The rich are very useful

Originally posted by generalissimo
I don't see a problem with this at all, as long as they pay their taxes there is no reason to despise these people.

This doesn't change anything at all, the heirs of slavers had no control over how their ancestors acquired their fortune, once again you come here with this idea that mistakes of the past are inherited by the children of those who are ...[text shortened]... nd the wicked ATY, I thought you had moved on from this simplistic mindset, guess I was wrong.

The sins of the fathers do not pass on to the sons...

But the profits do!

EDIT - I'm curious...the OP says the existence of wealth enhances competition...but how does it enhance competition by concentrating resources in a few hands? There's a LOT of human capital out there that is not contributing to that competition because of the existence of inherited stolen wealth.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The sins of the fathers do not pass on to the sons...

But the profits do!

EDIT - I'm curious...the OP says the existence of wealth enhances competition...but how does it enhance competition by concentrating resources in a few hands? There's a LOT of human capital out there that is not contributing to that competition because of the existence of inherited stolen wealth.

KN is right that deceit is common in free markets, but wrong that government is the best antidote. The best antidote is competitors. But how do competitors get started? Human capital is not enough. Capital investment is required -- enough to keep the company standing until it becomes profitable. Paris Hilton is not bright -- but she hires bright people to manage her fortune. And it doesn't really matter what the origin of that fortune is. Immoral gains will do the job as well as any other -- and provide the benefits of competition to all.

I'm not defending immoral gains, mind. Just saying that free markets have no problem maintaining beneficial levels of competition as long as the actors with concentrated amounts of capital (i.e. "the rich" and their advisors) spend more time looking for bright people with sound business plans than for tax havens.

Originally posted by spruce112358
KN is right that deceit is common in free markets, but wrong that government is the best antidote. The best antidote is competitors. But how do competitors get started? Human capital is not enough. Capital investment is required -- enough to keep the company standing until it becomes profitable. Paris Hilton is not bright -- but she hires bright people rs) spend more time looking for bright people with sound business plans than for tax havens.

Yes, capital investment is needed. That's why we need to make sure more people have capital to invest. It doesn't matter (by your logic) where they get it. Thus, rich people are a detriment. They suppress competition by denying capital to people with sound business plans.

If Paris Hilton hires one business manager, than ten people will hire ten business managers!

Who decides when a "level of competition" is "beneficial"?

Originally posted by rwingett
You claim competition is the agent which drives society. I say cooperation would drive it further, and with less strife. Cooperative strategies will ultimately yield better results than competitive ones.

Make no mistake, we do not need the rich.

You'll co-operate while I watch football?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yes, capital investment is needed. That's why we need to make sure more people have capital to invest. It doesn't matter (by your logic) where they get it. Thus, rich people are a detriment. They suppress competition by denying capital to people with sound business plans.

If Paris Hilton hires one business manager, than ten people will hire ten business managers!

Who decides when a "level of competition" is "beneficial"?

The dynamic of the ten just isn't the same. One, the cost of hiring ten business managers is not insignificant. Besides which, five just want to spend the money so they go to existing stores and buy existing products (which is economic activity -- but not increasing competition). And getting them all to agree on which business when none has enough to start a business by himself, so none really feel like taking the risk...well, you see the challenges.

BTW, I'm not arguing that we should try to further concentrate wealth in the hands of a few -- that seems to happen to a degree naturally, so there is no reason to encourage it.

I just don't think a sensible function of the tax code is to prevent people getting rich -- because having none of them is probably not a good idea for the reasons explained above.

Originally posted by rwingett
You claim competition is the agent which drives society. I say cooperation would drive it further, and with less strife. Cooperative strategies will ultimately yield better results than competitive ones.

Make no mistake, we do not need the rich.

Cooperation and competition are yin and yang. Neither is inherently superior.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The dynamic of the ten just isn't the same. One, the cost of hiring ten business managers is not insignificant. Besides which, five just want to spend the money so they go to existing stores and buy existing products (which is economic activity -- but not increasing competition). And getting them all to agree on which business when none has enough to st ...[text shortened]... h -- because having none of them is probably not a good idea for the reasons explained above.

I guess it depends on how you define "rich". If you're in the top 1%, you're rich regardless of whether you pay 35% or 70% as a nominal rate. Since we are so wealthy anyone with a $250k+ wage can already buy anything they possibly need, so the feeling of "richness" is not really affected by the nominal tax rate at all (since it keeps relative differences intact).

Think about how many material goods a median wage worker has access to these days: house, car, electricity, sanitation, decent education and health care, computers and other electronics... they'd be regarded as very rich 200 years ago, but they don't feel very rich because their relative income to others is just average.

Originally posted by spruce112358
KN is right that deceit is common in free markets, but wrong that government is the best antidote. The best antidote is competitors. But how do competitors get started? Human capital is not enough. Capital investment is required -- enough to keep the company standing until it becomes profitable. Paris Hilton is not bright -- but she hires bright people ...[text shortened]... rs) spend more time looking for bright people with sound business plans than for tax havens.

I still don't understand by what mechanism increasing income differences will result in more investment... can you explain?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I guess it depends on how you define "rich". If you're in the top 1%, you're rich regardless of whether you pay 35% or 70% as a nominal rate. Since we are so wealthy anyone with a $250k+ wage can already buy anything they possibly need, so the feeling of "richness" is not really affected by the nominal tax rate at all (since it keeps relative difference ...[text shortened]... , but they don't feel very rich because their relative income to others is just average.

I certainly agree with the second part. Louis XIV could only dream of the creature comforts the average worker has today.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I certainly agree with the second part. Louis XIV could only dream of the creature comforts the average worker has today.

did Louis XIV have flush toilets?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I still don't understand by what mechanism increasing income differences will result in more investment... can you explain?

Not income differences -- absolute wealth. When someone has "a lot" of cash -- they reach the point where they feel they can take a chance on a risky business venture. They may lose their shirt, they may break even, OR they might get it right.

Take the first example that jumps to mind -- CNN/Ted Turner.

Ted Turner inherited his father's billboard business. So by some people's arguments, we should have taxed that inheritance down to nothing (since Ted didn't arrive at it from the sweat of his own brow) and told him to go earn a new pile all by himself starting from zero.

Instead, TT took that $1 million business and, with a good idea and some money to back it, revolutionized the reporting media and created dozens of businesses and oodles of jobs all along the way. That's entrepreneurship.

I'm not saying every rich person does that -- but enough do that it adds hugely to the economic success of the society.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Not income differences -- absolute wealth. When someone has "a lot" of cash -- they reach the point where they feel they can take a chance on a risky business venture. They may lose their shirt, they may break even, OR they might get it right.

Take the first example that jumps to mind -- CNN/Ted Turner.

Ted Turner inherited his father's billboard ...[text shortened]... on does that -- but enough do that it adds hugely to the economic success of the society.

An example is not a mechanism. I can give you dozens of examples of businesses started by people who were able to afford an education thanks to redistributive tax policies.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Not income differences -- absolute wealth. When someone has "a lot" of cash -- they reach the point where they feel they can take a chance on a risky business venture. They may lose their shirt, they may break even, OR they might get it right.

Take the first example that jumps to mind -- CNN/Ted Turner.

I dont know why but to me there's a big difference between inheriting wealth in the form of cash and wealth in the form of a business. A business still has to be run and if you have no smarts it will probably be run into the ground without much effort. Plus businesses employ people so its not just like cash, it directly benefits people which from my perspective is the best use of money.

I think I'm not alone in this but its when businesses get really big and you start getting all the interplay between its share price and the markets expectations, and people who helped make the company what it is become expendable because the company wants to make its bottom line look more attractive by trimming 'costs'

I'm sure a lot of very rich men are quite nice to talk to and very interesting on a wide variety of topics, but somewhere along the way if their wealth gains a public interest as it often does, these very nice folk more often than not will act in very callous manner to ordinary, very decent, hard working folk.

Originally posted by spruce112358
[b]The rich are the mechanism that ensures strong competition in the free market.

I realize this is point so many socialists on RHP simply don't get -- I guess no one has ever explained it properly. It is important not to tax the rich disproportionately because of a number of facts:

- competition is necessary to force efficient use of resource ...[text shortened]... working class hard -- and which the government will be effectively powerless to prevent.[/b]

That's why America is so much greater than Europe.
I wish I only had 2 weeks paid vacation a year.

Originally posted by Wajoma
That is for me to decide, if you do not need rich folk I would not claim to speak for you, you would do well to return that same respect.

Point: Wajoma.