Even Americas richest men admit tax cut is for rich only

[Testosterone boy]

So your fix for the free market (which we are a facsimile of) would be more government control?

A free market does not give license to rampant white collar crime. We still have laws.


Government control? I don't know the solution to this problem right now.


Do you think it is OK to lay off thousands then turn around and give yourself a multi million dollar bonus? We are giving CEOs full license to print money and they are having a field day.

Are they 400 times more valuable than they were 20 years ago? Is this really a "free market".....or highway robbery?

 

[atlantabiolab]

You're using a lot of the catch phrases piopular among talk show hosts, but you are not actually demonstrating anything empirical.
For example, even under a flat tax, the tax burden borne by the wealthiest segment of society would be disproportinately high./quote]

MATT, this is true in all economic systems. I can't fathom one, except for monarchy, where those with more money contribute to government less than those with less money. Those with more money, spend more money. They are usually offset simply in sheer numbers.

You're using the same old class-warfare crap that got income tax passed in the first place. It's tired.

Agreed. A major reason for abolishing income taxation.

The idea that wealth has been redistruibuted downard is simply not true. The amount controlled by the top 1% has steadily increased over the last 25 years. More is being controlled by fewer people.

How could this not be true? If a man had no job, in a re-distribution free society, he would receive no money. In a society with re-distribution programs, he now gets money that was previously someone else's. While I agree that he is not equal in wealth as the rich man, he still has money that he would never have had. Do not confuse the idea of redistribution to equality, it does not have to extend to that end, only to the end of creating a perpetually dependant class.

As for the control of wealth in small numbers, this is a fact of life. As Jefferson and Adams stated, there is a "natural aristocracy" of man, and only in very controlled states would this be different. We have always had the Carnegie's, the Rockefeller's, the Ford's, etc., and there is nothing immoral about it.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

ABL

I never said there was anything wrong with it. But people point out that "the top 10% pay X % of taxes", as if that is justification for anything. That's always the case. The comments on this thread are by and large very unsophisticated.


Redistriubtion is a necesity for economic growth. The US government does OK at it but the policies are sometimes not well thought out.

 

[atlantabiolab]

A free market does not give license to rampant white collar crime. We still have laws.

And when laws are broken then they are to be convicted, but you are wanting convictions for things that are not unlawful. You wish to punish people because they make more money than Joe Blow. You wish to demonize those who are only "thinking of themselves".

Government control? I don't know the solution to this problem right now.


Do you think it is OK to lay off thousands then turn around and give yourself a multi million dollar bonus? We are giving CEOs full license to print money and they are having a field day.

And with no help from government, media attention to the outrage turned this around, in the case of United Airlines. In the case of Enron, the company is no longer in existence and members are being indicted. Show us where this happens in government affairs? Your solution, as shown by your zeal for Campaign Finance Reform, is more government intervention. Essentially control of business by a group that is an utter failure in their own financial affairs. Smart thinking.

Are they 400 times more valuable than they were 20 years ago? Is this really a "free market".....or highway robbery?

They are worth what someone will pay. If no one wants to pay them anything then they starve, if they want to pay them 10 million dollars, then they are millionaires. How many things in this world are the same price as it was 20 years ago? Why choose this one example, save your hatred for capitalism?

 

[atlantabiolab]

ABL

I never said there was anything wrong with it. But people point out that "the top 10% pay X % of taxes", as if that is justification for anything. That's always the case. The comments on this thread are by and large very unsophisticated.

I agree.

Redistriubtion is a necesity for economic growth. The US government does OK at it but the policies are sometimes not well thought out.

We disagree. I read you post that redistribution is necessary to prevent a large population of indigents. I doubt that the population would be that large if the context of society was changed to where your life is your responsibility. Starvation and poverty are great motivating forces. Although Malthus was wrong in many of his ideas, his arguments against the English Poor Laws of the 1800's are proving true: essentially if you feed the poor, you increase their numbers. This in no way removes private enterprises from aiding individuals, which exist presently even in a society that has handout programs from government.

As for real world example of the utter failure of giving money to the "poor": a family member who makes little bit of nothing per year, has two children from two different men, receives earned income tax credit, essentially giving her money, since it is greater than the amount of money paid in to taxes, and will not attempt to better her life, even refusing free college education, is receiving a settlement from an insurance claim. She told me that the first thing that she is doing with the money is buying some new titties. Yes! Nothing aids your life better than a set of new tits.

Then she told me that she was pissed that she wasn't going to get any money from the tax cuts.

 

[ariolanine]

i don't care. I'm allowed to not WANT to give my money to corperations, just like you're allowed to not want to give money to welfare programs. I don't see mom and pop drug and grocery stores getting government handouts to keep them afloat because they can't compete against wallmart and shit. it should be the same with corperations. other companies will take their place, that's how capitalism works..... unless you don't beleive in the free market.

I understand what you mean. But the point I'm trying to make is that the economy can absorb a ma and pa shop going out with no problem. If American Airlines ceases to exist, our economy will quickly go tits up. That's just the way it is with huge corporations. That's why Chrysler and all the others have been bailed out over the years. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand the logic behind it.

 

[ariolanine]

The return on poor people getting money is that itis a better alternative than a large class of truly indigent population. Think "opportunity costs".

One could also argue that the past 60 years of welfare have created that large class of scum.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

We disagree. I read you post that redistribution is necessary to prevent a large population of indigents. I doubt that the population would be that large if the context of society was changed to where your life is your responsibility. Starvation and poverty are great motivating forces.

Redistribution is necessary to prevent 2 things: a growing class of indigents, and the ossification of wealth in too few hands. The first, I agree, starvation and poverty are motivators, but this system also allows for suppression of wages by business owners...hence my now familiar refrain about capitalism leading to oligarchy.

Secondly, for an economy to grow, all must have an opportunity to try and attain wealth. Maybe not succeed, but try. If too much welath ossifies in small group of dynastic families, the oligarchy is hastended and the opportunities to obtain wealth are reduced or eliminated.

The ultimate outcome of a redistribution-less system is a system in which there is no way for the rich to get richer (they have everything) and no way for the poor to get richer (the rich control everything). The aforementioned starvation and poverty now become motivators to accept virtual slave labor. That is the outcome of the natural aristocracy without redistribution.

The means of redistribution seem to be at issue, not the need for a means of redistribution.

Although Malthus was wrong in many of his ideas, his arguments against the English Poor Laws of the 1800's are proving true: essentially if you feed the poor, you increase their numbers. This in no way removes private enterprises from aiding individuals, which exist presently even in a society that has handout programs from government.

In theory I agree with you.

As for real world example of the utter failure of giving money to the "poor": a family member who makes little bit of nothing per year, has two children from two different men, receives earned income tax credit, essentially giving her money, since it is greater than the amount of money paid in to taxes, and will not attempt to better her life, even refusing free college education, is receiving a settlement from an insurance claim. She told me that the first thing that she is doing with the money is buying some new titties. Yes! Nothing aids your life better than a set of new tits.

Then she told me that she was pissed that she wasn't going to get any money from the tax cuts.

This situation is repeated around the country daily, I am sure, and it is sad. There are a lot of causes here, and there are people who will never be able to pull themselves out of poverty.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

One could also argue that the past 60 years of welfare have created that large class of scum.

Only if one were an ignoramus. Same class existed pre-welfare. Poverty was not invented in 1933 or 1964.

 

[ariolanine]

Only if one were an ignoramus. Same class existed pre-welfare. Poverty was not invented in 1933 or 1964.

That's a bold and incorrect statement. Welfare rewards people for poor decisions. Welfare keeps people in poverty. People who would otherwise die or not be born, live until young adulthood where they continue the endless cycle. Welfare has decimated the black community in particular. Teenage pregnancy and single mothers exist in large numbers because of welfare. By your logic their would be more people living in poverty today if welfare had never existed.