Even Americas richest men admit tax cut is for rich only

[rsnoble]

Re: Re: Even Americas richest men admit tax cut is for rich only

And let me guess.. You approve of income redistribution as long as it's to the 'less fortunate'.

Let me educate you. A reduction in one's tax rate does not take any money from anyone - it only allows you to keep more of what you earn.

Also, your % are so off it's pathetic.

Quit looking in other people's pockets and you will have so much more time to devote to earning more.

taking a break from the topic, man id like to stick my tongue in her ass!!! is she for sale?

 

[atlantabiolab]

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.

"It is wrong to assume that there prevails within a market economy, an economy not hampered and sabotaged by government interference, a general tendency toward the formation of monopoly. It is a grotesque distortion of the true state of affairs to speak of 'monopoly capitalism' instead of 'monopoly interventionism' and of 'private caartels' instead
of 'government-made cartels.'"
-German economist, Ludwig von Mises

Market capitalism does not give ease to the formation of such oligarchies, government intervention into the market does. Price fixing, subsidies, protectionist laws, etc. all hamper the competitive nature of the market and have been the key to most American monopolies.

Read von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman if you have a chance.

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.

Being more idealistic, I tend to disagree with the idea of creating more problems to ease other problems. I disfavor the idea of accepting redistribution programs, which fuel government expansion like nothing else, save war, to offset the problem of government meddling in the markets, and in the long run will favor more government intervention into the market. I also disagree with the idea that the redistribution programs prevent a growing population of dependants. Pull these programs and see how fast and how many become "healthy" who were "disabled" and find jobs when none could be found. Will everyone find a job? Will everyone be capable of working? Never, and in reality it never will.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

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.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. All I said was trhat poverty was not invented in 1933 or 1964. The life cycles of poor people may have been different, but they still existed.

You went off on a tangent. Take your issues elsewhere.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Market capitalism does not give ease to the formation of such oligarchies, government intervention into the market does. Price fixing, subsidies, protectionist laws, etc. all hamper the competitive nature of the market and have been the key to most American monopolies.

Read von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman if you have a chance.

here's my exciting rebuttal: that quote is wrong. It just goes against the reality of interaction of businesses with more money against businesses with less.

I don't disagree that the government's role in business today is harmful, but some limited intervention is needed.

Being more idealistic, I tend to disagree with the idea of creating more problems to ease other problems. I disfavor the idea of accepting redistribution programs, which fuel government expansion like nothing else, save war, to offset the problem of government meddling in the markets, and in the long run will favor more government intervention into the market. I also disagree with the idea that the redistribution programs prevent a growing population of dependants. Pull these programs and see how fast and how many become "healthy" who were "disabled" and find jobs when none could be found. Will everyone find a job? Will everyone be capable of working? Never, and in reality it never will.

Well, if you don't agree that unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy, then this point is not debatale. The means of redistribution are presently horrid. But the perceived need for redistribution all comes down to whether or not you accept the trend toward oligarchy.

I do, and with ZERO redistribution, I maintain that the middle class would disappear on a shiort timeline, and the standard of living for the non wealthy would stabilize at working class levels.

 

[SV2]

The complexity of the market system and a highly specialized division of labor will prevent oligarchy.. People who are not business owners can demand very high salaries for work that cannot simply be duplicated.. The free hand is working, don't be so paranoid.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

People who are not business owners can demand very high salaries for work that cannot simply be duplicated..

This is only true while there is competition among business owners for talent. Entrench a few dominant orgainzations (oligarchy) and competition stops. So too do the high salaries.

I am a business owner. I'd love oligarchy, as long as I am among the oligarchs

 

[atlantabiolab]

This is only true while there is competition among business owners for talent. Entrench a few dominant orgainzations (oligarchy) and competition stops. So too do the high salaries.

I am a business owner. I'd love oligarchy, as long as I am among the oligarchs

We disagree, but if you get the chance, read works by some of the authors that I mentioned. von Mises and Hayek primarily; excellent economic philosophers.

 

[curling]

Let's say it is for the rich. So what? I mean if rich people pay most of the tax anyway shouldn't they get a cut too? I mean its like a bad thing for someone to be rich in this country. What a bunch a socialist. Why don't ya'll just move china or russia and stuff parasiting off people that are smarter and work harder than you do.

 

[the nature boy]

Let's say it is for the rich. So what? I mean if rich people pay most of the tax anyway shouldn't they get a cut too? I mean its like a bad thing for someone to be rich in this country. What a bunch a socialist. Why don't ya'll just move china or russia and stuff parasiting off people that are smarter and work harder than you do.

curling, please don't dumb down this thread with posts like this. thank you.

 

[SV2]

This is only true while there is competition among business owners for talent. Entrench a few dominant orgainzations (oligarchy) and competition stops. So too do the high salaries.

I am a business owner. I'd love oligarchy, as long as I am among the oligarchs

LOL... we are so far away from 2-3 large companies running everything... that's almost a joke Matt... Wait.. It is a joke. Take one or two even three very large companies like GE, Ford and Walmart.. together they dont even employ 1% of the population of the US...

The oligarchy argument is total crap... talk about theoretical???

Lets talk real world bud.