Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
Participant[quote=asianautica]
I love how you say “Welcome to life” and then want the rich to subsidize the poor because it’s not fair. I totally agree that life’s not fair, so deal with it. We all know the system and the system doesn’t prevent anyone from becoming rich, if you want to make more money either work twice as hard to get the capital or invest and save more diligently. We all can become rich. I know many immigrants who came here with nothing more than the clothes on the back and many of them became rich. They did it by extreme hard work, live extremely frugal, and study very hard. All this can be done within 15-20 years. So don’t tell me it can’t be done as a minority. Increasing taxes as you get richer just make it that much harder for those who are in the upper middle class trying to break free of the middle class and have their money working for them instead of them working for their money.[/quote]You’re missing the point. The point I’m making is not that it is not at this point possible or not possible for hard work to pay off. It certainly is.
The point I am making is that under our current system, being “fair” INEVITABLY leads to an inequitable distribution between rich and poor, making it more and more difficult for that “vertical social mobility” you point out to occur, as more money and power accumulate in the hands of the extremely well off, and less and less is paid towards those closer to the bottom. As more and more capital accumulates at the top, it becomes more difficult for those closer to the bottom to break into the top – entry barriers rise (startup fees for businesses, educational fees, etc), entry level jobs pay less and less, more mid level jobs are outsourced, and numerous other issues arise.
This has already had significant effects. In my parents generation, the US was truly the “Land of Opportunity” – at that time, the US was one of the TOP ranked countries in terms of vertical social mobility. In ONE generation it has dropped from being one of the top ranked, to being one of the bottom ranked (ahead of only the UK in the major western democracies). Why? Because fewer and fewer jobs exist (relative to population size) which allow for upward mobility, education (a key component to upward mobility) is FAR more expensive now, less and less opportunities arise for small businesses (much fewer “Main St” type businesses can operate in the era of the Big Box extreme low pay/low margin stores), etc.
And increasing taxes as you get richer is INFINITELY better than increasing taxes as you get poorer, and is still a better option than increasing taxes all around. Why? Because if those people having a hard time breaking into the very upper crust from upper middle can’t do it with a slight tax increase, then they CERTAINLY couldn’t make the jump from the middle-middle to the upper-middle class…and the poor, well, lets just forget about them entirely.
The rich subsidize the poor and the middle class because it is the TRANSFER of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich which leads to the rich being rich IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Participant[quote=asianautica]
I love how you say “Welcome to life” and then want the rich to subsidize the poor because it’s not fair. I totally agree that life’s not fair, so deal with it. We all know the system and the system doesn’t prevent anyone from becoming rich, if you want to make more money either work twice as hard to get the capital or invest and save more diligently. We all can become rich. I know many immigrants who came here with nothing more than the clothes on the back and many of them became rich. They did it by extreme hard work, live extremely frugal, and study very hard. All this can be done within 15-20 years. So don’t tell me it can’t be done as a minority. Increasing taxes as you get richer just make it that much harder for those who are in the upper middle class trying to break free of the middle class and have their money working for them instead of them working for their money.[/quote]You’re missing the point. The point I’m making is not that it is not at this point possible or not possible for hard work to pay off. It certainly is.
The point I am making is that under our current system, being “fair” INEVITABLY leads to an inequitable distribution between rich and poor, making it more and more difficult for that “vertical social mobility” you point out to occur, as more money and power accumulate in the hands of the extremely well off, and less and less is paid towards those closer to the bottom. As more and more capital accumulates at the top, it becomes more difficult for those closer to the bottom to break into the top – entry barriers rise (startup fees for businesses, educational fees, etc), entry level jobs pay less and less, more mid level jobs are outsourced, and numerous other issues arise.
This has already had significant effects. In my parents generation, the US was truly the “Land of Opportunity” – at that time, the US was one of the TOP ranked countries in terms of vertical social mobility. In ONE generation it has dropped from being one of the top ranked, to being one of the bottom ranked (ahead of only the UK in the major western democracies). Why? Because fewer and fewer jobs exist (relative to population size) which allow for upward mobility, education (a key component to upward mobility) is FAR more expensive now, less and less opportunities arise for small businesses (much fewer “Main St” type businesses can operate in the era of the Big Box extreme low pay/low margin stores), etc.
And increasing taxes as you get richer is INFINITELY better than increasing taxes as you get poorer, and is still a better option than increasing taxes all around. Why? Because if those people having a hard time breaking into the very upper crust from upper middle can’t do it with a slight tax increase, then they CERTAINLY couldn’t make the jump from the middle-middle to the upper-middle class…and the poor, well, lets just forget about them entirely.
The rich subsidize the poor and the middle class because it is the TRANSFER of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich which leads to the rich being rich IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Participant[quote=asianautica]
I love how you say “Welcome to life” and then want the rich to subsidize the poor because it’s not fair. I totally agree that life’s not fair, so deal with it. We all know the system and the system doesn’t prevent anyone from becoming rich, if you want to make more money either work twice as hard to get the capital or invest and save more diligently. We all can become rich. I know many immigrants who came here with nothing more than the clothes on the back and many of them became rich. They did it by extreme hard work, live extremely frugal, and study very hard. All this can be done within 15-20 years. So don’t tell me it can’t be done as a minority. Increasing taxes as you get richer just make it that much harder for those who are in the upper middle class trying to break free of the middle class and have their money working for them instead of them working for their money.[/quote]You’re missing the point. The point I’m making is not that it is not at this point possible or not possible for hard work to pay off. It certainly is.
The point I am making is that under our current system, being “fair” INEVITABLY leads to an inequitable distribution between rich and poor, making it more and more difficult for that “vertical social mobility” you point out to occur, as more money and power accumulate in the hands of the extremely well off, and less and less is paid towards those closer to the bottom. As more and more capital accumulates at the top, it becomes more difficult for those closer to the bottom to break into the top – entry barriers rise (startup fees for businesses, educational fees, etc), entry level jobs pay less and less, more mid level jobs are outsourced, and numerous other issues arise.
This has already had significant effects. In my parents generation, the US was truly the “Land of Opportunity” – at that time, the US was one of the TOP ranked countries in terms of vertical social mobility. In ONE generation it has dropped from being one of the top ranked, to being one of the bottom ranked (ahead of only the UK in the major western democracies). Why? Because fewer and fewer jobs exist (relative to population size) which allow for upward mobility, education (a key component to upward mobility) is FAR more expensive now, less and less opportunities arise for small businesses (much fewer “Main St” type businesses can operate in the era of the Big Box extreme low pay/low margin stores), etc.
And increasing taxes as you get richer is INFINITELY better than increasing taxes as you get poorer, and is still a better option than increasing taxes all around. Why? Because if those people having a hard time breaking into the very upper crust from upper middle can’t do it with a slight tax increase, then they CERTAINLY couldn’t make the jump from the middle-middle to the upper-middle class…and the poor, well, lets just forget about them entirely.
The rich subsidize the poor and the middle class because it is the TRANSFER of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich which leads to the rich being rich IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Participant[quote=asianautica]
I love how you say “Welcome to life” and then want the rich to subsidize the poor because it’s not fair. I totally agree that life’s not fair, so deal with it. We all know the system and the system doesn’t prevent anyone from becoming rich, if you want to make more money either work twice as hard to get the capital or invest and save more diligently. We all can become rich. I know many immigrants who came here with nothing more than the clothes on the back and many of them became rich. They did it by extreme hard work, live extremely frugal, and study very hard. All this can be done within 15-20 years. So don’t tell me it can’t be done as a minority. Increasing taxes as you get richer just make it that much harder for those who are in the upper middle class trying to break free of the middle class and have their money working for them instead of them working for their money.[/quote]You’re missing the point. The point I’m making is not that it is not at this point possible or not possible for hard work to pay off. It certainly is.
The point I am making is that under our current system, being “fair” INEVITABLY leads to an inequitable distribution between rich and poor, making it more and more difficult for that “vertical social mobility” you point out to occur, as more money and power accumulate in the hands of the extremely well off, and less and less is paid towards those closer to the bottom. As more and more capital accumulates at the top, it becomes more difficult for those closer to the bottom to break into the top – entry barriers rise (startup fees for businesses, educational fees, etc), entry level jobs pay less and less, more mid level jobs are outsourced, and numerous other issues arise.
This has already had significant effects. In my parents generation, the US was truly the “Land of Opportunity” – at that time, the US was one of the TOP ranked countries in terms of vertical social mobility. In ONE generation it has dropped from being one of the top ranked, to being one of the bottom ranked (ahead of only the UK in the major western democracies). Why? Because fewer and fewer jobs exist (relative to population size) which allow for upward mobility, education (a key component to upward mobility) is FAR more expensive now, less and less opportunities arise for small businesses (much fewer “Main St” type businesses can operate in the era of the Big Box extreme low pay/low margin stores), etc.
And increasing taxes as you get richer is INFINITELY better than increasing taxes as you get poorer, and is still a better option than increasing taxes all around. Why? Because if those people having a hard time breaking into the very upper crust from upper middle can’t do it with a slight tax increase, then they CERTAINLY couldn’t make the jump from the middle-middle to the upper-middle class…and the poor, well, lets just forget about them entirely.
The rich subsidize the poor and the middle class because it is the TRANSFER of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich which leads to the rich being rich IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Participant[quote=asianautica]
I love how you say “Welcome to life” and then want the rich to subsidize the poor because it’s not fair. I totally agree that life’s not fair, so deal with it. We all know the system and the system doesn’t prevent anyone from becoming rich, if you want to make more money either work twice as hard to get the capital or invest and save more diligently. We all can become rich. I know many immigrants who came here with nothing more than the clothes on the back and many of them became rich. They did it by extreme hard work, live extremely frugal, and study very hard. All this can be done within 15-20 years. So don’t tell me it can’t be done as a minority. Increasing taxes as you get richer just make it that much harder for those who are in the upper middle class trying to break free of the middle class and have their money working for them instead of them working for their money.[/quote]You’re missing the point. The point I’m making is not that it is not at this point possible or not possible for hard work to pay off. It certainly is.
The point I am making is that under our current system, being “fair” INEVITABLY leads to an inequitable distribution between rich and poor, making it more and more difficult for that “vertical social mobility” you point out to occur, as more money and power accumulate in the hands of the extremely well off, and less and less is paid towards those closer to the bottom. As more and more capital accumulates at the top, it becomes more difficult for those closer to the bottom to break into the top – entry barriers rise (startup fees for businesses, educational fees, etc), entry level jobs pay less and less, more mid level jobs are outsourced, and numerous other issues arise.
This has already had significant effects. In my parents generation, the US was truly the “Land of Opportunity” – at that time, the US was one of the TOP ranked countries in terms of vertical social mobility. In ONE generation it has dropped from being one of the top ranked, to being one of the bottom ranked (ahead of only the UK in the major western democracies). Why? Because fewer and fewer jobs exist (relative to population size) which allow for upward mobility, education (a key component to upward mobility) is FAR more expensive now, less and less opportunities arise for small businesses (much fewer “Main St” type businesses can operate in the era of the Big Box extreme low pay/low margin stores), etc.
And increasing taxes as you get richer is INFINITELY better than increasing taxes as you get poorer, and is still a better option than increasing taxes all around. Why? Because if those people having a hard time breaking into the very upper crust from upper middle can’t do it with a slight tax increase, then they CERTAINLY couldn’t make the jump from the middle-middle to the upper-middle class…and the poor, well, lets just forget about them entirely.
The rich subsidize the poor and the middle class because it is the TRANSFER of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich which leads to the rich being rich IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Participant[quote=asianautica][quote=SDEngineer]
It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.[/quote]
Did you even read the example I’ve made of some couple who does work 2X harder than most and are being considered as rich?I do agree that CEO these days are getting paid way more than their employee and they also get paid to fail as well. That’s not right. But the point at hand is increasing tax on those who you consider as rich (those making >$250k). I can say with certainty those who work 2x as hard as you and I deserve every $ they make just as you and I do. Try working 6 12 hours shift as a RN and tell me if that’s not hard work.
[/quote]I certainly did read your example. That does not void any of the points I made. You’re absolutely right – if someone DOES in fact work twice as hard as someone else, they do deserve more income. However, they ARE getting more income, just not twice as much (although even under the existing tax plan WITHOUT Obama’s planned increases, they would STILL be not getting twice as much). That may be marginally unfair, but certainly not completely unfair. Welcome to life.
It is also not right that someone makes a ton of money for never having done anything in their life either, and from the point of view of someone who has earned everything they’ve gotten, that’s not just marginally unfair, that is extraordinarily unfair. It is also unfair that someone who DOES work twice as hard as someone else, but lacks political or social connections that someone else has, is passed over for promotions or other potential income which goes to the other person who didn’t work nearly as hard, but had those connections (helloooooo George Bush). Again, welcome to life.
My point is simply that capitalism does NOT in general reward work, it rewards wealth. It CAN reward work (as in your example), but it does NOT require such (for example, if someone salaried worked twice as many hours, that salaried person would NOT be getting twice as much money). A progressive tax is simply one method of preventing a very bad long term outcome of capital accumulation in a very small segment of the population.
It is NOT fair, it is, in fact, deliberately BIASED. However, it is biased in the opposite direction of the natural bias of a capitalist economic system, and acts as a check on the accumulation of capital.
Participant[quote=asianautica][quote=SDEngineer]
It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.[/quote]
Did you even read the example I’ve made of some couple who does work 2X harder than most and are being considered as rich?I do agree that CEO these days are getting paid way more than their employee and they also get paid to fail as well. That’s not right. But the point at hand is increasing tax on those who you consider as rich (those making >$250k). I can say with certainty those who work 2x as hard as you and I deserve every $ they make just as you and I do. Try working 6 12 hours shift as a RN and tell me if that’s not hard work.
[/quote]I certainly did read your example. That does not void any of the points I made. You’re absolutely right – if someone DOES in fact work twice as hard as someone else, they do deserve more income. However, they ARE getting more income, just not twice as much (although even under the existing tax plan WITHOUT Obama’s planned increases, they would STILL be not getting twice as much). That may be marginally unfair, but certainly not completely unfair. Welcome to life.
It is also not right that someone makes a ton of money for never having done anything in their life either, and from the point of view of someone who has earned everything they’ve gotten, that’s not just marginally unfair, that is extraordinarily unfair. It is also unfair that someone who DOES work twice as hard as someone else, but lacks political or social connections that someone else has, is passed over for promotions or other potential income which goes to the other person who didn’t work nearly as hard, but had those connections (helloooooo George Bush). Again, welcome to life.
My point is simply that capitalism does NOT in general reward work, it rewards wealth. It CAN reward work (as in your example), but it does NOT require such (for example, if someone salaried worked twice as many hours, that salaried person would NOT be getting twice as much money). A progressive tax is simply one method of preventing a very bad long term outcome of capital accumulation in a very small segment of the population.
It is NOT fair, it is, in fact, deliberately BIASED. However, it is biased in the opposite direction of the natural bias of a capitalist economic system, and acts as a check on the accumulation of capital.
Participant[quote=asianautica][quote=SDEngineer]
It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.[/quote]
Did you even read the example I’ve made of some couple who does work 2X harder than most and are being considered as rich?I do agree that CEO these days are getting paid way more than their employee and they also get paid to fail as well. That’s not right. But the point at hand is increasing tax on those who you consider as rich (those making >$250k). I can say with certainty those who work 2x as hard as you and I deserve every $ they make just as you and I do. Try working 6 12 hours shift as a RN and tell me if that’s not hard work.
[/quote]I certainly did read your example. That does not void any of the points I made. You’re absolutely right – if someone DOES in fact work twice as hard as someone else, they do deserve more income. However, they ARE getting more income, just not twice as much (although even under the existing tax plan WITHOUT Obama’s planned increases, they would STILL be not getting twice as much). That may be marginally unfair, but certainly not completely unfair. Welcome to life.
It is also not right that someone makes a ton of money for never having done anything in their life either, and from the point of view of someone who has earned everything they’ve gotten, that’s not just marginally unfair, that is extraordinarily unfair. It is also unfair that someone who DOES work twice as hard as someone else, but lacks political or social connections that someone else has, is passed over for promotions or other potential income which goes to the other person who didn’t work nearly as hard, but had those connections (helloooooo George Bush). Again, welcome to life.
My point is simply that capitalism does NOT in general reward work, it rewards wealth. It CAN reward work (as in your example), but it does NOT require such (for example, if someone salaried worked twice as many hours, that salaried person would NOT be getting twice as much money). A progressive tax is simply one method of preventing a very bad long term outcome of capital accumulation in a very small segment of the population.
It is NOT fair, it is, in fact, deliberately BIASED. However, it is biased in the opposite direction of the natural bias of a capitalist economic system, and acts as a check on the accumulation of capital.
Participant[quote=asianautica][quote=SDEngineer]
It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.[/quote]
Did you even read the example I’ve made of some couple who does work 2X harder than most and are being considered as rich?I do agree that CEO these days are getting paid way more than their employee and they also get paid to fail as well. That’s not right. But the point at hand is increasing tax on those who you consider as rich (those making >$250k). I can say with certainty those who work 2x as hard as you and I deserve every $ they make just as you and I do. Try working 6 12 hours shift as a RN and tell me if that’s not hard work.
[/quote]I certainly did read your example. That does not void any of the points I made. You’re absolutely right – if someone DOES in fact work twice as hard as someone else, they do deserve more income. However, they ARE getting more income, just not twice as much (although even under the existing tax plan WITHOUT Obama’s planned increases, they would STILL be not getting twice as much). That may be marginally unfair, but certainly not completely unfair. Welcome to life.
It is also not right that someone makes a ton of money for never having done anything in their life either, and from the point of view of someone who has earned everything they’ve gotten, that’s not just marginally unfair, that is extraordinarily unfair. It is also unfair that someone who DOES work twice as hard as someone else, but lacks political or social connections that someone else has, is passed over for promotions or other potential income which goes to the other person who didn’t work nearly as hard, but had those connections (helloooooo George Bush). Again, welcome to life.
My point is simply that capitalism does NOT in general reward work, it rewards wealth. It CAN reward work (as in your example), but it does NOT require such (for example, if someone salaried worked twice as many hours, that salaried person would NOT be getting twice as much money). A progressive tax is simply one method of preventing a very bad long term outcome of capital accumulation in a very small segment of the population.
It is NOT fair, it is, in fact, deliberately BIASED. However, it is biased in the opposite direction of the natural bias of a capitalist economic system, and acts as a check on the accumulation of capital.
Participant[quote=asianautica][quote=SDEngineer]
It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.[/quote]
Did you even read the example I’ve made of some couple who does work 2X harder than most and are being considered as rich?I do agree that CEO these days are getting paid way more than their employee and they also get paid to fail as well. That’s not right. But the point at hand is increasing tax on those who you consider as rich (those making >$250k). I can say with certainty those who work 2x as hard as you and I deserve every $ they make just as you and I do. Try working 6 12 hours shift as a RN and tell me if that’s not hard work.
[/quote]I certainly did read your example. That does not void any of the points I made. You’re absolutely right – if someone DOES in fact work twice as hard as someone else, they do deserve more income. However, they ARE getting more income, just not twice as much (although even under the existing tax plan WITHOUT Obama’s planned increases, they would STILL be not getting twice as much). That may be marginally unfair, but certainly not completely unfair. Welcome to life.
It is also not right that someone makes a ton of money for never having done anything in their life either, and from the point of view of someone who has earned everything they’ve gotten, that’s not just marginally unfair, that is extraordinarily unfair. It is also unfair that someone who DOES work twice as hard as someone else, but lacks political or social connections that someone else has, is passed over for promotions or other potential income which goes to the other person who didn’t work nearly as hard, but had those connections (helloooooo George Bush). Again, welcome to life.
My point is simply that capitalism does NOT in general reward work, it rewards wealth. It CAN reward work (as in your example), but it does NOT require such (for example, if someone salaried worked twice as many hours, that salaried person would NOT be getting twice as much money). A progressive tax is simply one method of preventing a very bad long term outcome of capital accumulation in a very small segment of the population.
It is NOT fair, it is, in fact, deliberately BIASED. However, it is biased in the opposite direction of the natural bias of a capitalist economic system, and acts as a check on the accumulation of capital.
Participant[quote=kev374][quote=asianautica] Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?[/quote]
Amen to that! what we don’t need is socialism. America has become great because of the philosophy that the harder you work the more rewards you get to keep. Sadly these socialists are trying to take from those who work 2x as hard and give to those that put in only minimal amount of effort.
We need FAIR taxation across the board. Sure, exempt the lowest income that is needed to subsist from income taxes but AFTER that it should be flat tax. Everybody pays their share as a percentage equally.
[/quote]It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.
In fact, purely capitalistic systems do not reward work. They reward CAPITAL. Indeed, the drive of a capitalistic system is to REDUCE the amount of costs incurred by work, to maximize the amount of reward to capital (e.g. cut expenses by doing such things as offshoring salaries to less expensive countries, to increase the “bottom line”, and thus dividends available to the stockholders, who’s only work in the company is in putting CAPITAL into it).
This, of course, leads to serious inequities, where the top 1% don’t actually need to work at all to continue to make enormous amounts of money (and many don’t – and those that do, frequently work “bankers hours”…like George W. Bush has pretty much his entire life). Some actually did work their way up to it…many others though, inherited the wealth, and have done little or no productive work at all in the economy, yet receive an enormous benefit and continuing income from simply having capital to invest, that they never worked at all for.
Over the long term, a pure capitalist system tends to concentrate the vast majority of capital into the hands of a very few (something that happened in the late 1800’s, and is currently happening again today, as we witness with every year the gap between the rich and the poor widening – CEO’s, for example, now make 300x the average wage – a tenfold increase in the disparity between the have’s and the have-not’s in less than a generation).
A progressive tax is only part of the solution needed to keep the excesses of capitalism in check, but it is certainly needed. Capitalism is NOT inherently fair, and to balance it, frequently there need to be checks on it which are equally unfair in the opposite direction.
Participant[quote=kev374][quote=asianautica] Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?[/quote]
Amen to that! what we don’t need is socialism. America has become great because of the philosophy that the harder you work the more rewards you get to keep. Sadly these socialists are trying to take from those who work 2x as hard and give to those that put in only minimal amount of effort.
We need FAIR taxation across the board. Sure, exempt the lowest income that is needed to subsist from income taxes but AFTER that it should be flat tax. Everybody pays their share as a percentage equally.
[/quote]It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.
In fact, purely capitalistic systems do not reward work. They reward CAPITAL. Indeed, the drive of a capitalistic system is to REDUCE the amount of costs incurred by work, to maximize the amount of reward to capital (e.g. cut expenses by doing such things as offshoring salaries to less expensive countries, to increase the “bottom line”, and thus dividends available to the stockholders, who’s only work in the company is in putting CAPITAL into it).
This, of course, leads to serious inequities, where the top 1% don’t actually need to work at all to continue to make enormous amounts of money (and many don’t – and those that do, frequently work “bankers hours”…like George W. Bush has pretty much his entire life). Some actually did work their way up to it…many others though, inherited the wealth, and have done little or no productive work at all in the economy, yet receive an enormous benefit and continuing income from simply having capital to invest, that they never worked at all for.
Over the long term, a pure capitalist system tends to concentrate the vast majority of capital into the hands of a very few (something that happened in the late 1800’s, and is currently happening again today, as we witness with every year the gap between the rich and the poor widening – CEO’s, for example, now make 300x the average wage – a tenfold increase in the disparity between the have’s and the have-not’s in less than a generation).
A progressive tax is only part of the solution needed to keep the excesses of capitalism in check, but it is certainly needed. Capitalism is NOT inherently fair, and to balance it, frequently there need to be checks on it which are equally unfair in the opposite direction.
Participant[quote=kev374][quote=asianautica] Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?[/quote]
Amen to that! what we don’t need is socialism. America has become great because of the philosophy that the harder you work the more rewards you get to keep. Sadly these socialists are trying to take from those who work 2x as hard and give to those that put in only minimal amount of effort.
We need FAIR taxation across the board. Sure, exempt the lowest income that is needed to subsist from income taxes but AFTER that it should be flat tax. Everybody pays their share as a percentage equally.
[/quote]It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.
In fact, purely capitalistic systems do not reward work. They reward CAPITAL. Indeed, the drive of a capitalistic system is to REDUCE the amount of costs incurred by work, to maximize the amount of reward to capital (e.g. cut expenses by doing such things as offshoring salaries to less expensive countries, to increase the “bottom line”, and thus dividends available to the stockholders, who’s only work in the company is in putting CAPITAL into it).
This, of course, leads to serious inequities, where the top 1% don’t actually need to work at all to continue to make enormous amounts of money (and many don’t – and those that do, frequently work “bankers hours”…like George W. Bush has pretty much his entire life). Some actually did work their way up to it…many others though, inherited the wealth, and have done little or no productive work at all in the economy, yet receive an enormous benefit and continuing income from simply having capital to invest, that they never worked at all for.
Over the long term, a pure capitalist system tends to concentrate the vast majority of capital into the hands of a very few (something that happened in the late 1800’s, and is currently happening again today, as we witness with every year the gap between the rich and the poor widening – CEO’s, for example, now make 300x the average wage – a tenfold increase in the disparity between the have’s and the have-not’s in less than a generation).
A progressive tax is only part of the solution needed to keep the excesses of capitalism in check, but it is certainly needed. Capitalism is NOT inherently fair, and to balance it, frequently there need to be checks on it which are equally unfair in the opposite direction.
Participant[quote=kev374][quote=asianautica] Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?[/quote]
Amen to that! what we don’t need is socialism. America has become great because of the philosophy that the harder you work the more rewards you get to keep. Sadly these socialists are trying to take from those who work 2x as hard and give to those that put in only minimal amount of effort.
We need FAIR taxation across the board. Sure, exempt the lowest income that is needed to subsist from income taxes but AFTER that it should be flat tax. Everybody pays their share as a percentage equally.
[/quote]It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.
In fact, purely capitalistic systems do not reward work. They reward CAPITAL. Indeed, the drive of a capitalistic system is to REDUCE the amount of costs incurred by work, to maximize the amount of reward to capital (e.g. cut expenses by doing such things as offshoring salaries to less expensive countries, to increase the “bottom line”, and thus dividends available to the stockholders, who’s only work in the company is in putting CAPITAL into it).
This, of course, leads to serious inequities, where the top 1% don’t actually need to work at all to continue to make enormous amounts of money (and many don’t – and those that do, frequently work “bankers hours”…like George W. Bush has pretty much his entire life). Some actually did work their way up to it…many others though, inherited the wealth, and have done little or no productive work at all in the economy, yet receive an enormous benefit and continuing income from simply having capital to invest, that they never worked at all for.
Over the long term, a pure capitalist system tends to concentrate the vast majority of capital into the hands of a very few (something that happened in the late 1800’s, and is currently happening again today, as we witness with every year the gap between the rich and the poor widening – CEO’s, for example, now make 300x the average wage – a tenfold increase in the disparity between the have’s and the have-not’s in less than a generation).
A progressive tax is only part of the solution needed to keep the excesses of capitalism in check, but it is certainly needed. Capitalism is NOT inherently fair, and to balance it, frequently there need to be checks on it which are equally unfair in the opposite direction.
-
AuthorPosts
