Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I didn't mean to imply that ALL poor people have character flaws, just the ones in my family.

---

Understood DarrinS. Wasn't sure or not if you were extending that analogy to America at large. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

In this country? Civil rights in the 60's was a MOVEMENT.

Revolution is something more extreme. Revolution means seizure of assets, overthrowing the constitution, removal of some people's rights.

It would be bloody.

---

I disagree. Thats a narrow view on the word, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I disagree. Thats a narrow view on the word, IMO.

---

You mean you want like a 60's revolution where they all protest against evil capitalist bastards and then get caught with their pants down flipping homes in their 50's with free credit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It's the middle class who makes up a good chunk of that 50% who aren't paying a dime.

I do think that taxes on the rich need to go up, but so do everyone else's.

---

Everyone believes they are overtaxed. Both parties pander to this belief among the middle class. While we have a charade about tax cuts for the wealthy or what not, the reality is that both candidates in the last election offered continued low taxes for the bottom 95% of the population (and the one that won stayed true to his word, and then some). Naturally no politician is going to offer anything different for this group.

Or, we have found the enemy and it is ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I'd be interested in seeing that quote if you can dig it up.

---

This isn't a direct link to the quotation, but a citation:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Rw4...asites&f=false

The sentence mentioning it says, "As one should 'measure the health of society and of individuals according to how many parasites they can stand'".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

You mean you want like a 60's revolution where they all protest against evil capitalist bastards and then get caught with their pants down flipping homes in their 50's with free credit?

---

:lol

Actually, they're most likely in their 60's now. Still funny.

Ah, found it VY.

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/cor...Nietzsche.html

Quote:

---

As its power increases, a community ceases to take the individual's transgressions so seriously, because they can no longer be considered as dangerous and destructive to the whole as they were formerly: the malefactor is no longer "set beyond the pale of peace" and thrust out; universal anger may not be vented upon him as unrestrainedly as before-on the contrary, the whole from now on carefully defends the malefactor against this anger, especially that of those he has directly harmed, and takes him under its protection. A compromise with the anger of those directly injured by the criminal; an effort to localize the affair and to prevent it from causing any further, let alone a general, disturbance; attempts to discover equivalents and to settle the whole matter (compositio); above all, the increasingly definite will to treat every crime as in some sense dischargeable, and thus at least to a certain extent to Isolate the criminal and his deed from one another-these traits become more and more clearly visible as the penal law evolves. As the power and self-confidence of a community increase, the penal law always becomes more moderate; every weakening or imperiling of the former brings with it a restoration of the harsher forms of the latter. The "creditor" always becomes more humane to the extent that he has grown richer; finally, how much injury he can endure without suffering from it becomes the actual measure of his wealth. It is not unthinkable that a society might attain such a consciousness of power that it could allow itself the noblest luxury possible to it-letting those who harm it go unpunished. "What are my parasites to me?" it might say. "May they live and prosper: I am strong enough for that!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Ah, found it VY.

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/cor...Nietzsche.html

---

Nice. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Ah, found it VY.

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/cor...Nietzsche.html

---

Although thinking about it now, couldn't you argue that this quote - especially the un-bolded section - lays out a defense of the rich?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

You mean you want like a 60's revolution where they all protest against evil capitalist bastards and then get caught with their pants down flipping homes in their 50's with free credit?

---

:lol because it's funny.

:bang because it's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

As the power and self-confidence of a community increase, the penal law always becomes more moderate; every weakening or imperiling of the former brings with it a restoration of the harsher forms of the latter. The "creditor" always becomes more humane to the extent that he has grown richer; finally, how much injury he can endure without suffering from it becomes the actual measure of his wealth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

:lol

Actually, they're most likely in their 60's now. Still funny.

---

One of my pet baby boomers turned 60 just recently, the other one is 59.

18 in 1969... born in 1951... 57 at the peak of the "house flip" time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Although thinking about it now, couldn't you argue that this quote - especially the un-bolded section - lays out a defense of the rich?

---

Yes, it does, in a round-about fashion. It says that the strongest creditor (we'll sub in "rich person" here) is not the one with the most money owed to him, but the one who can most easily shrug off the debts owed to him.

Then he extrapolates that to society. I pointed out that large amounts of Americans can afford to be lazy, fat, unintelligent, etc etc because America is strong as a whole.

Edit: IOW, I wasn't using the Nietzsche quote to justify taxing the rich or not; just using it as an example for why America won't go through a revolution until said "parasites" can't survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Yes, it does, in a round-about fashion. It says that the strongest creditor (we'll sub in "rich person" here) is not the one with the most money owed to him, but the one who can most easily shrug off the debts owed to him.

Then he extrapolates that to society. I pointed out that large amounts of Americans can afford to be lazy, fat, unintelligent, etc etc because America is strong as a whole.

---

Agreed. Although I think you can take it much further than that. The whole notion of the 'malefactor' in that quote suggests that the Fritz is thinking of a society wherein the rich (particularly the Madoffs, the Goldman-Sachs, and any other 'criminal' who would manipulate the middle and lower class) engage in their shenanigans - but - rather than responding with an uproar of financial regulation, criminal prosecution, etc... the people are strong enough to rely on themselves rather than on the government to rectify the situation.

That's a vague way of saying I think you can read this quote as a critique of "taxing the super rich now." That's because said taxation would signify that the "people" are not strong enough on their own (i.e., their finances, or their ability to work through financial turmoil and put their "fiscal house" back in order).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Agreed. Although I think you can take it much further than that. The whole notion of the 'malefactor' in that quote suggests that the Fritz is thinking of a society wherein the rich (particularly the Madoffs, the Goldman-Sachs, and any other 'criminal' who would manipulate the middle and lower class) engage in their shenanigans - but - rather than responding with an uproar of financial regulation, criminal prosecution, etc... the people are strong enough to rely on themselves rather than on the government to rectify the situation.

---

I don't really read it that way. Nietzsche specifically lists how many "parasites" society can get away with, implying those that don't provide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

That's a vague way of saying I think you can read this quote as a critique of "taxing the super rich now." That's because said taxation would signify that the "people" are not strong enough on their own (i.e., their finances, or their ability to work through financial turmoil and put their "fiscal house" back in order).

---

I don't agree with many of Nietzsche's views. That said, I don't see a justification in the text that allows rich people to get away with crimes, but not poor people. (Given his master/slave morality though, I wouldn't necessarily rule that reading out.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't really read it that way. Nietzsche specifically lists how many "parasites" society can get away with, implying those that don't provide.

---

I didn't catch that part

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't agree with many of Nietzsche's views. That said, I don't see a justification in the text that allows rich people to get away with crimes, but not poor people. (Given his master/slave morality though, I wouldn't necessarily rule that reading out.)

---

I think his point is that the one "aggreived" is the one who is owed something - hence the creditor (he discusses this right after the part you quoted). I agree that in the abstract, there's nothing here to cabin this to "just poor people" or "just rich people."

His point just seems to be that aggreived parties, those who are "owed" something, are stronger when they forget the transgressions done against them - when they forgive the debt they're owed - rather than giving into a ressentiment fueld tirade against their affluent/wealthy oppressors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I didn't catch that part

---

Quote:

---

"What are my parasites to me?" it might say. "May they live and prosper: I am strong enough for that!"

---

I don't think he'd consider those in power as "parasites".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

I think his point is that the one "aggreived" is the one who is owed something - hence the creditor (he discusses this right after the part you quoted). I agree that in the abstract, there's nothing here to cabin this to "just poor people" or "just rich people."

---

Fair enough. If you wanted to interpret that as a strong society not caring about certain crimes, whether committed by the rich or the poor, that would make sense.

Taking that out of the abstract, though, I don't think our society would be strong enough to survive excusing the rich from said crimes. (Of course, it's already happened in the case of some banks, but I don't think that's to our benefit.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

His point just seems to be that aggreived parties, those who are "owed" something, are stronger when they forget the transgressions done against them - when they forgive the debt they're owed - rather than giving into a ressentiment fueld tirade against their affluent/wealthy oppressors.

---

This is true. But to apply forgiveness to the upper class, instead of the "parasites" is a reversal of what he implies. He states that the creditor (read here: the rich) is strong if he forgives those who are indebted to him (the poor). He doesn't state that the debtor should forgive the creditor who tries to cheat him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Yes, it does, in a round-about fashion. It says that the strongest creditor (we'll sub in "rich person" here) is not the one with the most money owed to him, but the one who can most easily shrug off the debts owed to him.

Then he extrapolates that to society. I pointed out that large amounts of Americans can afford to be lazy, fat, unintelligent, etc etc because America is strong as a whole.

Edit: IOW, I wasn't using the Nietzsche quote to justify taxing the rich or not; just using it as an example for why America won't go through a revolution until said "parasites" can't survive.

---

:tu

Good read. Great analogy about the "parasites" as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't think he'd consider those in power as "parasites".

---

That's what we're discussing. I think that this quote can be read both ways: i.e. the parasites are the fat/lazy/middle-class Americans or are the rich/affluent/criminal bankers.

Regardless of that, however, I think that this quote criticizes (or at least envisions a society that would be a critique of) the notion that we should tax the "Super Rich now."

http://www.philosophicalmisadventure...tzscheWhip.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It's the middle class who makes up a good chunk of that 50% who aren't paying a dime.

I do think that taxes on the rich need to go up, but so do everyone else's.

---

Yeah, I wasn't specific enough. Proportionally to the rich, no. Having been on both sides of the fence I'm completely torn (crappy I know.....). But yes, we need the per capita tax to rise for a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

That's what we're discussing. I think that this quote can be read both ways: i.e. the parasites are the fat/lazy/middle-class Americans or are the rich/affluent/criminal bankers.

---

I don't think Neitzsche would call the rich/affluent parasites. He usually used the term "parasites" to those who don't contribute to society in meaningful ways, ones that took more than they produced. Nietzsche probably wouldn't call someone who made it so high in society a parasite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

Regardless of that, however, I think that this quote criticizes (or at least envisions a society that would be a critique of) the notion that we should tax the "Super Rich now."

---

I'm assuming that Nietzsche would definitely be against taxes on the rich. Of course, we're getting slightly off-tangent here, as I wasn't using that quote to discuss whether or not the rich should be taxed, merely as a reference to the strength of American society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't think Neitzsche would call the rich/affluent parasites. He usually used the term "parasites" to those who don't contribute to society in meaningful ways, ones that took more than they produced. Nietzsche probably wouldn't call someone who made it so high in society a parasite.

---

I don't think that's as clear as it seems. He synonymizes parasites as those who harm society: "It is not unthinkable that a society might attain such a consciousness of power that it could allow itself the noblest luxury possible to it-letting those who harm it go unpunished. "What are my parasites to me?" it might say."

Given that, you can argue that either group is parasitic because they do society harm - albeit in different ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I'm assuming that Nietzsche would definitely be against taxes on the rich. Of course, we're getting slightly off-tangent here, as I wasn't using that quote to discuss whether or not the rich should be taxed, merely as a reference to the strength of American society.

---

I agree. I was trying to bring this back to the main topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Yeah, I wasn't specific enough. Proportionally to the rich, no. Having been on both sides of the fence I'm completely torn (crappy I know.....). But yes, we need the per capita tax to rise for a bit.

---

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/pict...pictureid=1554

I would tend to agree.

The question then becomes who pays what?

Aye, there's the rub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I disagree. But, I'll admit, it wouldn't hurt to start of with wealthy parents.

---

That's great and all, but the facts disagree with you.:lol

http://rightproperty.com/?p=178
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/...ocial-mobility

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

If you win the lottery or get an inheritance.

If you are rich and hoard your money, then I suppose it is easier to stay rich.

---

It helps that tax policies favor investment a whole lot, too.:wakeup

Look at capital gains, for instance.

When you are very healthy financially, cutting back makes a bigger difference, too. I mean, not taking a vacation saved my dad enough money to pay his mortgage for a year.:rolleyes Most people don't have the luxury of 2-3 vacations a year plus eliminating won't have that much impact.

To add on to the utter ridiculousness of how much easier it is to stay rich once you are rich, my dad retired in his late 40s, had another kid at 50. It's cheaper for him to pay for childcare and work(I use that term very loosely, I'm talking working 3 weeks out of 12 here) than it is to take care of his daughter as a stay at home Dad. I mean, he keeps an Au Paire around so he can take contracts out as needed, with no complications. Most people can't exactly have live in child care to allow them to work part time with no complications or scheduling issues.

Having enough money to pay 70% of his current house as a downpayment surely doesn't hurt, either.