Originally posted by scottishinnzPlease point out where I have said that 'they are being sent to the poor house'. If you can I'll give you a thousand dollars.
God, listen to you. You'd think 40% tax on someone earning a half million a year is sending them to the poor house! They're still rich - but their taxes can be used to stop a child starving to death.
I will assert that such tax regimes discourage people from being more wealthy and that is a shame. Rich folk i.e. folk that are good at making money don't just stuff their mattress with it and swim in it (you should not consider those Scrooge McDuck comics as your only source of economics), generally they re-invest and use their money to make more.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
Before going to this link, a word of warning, the 'C' (capitalism) word will be mentioned and on the right hand side of the page there is a picture of Rand, try not to be toooo shocked ok. Fransicos money speech is well worth a read.
The next fallacy of lefty types; There's only one pie and we're all deperately trying to grab for our piece of it.
Wrong. There are new pies being made all the time. The pie represents wealth, in the begining there was no wealth, then one day Og sharpened up a stone attached it to a stick and then there was wealth. He did it for homself. There are people good at making pies and the best we can do is get out of their way.
Originally posted by WajomaIf there is a tax of 40% on earning over, say, $100K, that wouldn't deter people from making more- they would just nt get as much as they would without the tax.
Please point out where I have said that 'they are being sent to the poor house'. If you can I'll give you a thousand dollars.
I will assert that such tax regimes discourage people from being more wealthy and that is a shame. Rich folk i.e. folk that are good at making money don't just stuff their mattress with it and swim in it (you should not consider ...[text shortened]... f. There are people good at making pies and the best we can do is get out of their way.
Anyway, what reason is there to earn more money than $100k. It is enough to have a comfortable life. Any more is just being greedy. I would support a 90% tax on earnings over 100k.
Wealth is really only made at the expense of someone else. People can't create new pies without taking off someone else.
Look at america. It consumes huge amounts of the world's fossil fuels- increasing global warming, which will affect those in poorer country the worst.
To every acrtion there is a reaction. Your actions impact on others.
2 edits
Originally posted by Wajoma[note:- this is an edit of a post made in the Liberalism is Madness thread]
I will assert that such tax regimes discourage people from being more wealthy and that is a shame...[The] fallacy of lefty types; There's only one pie and we're all deperately trying to grab for our piece of it. Wrong. There are new pies being made all the time.
There are people good at making pies and the best we can do is get out of their way.
Do you think America would be a better place if you scrapped antitrust laws? Should people like the Rockerfellers have been left alone and should there only be one fuel company in the states today called Standard Oil? Should Microsoft be allowed to ameliorate all of its competition into its own corporate structure?
Whichever way you cut it, take away the bleeding hearts who would want fairness, and you will soon live to see your low cost Capitalist Consumer Utopia begin to disappear as all that interfering governmental red tape is removed and companies are free to become as powerful as they want to be stamping out their competition such that you and I will begin to pay top dollar for our goods as the monopolies start to form and the realization begins to dawn that in the absence of competition there would be little incentive for them not to exploit the consumer for as much profit as they could exact for their goods. No point talking about alternatives if you did not want to pay their price. As any competition established itself in the market place without governmental interference to protect the consumer by 'punishing' the strong as you would construct it, what mechanism would prevent the monopoly power from driving their competition to the wall? Why would competition survive in a free market economy? The only protection currently on offer to the consumer from the aggregation of great corporate wealth and dominance of markets rests with government! Governmental interference actually insures competition.
Ultimately radical cons with their no government is good half baked philosophies would end up ushering in an unregulated monopolistic paradise that would bear all the hallmarks of a command economy, which was the greatness of Russian Style Communism under Stalin and Kruschev.
Originally posted by kmax87Calm down you're becoming as rabid as wedgehead.
[note:- this is an edit of a post made in the Liberalism is Madness thread]
Do you think America would be a better place if you scrapped antitrust laws? Should people like the Rockerfellers have been left alone and should there only be one fuel company in the states today called Standard Oil? Should Microsoft be allowed to ameliorate all of its competition ...[text shortened]... command economy, which was the greatness of Russian Style Communism under Stalin and Kruschev.
Given the direction of this thread I think you already know the answer to the question about antitrust laws.
Standard Oil:
Writes Dominick Armentano [professor of economics at the University of Hartford],
The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market — and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly."
Should Microsoft be allowed to ameliorate all of it's competition into it's own corporate structure?
If you come up with some programme or system and Microsoft make a bid for it you should be able to sell it to them if you so desire. As long as Microsoft don't send any goons around to threaten you, in the manner of criminals and the IRD, it's your product to dispose of as you wish.
No-one owes you a computer or OS, If Microsoft did decide to buy up all it's competition, then the competition would have to be willing sellers. The scenario is ludicrous so let's carry it even further into lalaland, If they then decided to close up shop and not sell another product that would be their right. If the want to inflate the price 5000 times then that would be their right, the consumer would then need to decide if they really wanted a computuer.
But it is, as I have said, lalaland, absolute monopolies just do not happen in the real world not because of guvamint regs that punish people for being too successful. They don't exist because as soon as they grab a big enough share to start controlling prices the small guys come in and undercut.
btw, while ameliorate is a big word you have misused it in your question.
Originally posted by wedgehead2I explained quite clearly the pie/wealth analogy. People trade with each other then they create new wealth. Taking is not neccesary, in fact it is known as theft, stealing, defrauding and a bunch of other nasty words. It is immoral.
If there is a tax of 40% on earning over, say, $100K, that wouldn't deter people from making more- they would just nt get as much as they would without the tax.
Anyway, what reason is there to earn more money than $100k. It is enough to have a comfortable life. Any more is just being greedy. I would support a 90% tax on earnings over 100k.
Wealth ...[text shortened]... r country the worst.
To every acrtion there is a reaction. Your actions impact on others.
Yes, when I go to work my actions impact on others, in a good way, in a voluntary way, in a mutually beneficial way.
Your crack about a 90% tax over 100k has consigned you to class clown status, and that is the very unfunny class clown.
Originally posted by wedgehead2Wrong, no money in the bank other than a monthly checking account. I have liquidated my holdings other than my small house and vehicles and basically live hand to mouth. I am one of the richest people I know, I have time. Free at last! Free at last! Free from working to support my brothers!!!
I'm guessing that your money is in a bank, rather than on your property- therefore a government could take it... like that.
Your guns can't protect against the threat of high taxes!
Run away! 😀😲
Thanks for the incentive "brother".
My guns won't work on taxes, but I can gurauntee they work on revenuers.
You may consider running in such a situation. I've chosen to stand and fight.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaShould Microsoft be allowed to ameliorate all of its competition into its own corporate structure?
Calm down you're becoming as rabid as wedgehead.
btw, while ameliorate is a big word you have misused it in your question.
Should Microsoft be able to claim that by agglomerating everything in sight into its corporate structure that it was 'making things better'
for all concerned. 'Ameliorate' was used as a transitive verb to describe the justification by which companies such as Microsoft usually try and convince legislators that its actions in swallowing up its competitors are in the public interest and should not be obstructed.
Start up costs in certain industries would always favour the formation of anti-competitive practices as ownership of front companies become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The upshot is that workers across the board are usually the first to be sacrificed to pay for the takeovers and buyouts that go hand in hand with that concentration.
We have not seen a truly free market operate in a large enough market to fully test the hypothesis that a few small canny operators would always surface to challenge the supremacy of the would be monopolists.
btw- I'm not into the soporific effects of that self induced stupor that results when one deludedly reflects on how well one is doing relative to ones contemporaries and smugly concludes it was all of our own doing . As such I will wait till I am long over the hill racing to my dotage before I'll think about calming down.
Originally posted by WajomaWell, its obvious i'm not american- I actually see 90% on earnings over 100k as one of the few ways to reduce inequality. An alternative is a 100% "death tax", as you americans call it.
I explained quite clearly the pie/wealth analogy. People trade with each other then they create new wealth. Taking is not neccesary, in fact it is known as theft, stealing, defrauding and a bunch of other nasty words. It is immoral.
Yes, when I go to work my actions impact on others, in a good way, in a voluntary way, in a mutually beneficial way.
Yo ...[text shortened]... tax over 100k has consigned you to class clown status, and that is the very unfunny class clown.
As to your claim that new wealth can be created- that can only be done through either getting more natural resources or advancing science. How does the trade relate into this debate?
When you go to work, you think you benefit others. In what way? Whats your job?
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2Why is it fair that I should have to work harder to support my socialist brothers, just so they can end up having the same quality of life that I do?
Why is it fair that those people are forced to work far harder than people better off than themselves, just in order to end up having the same quality of life? You telling me a kid born in a poor country, who starve to death before even living to 1, do they have the same chances as the son of George Hebert Walker Bush. I think not.
Your neo-con ignorance is deeply disturbing.
Your attempt to force people to support others is deeply disturbing.
Originally posted by monster truckWhat reason is there not to pull together, for the good of humanity. The modern world I, and many other socialists, see as a world of greed, inequality and ssuffering. We belive that something can be done about it. Whats wrong with a belif in a progress towards a better future?
Take another look. That's exactly what socialism is all about.
If you think everyone in the boat is all going to "pull together" you haven't spent much time out in the real world.
Originally posted by monster truckYou aren't the one working harder, THEY are, to get the same quality of life. That is the problem. Just because someone is wose off than you doesn't neccessarily mean they have worked less hard.
Why is it fair that I should have to work harder to support my socialist brothers, just so they can end up having the same quality of life that I do?
Originally posted by monster truckStand and fight against equality. What a true american hero. Do you really feel work is a repressive institution? Do you dislike helping other people? What do you do with your free time, other than spouting right wing nonsesne on this site?
Wrong, no money in the bank other than a monthly checking account. I have liquidated my holdings other than my small house and vehicles and basically live hand to mouth. I am one of the richest people I know, I have time. Free at last! Free at last! Free from working to support my brothers!!!
Thanks for the incentive "brother".
My guns won't wo ...[text shortened]... revenuers.
You may consider running in such a situation. I've chosen to stand and fight.