Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
US income inequality at record high
- Thread starter Tony Flow MMMM
- Start date
- Status
Yes...a very large, very bloated government job-creation program, socialist and fascist in it's construct and implementation. Capitalism is incompatible with force and makes militaries unnecessary for anything but defending against invasions. Socialism and fascism are the systems that require the plundering of other nations for their resources.
Tl;dr: militaries are anti-capitalist and anti-American.
Here's my thought on the subject. Paying taxes is not the same as getting screwed over. The idea of taxation-as-punishment is just an empty debate tactic, whether it comes from the tea party or the radical left.
Likewise, it's worth keeping an eye on fairness, but don't try to get too precise about it, or you'll just end up going around in circles or creating ever more ridiculous definitions of fairness.
Instead, let taxation be for raising money to run the government -- whatever that amounts to. My preference would be for the gov't to provide a fairly extensive list of services, not radically different than what we've got right now, but strengthened in areas such as education and health care, plus a more robust safety net. If some activities dump a large cost on society or on the government, then tax those activities. Given that a complex society will discover and exploit loopholes, the tax system has to evolve in order to chase those loopholes. That's unavoidable.
Your preferences might be different.
Well said. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
Here is one thing we should all get straight. "Share holders" are not the few wealthy people with a gagillion dollar bank account in Lower Slombovia. They are just about all of us. Anyone with a 401K, 403B, IRA, etc is a stock owner/share holder. That includes my mother, a retired teacher, and my father, a retired paper mill maintenance man. Neither of them are greedy. And neither of them wish anyone any ill will. They do, however, rejoice when their retirement accounts go up rather than down in value.
But for may of you to sit there on your pedestal and act as though "share holders" are a bunch of greedy bastards who have lunch meetings every day for the purpose of deciding if there is any way to cash in on, or make a profit off of the dead bodies of poor people they killed today is not only melodramatic and immature, but just stupid.
I love it when my stocks go up. But I hate it when poor people are hungry. The two are not connected in most cases. Through social associations I tend to run in wealthier circles than our (married) combined incomes would suggest. I have been to some pretty swanky events. Most wealthy businessmen just do their jobs very well. Most are smart. Most work hours you would not believe. Most are on the boards of multiple charities. Most are very generous with their money.
I hope we continue to grow the population of millionaires in this country. They buy stuff. They have things built. They employ many more people than just in their own companies. I hope middle class people continue to be employed by yacht makers, construction companies that build 15,000+ square foot houses, and $300,000 cars. I hope the wealthy continue to donate ballparks, wings of hospitals, and libraries. I hope that when I am done with school I will either market my own products to very wealthy people or even WORK for one who will only grow and not go out of business.
Making them less wealthy will do ZERO to affect the poor other than the loss of even more jobs. And, again, I see no reason why anyone in this country HAS to be poor. And I have yet to read any convincing evidence that there ARE any people here who MUST remain poor.
But for may of you to sit there on your pedestal and act as though "share holders" are a bunch of greedy bastards who have lunch meetings every day for the purpose of deciding if there is any way to cash in on, or make a profit off of the dead bodies of poor people they killed today is not only melodramatic and immature, but just stupid.
I love it when my stocks go up. But I hate it when poor people are hungry. The two are not connected in most cases. Through social associations I tend to run in wealthier circles than our (married) combined incomes would suggest. I have been to some pretty swanky events. Most wealthy businessmen just do their jobs very well. Most are smart. Most work hours you would not believe. Most are on the boards of multiple charities. Most are very generous with their money.
I hope we continue to grow the population of millionaires in this country. They buy stuff. They have things built. They employ many more people than just in their own companies. I hope middle class people continue to be employed by yacht makers, construction companies that build 15,000+ square foot houses, and $300,000 cars. I hope the wealthy continue to donate ballparks, wings of hospitals, and libraries. I hope that when I am done with school I will either market my own products to very wealthy people or even WORK for one who will only grow and not go out of business.
Making them less wealthy will do ZERO to affect the poor other than the loss of even more jobs. And, again, I see no reason why anyone in this country HAS to be poor. And I have yet to read any convincing evidence that there ARE any people here who MUST remain poor.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
1) I am a stock holder of a variety of companies through the various retirement accounts to which I contribute, and while I suppose that I am voting with my money as to which funds I contribute to, there is a difference between that more passive level and a higher level of actual engagement that those who actively control larger percentages engage in. There is a difference between your average 401K holder and the hostile takeover types.
2) If you're looking for bang for your buck in terms of spending money, the poor do it much, much better in terms of everyone's economic interests. Yes, they buy less yachts, but they spend a much higher percentage of what they have (basically, everything) unlike the rich who are much more likely to remove their money from the public use for long periods at a time.
and whose fault is that?....the rich, like everyone else, behave rationally.
change the tax laws so that they can profit more from having their money work than not, and that money will come out from under the mattress.
change the policies (or the policy makers) so that we have a growing economy rather than stagnant, and, likewise
Is the military, at it's current size, really needed? It's a higher chunk of the GDP than most other countries, plus it's total isn't that far from the combined spending of every other military on the planet
A military for defensive purposes would still be socialist in nature. Unless, that is, you wanted private companies protecting your borders.
With all possible respects It's my opinion that making the rich poorer does nothing to the hungry poor. The fact is it makes them more hunger. Simply because the rich, even in their immense generosity, will have less money to give to charities.
It's my opinion that taking from the "rich" takes as much or more away from the "poor".
and whose fault is that?....the rich, like everyone else, behave rationally.
change the tax laws so that they can profit more from having their money work than not, and that money will come out from under the mattress.
change the policies (or the policy makers) so that we have a growing economy rather than stagnant, and, likewise
Wowza1 You da man!
and whose fault is that?....the rich, like everyone else, behave rationally.
change the tax laws so that they can profit more from having their money work than not, and that money will come out from under the mattress.
change the policies (or the policy makers) so that we have a growing economy rather than stagnant, and, likewise
Dave, to flesh out the above comment a little more, how would you change the tax system to get that money into the economy? Not badgering, just would like to hear your opinion.
How much exactly do they have to have before it comes out from under the mattress? Considering the fact that they have now more than they have ever before.
Supply-side (which is exactly what you are proposing here) is a proven failure. Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs and do not stimulate the economy. Demand creates jobs. Nothing else.
Sooooooooo the rich don't spend enough to "help" the poor? You have your head buried in percentages and not actual dollars. I love it when people will argue a point like this.
"Sure, that wealthy guy donated $312 million dollars to build the new wing of the hospital, and he just had a 10,000 square foot house build for $3.3 million in construction and materials, and he just built a new factory right outside of town that employs 212 people, and he runs three charities, but he has the nerve to KEEP 30% of his income in stupid BANKS where the public can't benefit from it! Whereas that entire poor neighborhood just spent 100% of their money on groceries and rent, totaling about $15,000 all told, so THEY helped the economy more."
Percentages mean squat. They are stats used for argument. ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS are what matter when economic development, debt, and overall wealth are measured. To say that our national debt "only went up 1.1% last year as opposed to 1973 when it went up 4%" means nothing. If that 1.1% is $4 trillion and the 4% was $85 million then the percentage argument kind of flies out the window. (Totally made up figures only meant as an example and not a political statement.) I simply don't care what the percentage is if our debt goes up trillions of dollars (regardless of who is in charge). The same goes for my wealthy guy analogy. I don't CARE what percentage of his income he either blows or donates in my community. If it is MILLIONS of dollars, we'll take it. Because it does GOOD THINGS for the local economy and community. And his keeping a gagillion MORE dollars in the bank doesn't HURT our community.
Percentages indeed.
One of the bigger things would probably be to simplify the tax code and close a lot of the loopholes in the system that high paid tax attorneys and accountants know how to take advantage of. The US Tax code is currently over 70,000 pages in length.
Just replace the terms "rich" with "middle class" in your post.
I would think making someone poorer would have a more detrimental impact on someone middle class than someone with more means. No?
Sooooooooo the rich don't spend enough to "help" the poor? You have your head buried in percentages and not actual dollars. I love it when people will argue a point like this.
"Sure, that wealthy guy donated $312 million dollars to build the new wing of the hospital, and he just had a 10,000 square foot house build for $3.3 million in construction and materials, and he just built a new factory right outside of town that employs 212 people, and he runs three charities, but he has the nerve to KEEP 30% of his income in stupid BANKS where the public can't benefit from it! Whereas that entire poor neighborhood just spent 100% of their money on groceries and rent, totaling about $15,000 all told, so THEY helped the economy more."
Percentages mean squat. They are stats used for argument. ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS are what matter when economic development, debt, and overall wealth are measured. To say that our national debt "only went up 1.1% last year as opposed to 1973 when it went up 4%" means nothing. If that 1.1% is $4 trillion and the 4% was $85 million then the percentage argument kind of flies out the window. (Totally made up figures only meant as an example and not a political statement.) I simply don't care what the percentage is if our debt goes up trillions of dollars (regardless of who is in charge). The same goes for my wealthy guy analogy. I don't CARE what percentage of his income he either blows or donates in my community. If it is MILLIONS of dollars, we'll take it. Because it does GOOD THINGS for the local economy and community. And his keeping a gagillion MORE dollars in the bank doesn't HURT our community.
Percentages indeed.
With every possible respect allow me to comment. Keeping money in the banks does help people. It provides money for them to borrow and buy houses to live in.
Thank the "rich" for providing so many people with the money to buy their houses!
- Status
