Reply With Quote
What about them?
Their problem, not mine. Sorry.
Probably.
Leave them to their own devices.
You never answered any of these questions:
You're missing the point. Why are others en led to a share of, for example, capital gains? You're right that some who invest properly can make out quite handsomely with appreciation, dividends, etc... But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a basic point you haven't supported: why are other's en led to my money?
Who's morals? Those aren't my morals. Are they yours? How do you determine what is or is not
These are claims without warrants. What is "personal investment in society?" How is that decreased with wealth inequality? What quantifiable impact does wealth inequality have on the economy (vs. other facts)? What evidence do you have of this point? What is your solution?
Do you know what a sociopath is? Why should I give a about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money that they can use on their broods of failure or they drugs and alcohol?
By no means am I in the 1%. I do feel that I am disproportionately taxed - meaning that I overpay for the amount of services I receive from the contract as compared to others in my age group.
What about them?
Their problem, not mine. Sorry.
Probably.
Leave them to their own devices.
You never answered any of these questions:
Does the government keep the money that goes into its coffers?
Watch the video I posted earlier. We are so far from any distribution that anyone would consider "optimal" it is sad.
As I have pointed out, those with the money can afford good propaganda, and it is so very effective as a marketing tool for their agenda because it taps into the aspirational streak we all have.
http://www.salesopedia.com/glossary?...eference+group
We all want to be, or think we have a chance to be, rich. Our system is simply not structured to make that happen.
It theft. Legal or not.
Immoral.
Not everyone would.
Are you blind to the repercussions? You know the concept of "cause and effect", right?
The more you tax capital income, the less capital income will be created.
Since when do we legislate based on some people's views of morality? Are you so pampas that you *know* you are right? I guess you are for banning abortion based on morality then... Is that correct Rush?
Are you suggesting other people's behavior is the fault of others that they never met?
Wow... Just wow...
Bull .
Inequity of income is a symptom from the some of the same factors that cause poverty. Inequity is not the cause.
Most people do care. Do you have a solution that doesn't compound the existing problems? If you think you do by redistributing wealth, then you are dead wrong.
No, but you are not thinking things out. What does that make you?
And this matters... why?
Who blew that BS up your skirt?
We all have the opportunity for the chance to be rich. It takes applying one's self, and luck. Intelligence, motivation, and other factors apply too.
Don't expect anyone why doesn't feel dirty taking government social programs, to ever be in such a catagory by merit.
"Their problem not mine".
It is your problem. Their lack of wealth and income affects you, and reduces your wealth and income.
If you can't see how these things are interrelated, you should take a few more economics courses. They are very closely intertwined.
That is the prime failure of libertarianism in general: a lack of realization of the interrelatedness of individuals in societies.
what stinking hot pile of Ayn Randian fantasy bull .
This is such complete and utter bull that it's mindblowing.
This is exactly how people expunge any sense of self-responsibility. And this is how so many people develop a sense of en lement.
This type of thinking needs to die.
The US has less wealth mobility than any other western industrialized country. If you are born poor, you will stay that way. If you are born in the middle class, you will stay there. That is the odds.
It isn't impossible to improve your economic outcome, just less probable here than in places with more socialism. Stings doesn't it?
How? Be specific. I want to know, with specifics, how my wealth and income has been effected. Numbers would be great.
Too busy taking classes that help me in the real world.
How what things are interrelated? You're losing track of the conversation here.
I have no inter-relation to anyone. I am my own island. You've thrown out some grand concepts here with the talks of morals and inter-relatedness.
I'm fine with yours being a moral argument, but you have to accept that there are strong currents of opposition to your morals. If its an economic argument, I'm not seeing the support for it so far.
Yes. I agree with this. But you are full of bull to claim it is the wealth inequity that is the problem. People are not poor due to other people being rich. People are poor for several reason. These include, but are not limited to lack of available jobs and bad habits related to responsibility.
That would be a lot more credible if you could actually address the concept of self-sustaining cycles with more than hand-waving.
I would say the sense of en lement is fostered by the very inequality you don't seem to care about. If you wan to solve that, you need to solve the inequality.
Feel free to address the things I have actually put forth.
Yes or no:The Rules of the Game
The path dependence dynamic accelerates when, as in the U.S., investment returns (capital gains and dividends) are taxed less than wages. Why would that be? The argument is that taxes discourage "investment" (which is often not investment at all, but speculation or gambling). However, why have higher taxes on wages to discourage work even more than investment?
The answer: The "Rules of the Game" are fixed. The old saying, "He who has the gold rules." is true. John Sterman describes this self-reinforcing feedback process in Business Dynamics, Systems Thinking for a Complex World:
The "Rules of the Game" evolve to favor those with wealth & power to give them even more wealth & power.
The larger and more successful an organization, the more it can influence the ins utional and political context in which it operates. Large organizations can change the rules of the game in their favor, leading to still more success-and more power. [The Figure at right] shows the resulting golden rule loop R1].The golden rule loop manifests in many forms. Through campaign contributions and lobbying, large firms and their trade associations can shape legislation and public policy to give them favorable tax treatment, subsidies for their activities, protection for their markets, price guarantees, and exemptions from liability.
Through overlapping boards, the revolving door between industry and government, and control of media outlets, influential and powerful organizations gain even more influence and power. In nations without a tradition of democratic government, these loops lead to self-perpetuating oligarchies where a tightly knit elite controls a huge share of the nation's wealth and income while the vast majority of people remain impoverished (e.g., the Philippines under Marcos, Indonesia under Suharto, and countless others). T
he elite further consolidates its control by subsidizing the military and secret police and buying high-tech weaponry and technical assistance from the developed world to keep the restive masses in check. Even in nations with strong democratic traditions these positive loops can overwhelm the checks and balances designed to ensure government of, by, and for the people.
For more on how the system is biased toward the wealthy: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (2007).
I've lost all hope of trying to convince such ideologues. No amount of facts and logic will suffice to penetrate such strong ideological blindness. The worldview that sees only individuals, in which they've invested so much, would collapse.
Do the wealthy have more resources to affect rules in their favor?
My parents came here from a country in the middle of a civil war. They had no money. Dad worked his ass off and thirty years later, he would be considered wealthy.
Self-sustaining cycles and venn diagrams do not dispute the simple fact that if you are smart and work hard, you will succeed in this country. If you are not smart or lazy or both, you will not. I don't see a problem with this simple maxim. do you?
Absolutely yes. Wouldn't you protect your wealth if you were rich?
If you say so.
I think you are blind to the cultural differences. In other countries, Parents of humble surroundings instill their children to reach for the stars. Most parents of humble surroundings here just blame everyone else, and tell their kids they will never get ahead. Your parents obviously blew that BS up your skirt. So do many other parents.
Do you think the disruptive kids in schools, that get no effective punishment will break out of their parents mold? Just one example. We used to punish, expel, flunk, etc. to kids in schools, and poor kids could become millionaires. It starts by the values we instill in people at a young age.
People are in general worse off, because so much wealth is sitting around doing nothing.
So the wealthy have more money to write rules in their favor. We agree on that.
Next question:
Do the rules that get written in favor of the wealthy give them more wealth that without the rules?
This may very well be true.
However, that is not a reason why wealth inequality, as such, is problematic.
There are a number of other factors that prevent the re-investment of such money. One of which (one that I think has more to do with anything else) is volatility in capital markets.
I don't know how to answer this without knowing: 1) what are these rules you're talking about? 2) which en y is writing them (are we talking about laws drafted by congress? economic rules? social mores? what?) 3) what does it mean to be wealthy?
I'm also confused as to how these rules "give" wealth? Is it like some sort of rich welfare?
I don't see the point in talking about these types of generalities, specifically when you fail to answer a number of questions and points I've raised.
And that's not even what we agree upon - we agreed upon affecting these "rules," not writing them. Don't mis-characterize my point.
It isn't doing nothing. Rich people don't keep it in their mattresses. Most is invested in some manner.
Where does the money come for you to borrow when buying a car, house, etc?
They do if we keep electing politicians that stab us in the back.
I agree a lot with this. I don't think that "passive" investment in the stock market should be penalized. I.e., if I invest 20% of my paycheck in stocks, I don't think that I should suffer a higher (i.e., the normal) tax rate, particularly when I'm doing so as a part of my savings for retirement. The way I'm looking at it, I'm providing for my own social security down the line by saving money now. I shouldn't be penalized for that.
I do agree that there are problems with the shenanigans played by bankers, traders, etc... that manipulate the market and with things generally. I don't think that should be rewarded.
The problem is: I don't see how you can have the one without the other.
How much more do you think YOUR taxes should be raised?
Interesting. I'll consider it more when I have a chance to read it closely.
One thing does pop out right off the bat: are comparisons of income inequality in emerging and/or third world economies similar/analogous to the US? If so, why?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
