to do what's best for the nation (legally), correct?

After all, citizens who don't like being taxed still have two options: influence the legislature, or leave the country.

---

At what point do I, in earning a shit ton of money, become obligated to do what's best for the country? I'm skeptical that there is such a point - especially with how "globalized" business is.

I think your obligation to better the country starts and ends with your tax burden. And the rich, while proportionately not paying as much as the 90%, do pay a shit ton in taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

which = selling heroin.

Congrats on being a mouth-breathing reductionist.

---

It's funny you bitch about WC and throw around the same insults he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

---

Like I said, I don't know about this morals business.

And I'm pretty sure I never said anything about this "right to take money in the first place."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It's funny you bitch about WC and throw around the same insults he does.

---

About as funny as those insults actually being applicable in your case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Bill Gates is the beneficiary of a pretty big wealth gap. He also gives away over a billion dollars a year to charity. Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on junk food, video games, booze, cigarettes or whatever other tangible goods you think people would be spending their re-distributed income on?

---

Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried? :lol

I can do that too! Check it out.

Quote:

---

Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on health care, small business startup money, or infrastructure?

---

Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.

Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.

Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

---

That shit was just a response to BB's drivel about how the specualtion harms the country - it had nothing to do with taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried? :lol

I can do that too! Check it out.



Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.

Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.

Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.

---

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Bill Gates is the beneficiary of a pretty big wealth gap. He also gives away over a billion dollars a year to charity. Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on junk food, video games, booze, cigarettes or whatever other tangible goods you think people would be spending their re-distributed income on?

---

Strawman. Tangible goods doesn't equate to crap from Wal-Mart. It's also being able to afford health care, being able to afford a house or being able to rent an apartment not next to the highway, being able to send your kids to college so they're not buried under tons of student loans, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Like I said, I don't know about this morals business.

---

Quote:

---

At what point do I, in earning a shit ton of money, become obligated to do what's best for the country? I'm skeptical that there is such a point - especially with how "globalized" business is.

---

The above sounds like a moral argument.

If you're not arguing from a moral basis, then what basis are you arguing from? Legally speaking, you become "obligated" as soon as someone creates a law saying that it's legal to tax you said amount.

Again, if someone knew the answer to the question above, they'd be hired to run the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

And I'm pretty sure I never said anything about this "right to take money in the first place."

---

That stands somewhat at odds with this statement:

Quote:

---

The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

---

Why is society obliged to protect Bill Gates? Why is it all of our responsibility to keep Canada from invading Redmond and taking his company over? Why should society only be a benefit and not a responsibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Why is society obliged to protect Bill Gates? Why is it all of our responsibility to keep Canada from invading Redmond and taking his company over?

---

Because he's an American citizen and pays his taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried? :lol

I can do that too! Check it out.

---

So if we redistribute rich peoples wealth to the masses people are going to use that money on healthcare, small business startups and infrastructure? Really?

Quote:

---

Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.

Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.

Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.

---

You've lost me. I thought we were talking about wealth inequality, not outsourcing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

The above sounds like a moral argument.

If you're not arguing from a moral basis, then what basis are you arguing from? Legally speaking, you become "obligated" as soon as someone creates a law saying that it's legal to tax you said amount.

Again, if someone knew the answer to the question above, they'd be hired to run the world.

---

True, but I guess my point was that there is no moral obligation. You might disagree, but I just don't see it.

And because there's no moral obligation to re-invest or re-dsitribute what you've accumulated, I don't see any contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Strawman. Tangible goods doesn't equate to crap from Wal-Mart. It's also being able to afford health care, being able to afford a house or being able to rent an apartment not next to the highway, being able to send your kids to college so they're not buried under tons of student loans, etc.

---

Just sell heroin. Problem solved. Strawman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Just sell heroin. Problem solved. Strawman.

---

It's not a strawman. vy was implying citizens are basically on their own island and don't have social responsibility, but then took it back pretty quickly once the heroin example showed how ridiculous that idea was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It's not a strawman. vy was implying citizens are basically on their own island don't have social responsibility, but then took it back pretty quickly once the heroin example showed how ridiculous that idea was.

---

Huh? What I was implying was that the rich are under no obligation to use thier money in ways that help the country. It was a response to your "rich people engage in speculation" argument. Is speculation illegal? Is making certain, potentially destructive investments, like short sales, illegal? Explain how that is in any way the same as selling the smack you've obviously been smoking?

Learn what context is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

---

Are you talking about legal or moral obligation? Legally speaking, he's obligated if the law says he is.

Morally speaking, I don't think he's obligated. But (hypothetically speaking) if it's better for the citizens of the nation overall, you can't fault the citizens for trying to enact that.

The founders of Google are very weathy -- unfairly so (just kidding). Do they have any employees at Google? Do those employees buy tangible goods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Huh? What I was implying was that the rich are under no obligation to use thier money in ways that help the country. It was a response to your "rich people engage in speculation" argument. Is speculation illegal? Is making certain, potentially destructive investments, like short sales, illegal? Explain how that is in any way the same as selling the smack you've obviously been smoking?

Learn what context is.

---

Once again, why is society only a benefit and not a responsibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

It's not a strawman. vy was implying citizens are basically on their own island and don't have social responsibility, but then took it back pretty quickly once the heroin example showed how ridiculous that idea was.

---

Yes, it was a strawman. Unless you believe that everyone on the good side of that income/wealth gap got there by doing something illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

So if we redistribute rich peoples wealth to the masses people are going to use that money on healthcare, small business startups and infrastructure? Really?

---

:lol It's as valid as your point that they'd only spent it on junk food and video games.

I'm sure it would go to an equal amount of good and bad things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

You've lost me. I thought we were talking about wealth inequality, not outsourcing.

---

I thought we had transitioned to effective use of monetary resources. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Are you talking about legal or moral obligation? Legally speaking, he's obligated if the law says he is.

Morally speaking, I don't think he's obligated. But (hypothetically speaking) if it's better for the citizens of the nation overall, you can't fault the citizens for trying to enact that.

---

I think I was speaking of a general obligation and not making a distinction between moral and legal ones.

Legally, I think he's obligated to pay the taxable rate. I don't there's a moral one here. And while I can't fault citizens from trying to impose one, I can't blame the rich for trying to fight that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Once again, why is society only a benefit and not a responsibility?

---

Why would it be a responsibility?

I pay for the benefits I receive when I do my taxes. Where's the responsibility come from?

Are you still claiming the rich-poor gap = heroin addiction?

By the way, I engage in speculation and I'm not a billionaire. Sometimes, investments are a better place to put your money than a piece of consumer electronics that is obsolete in two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I think I was speaking of a general obligation and not making a distinction between moral and legal ones.

Legally, I think he's obligated to pay the taxable rate. I don't there's a moral one here. And while I can't fault citizens from trying to impose one, I can't blame the rich for trying to fight that.

---

Then you pretty much lie where I lie. I don't think it's immoral to want to keep as much money as you can for your own use. I also don't think it's immoral for citizens to want their nation to continue functioning effectively (which I think an extreme inequality gap would hinder.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I also don't think it's immoral for citizens to want their nation to continue functioning effectively (which I think an extreme inequality gap would hinder.)

---

My beef with this is that it can be spun very anti-meritocratically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

My beef with this is that it can be spun very anti-meritocratically.

---

I don't shed tears for millionaires, especially those that out-source. If they farm out their business to other nations in order to make more cash, knowing that fellow citizens will lose out on jobs, that's their right. I don't think they have a right to complain though when said citizens ask that they share more of the tax burden. Again, if they disagree, they can do what other citizens do: bug their legislature to get the laws changed. And due to their high status, there's a good chance they'll be succesful.

Again, how many middle-class Senators are there? Democracy in today's America goes hand in hand with aristocracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Why would it be a responsibility?

I pay for the benefits I receive when I do my taxes. Where's the responsibility come from?

---

You really don't if you're buying off politicians to allow you to play both sides of the fence.

Quote:

---

Are you still claiming the rich-poor gap = heroin addiction?

---

I never said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't shed tears for millionaires, especially those that out-source. If they farm out their business to other nations in order to make more cash, knowing that fellow citizens will lose out on jobs, that's their right. I don't think they have a right to complain though when said citizens ask that they share more of the tax burden. Again, if they disagree, they can do what other citizens do: bug their legislature to get the laws changed. And due to their high status, there's a good chance they'll be succesful.

Again, how many middle-class Senators are there? Democracy in today's America goes hand in hand with aristocracy.

---

True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one? It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money. What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?

I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Constitution or the tax code?

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

You really don't if you're buying off politicians to allow you to play both sides of the fence.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I never said that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I please to screw people over to grow my wealth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

But I don't have any social responsibility. So why can't I sell your kids heroin?

---

People that bitch about outsourcing shouldn't complain when they buy cheap products from those companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

The founders of Google are very weathy -- unfairly so (just kidding). Do they have any employees at Google? Do those employees buy tangible goods?

---

Google has done a lot to increase the wealth of our nation. They give lots of jobs that pay very well, and the company is full of creative people. Google was born on a brilliant idea (the quality of a search result being tied to the count of pages linking to it), and they keep doing incredible things while still giving back to the community (for instance, their work on the Linux kernel licensed under the GPL). Google is about as forward-thinking a company as there is in America: people who work there get a full day per workweek to work on their own personal projects aside from their normal duties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

---

Because it was the US citizens who were buying all of his shit and making him rich in the first place so that he could expand globally and take the world's money? Because otherwise he's just taking currency out of circulation to ... hoard it so no one else can use it? Because it's the decent fucking thing to do?

He doesn't have a legal obligation, but that speaks very little to ethics. You aren't legally obligated to remain faithful in a marriage, but it's a sham marriage if you're not. When a person amasses that much fortune, if he's not giving back some then he's just sitting on money that he doesn't even have enough lifetime to spend. There are these ideas of pride for and obligation to one's country that make a country great and add to the quality of life for many.

And all of that aside, I don't hear anyone bitching about Gates's efforts outside of the US - I'm pretty sure no one is walking around saying, "You know, he should really stop trying to fund a cure for malaria in Africa when there are people in his own country who have problems."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Google has done a lot to increase the wealth of our nation. They give lots of jobs that pay very well, and the company is full of creative people. Google was born on a brilliant idea (the quality of a search result being tied to the count of pages linking to it), and they keep doing incredible things while still giving back to the community (for instance, their work on the Linux kernel licensed under the GPL). Google is about as forward-thinking a company as there is in America: people who work there get a full day per workweek to work on their own personal projects aside from their normal duties.

---

I agree with all that.

Those two dudes are EXTREMELY rich. Is that fair? I think it is. After all, they are the ones who had the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jekka

Because it was the US citizens who were buying all of his shit and making him rich in the first place so that he could expand globally and take the world's money? Because otherwise he's just taking currency out of circulation to ... hoard it so no one else can use it? Because it's the decent fucking thing to do?

---

Those customers got his shit in return. Sale completed. He now owes them more? That sounds pretty indecent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jekka

He doesn't have a legal obligation, but that speaks very little to ethics. You aren't legally obligated to remain faithful in a marriage, but it's a sham marriage if you're not. When a person amasses that much fortune, if he's not giving back some then he's just sitting on money that he doesn't even have enough lifetime to spend. There are these ideas of pride for and obligation to one's country that make a country great and add to the quality of life for many.

---

Dunno how marriage is any way relevant to the conduct of business. What's wrong with sitting out hordes of cash from circulation if you earned it and doing so isn't illegal? There are obligations apart from the law that dictate what you should do with your hard earned money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jekka

And all of that aside, I don't hear anyone bitching about Gates's efforts outside of the US - I'm pretty sure no one is walking around saying, "You know, he should really stop trying to fund a cure for malaria in Africa when there are people in his own country who have problems."

---

If that's what he wants to do with his money, more power to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one? It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money. What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?

I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Constitution or the tax code?

---

A wealthier person is obliged to pay at a higher rate because it pays for the society that gives him the ability to earn. When you keep milking the people and not giving much back, you're eventually going to bring chaos which will drag everyone down. Maybe not in the short term, but it's not a viable long-term strategy, Look at Mexico as an example of what wealth inequality brings; people dropping like flies left and right because it's hard to make it living on $70 a week being legit in a border town.

I kinda like the idea that someone can drop out of school and become the richest man on Earth. If your idea is good enough, you would be a FOOL to stay in college.


I wonder how much wealth MS, Apple, et. al. have created? I suspect a lot.

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

A wealthier person is obliged to pay at a higher rate because it pays for the society that gives him the ability to earn. When you keep milking the people and not giving much back, you're eventually going to bring chaos which will drag everyone down. Maybe not in the short term, but it's not a viable long-term strategy, Look at Mexico as an example of what wealth inequality brings; people dropping like flies left and right because it's hard to make it living on $70 a week being legit in a border town.

---

Doesn't everyone have that ability to earn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

---

Our wealth inequality is headed in that direction. It's not a stretch to think that's our future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I kinda like the idea that someone can drop out of school and become the richest man on Earth. If your idea is good enough, you would be a FOOL to stay in college.


I wonder how much wealth MS, Apple, et. al. have created? I suspect a lot.

---

Gates is a little overrated in this country. Yes, he is an amazing salesman with balls of steel, but he hasn't done much innovative in his career. He pretty much just took a big bite out of Apple's market share, and is lucky that IBM believed he had an operating system when they scoffed Apple and their hippy culture. Gates would probably just be a $150k a year software engineer if Xerox would have been smart enough to cash in their winning lottery ticket with the Alto. Too bad, as the Alto would have created a lot more wealth in this nation than anything Apple or MS did. That's another topic though.

Shrug... easy to pick on them... they are .00013% of the vote and can't defend themselves if the government insists on taking more...

Win win for a Democratic president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

There is nothing wrong with that dream, no matter how many people starve to death!

---

The CDC considers obesity in America an epidemic. So I don't you have to lose sleep over the starving masses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Gates is a little overrated in this country. Yes, he is an amazing salesman with balls of steel, but he hasn't done much innovative in his career. He pretty much just took a big bite out of Apple's market share, and is lucky that IBM believed he had an operating system when they scoffed Apple and their hippy culture. Gates would probably just be a $150k a year software engineer if Xerox would have been smart enough to cash in their winning lottery ticket with the Alto. Too bad, as the Alto would have created a lot more wealth in this nation than anything Apple or MS did. That's another topic though.

---

But he had the vision when a lot of people didn't. Otherwise, some poor sap wouldn't have sold him DOS for 35K. He was also smart enough not to get all tied up in the hardware business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

People that bitch about outsourcing shouldn't complain when they buy cheap products from those companies.

---

Most of the people that are probably affected by outsourcing don't have the time/money to buy only US made products.

Hey, do you agree with every move the NYJets management makes? If not, why do you still follow the team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Doesn't everyone have that ability to earn?

---

If so, then everyone would be a millionaire, so the answer is no. It takes many things (skill, knowledge, luck, circumstance, etc etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

True. But I was just thinking - what obligates the wealthier person to pay higher taxes than the poorer one?

---

Citizenry deciding so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

It can't be because the wealthier person uses the police, military, post office, etc ... more (can it?). That's to say that the wealthier person pays higher taxes solely as a function of thier making more money.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

What's the justification for that given that the richer person doesn't use more social services than the other - which is what those tax dollars are going towards?

---

The justification is because that's how the world works. Like I said, realpolitiks takes over here.

If you look at most revolutions, the "justification" for the revolution is rather weak. The real reason is because the populace just gets seriously pissed off. Taxing the rich more prevents that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I'm not being argumentative here - I seriously don't understand the non-moral justification. And before anyone claims that there is one, where is that obligation in either the Constitution or the tax code?

---

The justification is that rich people pay more so the poor folks don't go crazy and steal/attack them for their wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Did we really just get compared to Mexico?

---

I think it was used as an example, not an analogy. Or at best, it was a weak analogy in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

Shrug... easy to pick on them... they are .00013% of the vote and can't defend themselves if the government insists on taking more...

Win win for a Democratic president.

---

:lmao

Honestly, do you do standup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

If so, then everyone would be a millionaire, so the answer is no. It takes many things (skill, knowledge, luck, circumstance, etc etc).

---

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

---

I agree that we waste too much money on cars and plasma screens, but look at the things whose price has shot through the roof in the last 30 years: absolute necessities like healthcare, housing, and education. Wages haven't followed. This isn't the same nation it used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

By the way, I engage in speculation and I'm not a billionaire. Sometimes, investments are a better place to put your money than a piece of consumer electronics that is obsolete in two years.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

You left out saving & investing instead of spending every penny earned on crap you don't need.

---

That plays in for some millionaires, but I'm not sure how many. It seems more and more millionaires are younger and younger nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

---

"Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the upper crust - you get it, then they move it so you're never keeping up enough. Crooked banks around the world would gladly give a loan away so if you miss a payment they can take your home away."

But I'm glad you still believe in the American Dream under President Obama, real patriotic. :king

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

That begs the question though: why is Bill Gates obligated to do anything for US citizens in the first place? Why are the rich obligated to recirculate thier cash back into the US economy? Especially when, as you noted, their businesses are becoming increasingly global?

---

This doesn't take into proper consideration the HUGE grey area that exists between the two poles of obliging one to dedicate his/her money to the greater good and encouraging him/her to selfishly dedicate that same money to the greater suck.

I agree that the answer to all of this is not obligation or forced philanthropy, but that doesn't mean that we should swing all the way to the other side and abandon any hope of a system in which a) the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is quite so severe, and b) it becomes financially attractive for those with money to invest in the betterment of their own community/country. An imagined utopia free of capitalistic greed and its resulting power/privilege dynamic is, for better or worse, completely unrealistic; but that doesn't mean that violently stomping on the heads of those below you HAS TO BE a necessary part of climbing the ladder.