Not at all - it's you who is irrelevant here. It's due to the input of capital BY rich people that the jobs were developed that created the middle class. Don't really know much about economic history (or economics at all, for that matter) do you? Study what things were like before the industrial revolution - that's just before the point that people began to invest money in things like factories and consumer goods. It later helped Ford create the assembly line - which created even more jobs and greatly expanded the middle class in the process. Later on, it gave birth to even more factories - additional auto makers, clothing (primarily cotton-based and much later there came synthetic textiles), drug companies, consumer electronics, etc. etc. All of those things were developed with the capital from people who HAD money - and each step of the way they expanded the middle class more and more. Sooner or later you are going to have to come to terms with the facts and truths I've explained to in this thread instead of trying to maintain your half-blind "version" of economics and the role cash capital actually played in it.
There is nothing about having factories that guarantees a middle class, that takes things like a minimum wage, social security, unions, child labor laws, public schools, government investment in infrastructure like railroads, bridges, and dams. "Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge." "I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. ... We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. ... [Otherwise], as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, ... and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers." "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." Thomas Jefferson
I don't get mad about their money til I see their dogs wearing diamond collars. I always think of how many children could be helped with the money that was spent on that damn collar.
How is that? Progressive taxation is unfair; if people are "revolutionizing", it's probably, once again, due to jealousy. America doesn't need to create equality; it just needs to provide an environment of freedom and free markets wherein people can create their own wealth, and not leech off of others. You need capital to create a business. Money doesn't come from thin air. The wealthy stimulate the economy very, very much; they are the ones that provide a great deal of the startup capital and investments for small businesses. And remember, most of them have already stimulated it by providing new enterprises and products. I see your point but you have to understand that it goes beyond labor; something isn't valuable just because there was alot of labor put into it. I could spend all day making mud pies and they wouldn't be very valuable at the end of the day, no matter how hard I worked; the labor theory of value is based on magical thinking. There is also the economy of scale, marketing, niche enterprising, and supply chains, and so much more to take into account. That explains why the janitor does more work but makes less than the CEO; besides, many CEO's were entrepreneurs and founders themselves, so they carried the business to its high position. And you generally need to be well educated to be a CEO of a corporation; you don't need to be very educated to clean up spills (though I do appreciate janitors, and I do not try to demean them). And where does the financing come from? Why, of course, from the wealthy! And banks and financial institutions. Wealth doesn't just appear out of thin air. Besides, you're right when you say most people don't use their own money to start businesses. They borrow it. Do you know what that means? That means they are taking a risk. Entrepreneurs are defined as people that enter into risky ventures in search of profit or benefit. Thus they take risks; which means, they are not, as you describe, "lazy" or whatever. If a business owner isn't on top of his game, his business will fail. Public schools can't compete with private schools. It's not about funding, since the US pours more into education than any other country already. It's about this absurd, unionized school system that is stagnant and isn't selective or tiered. Private schools are superior, no doubt; and they would be alot cheaper if the government stayed out of education altogether, though I am aware that that is not a very popular notion, and so if we were to eliminate public schooling, it would have to be very, very gradually and for a while, we'd have to provide vouchers.
Money does indeed come out of thin air. The banks borrow it from the government (where it is simply numbers in a computer), and loan it to businesses. If you can't find one wealthy investor, you can find a thousand less wealthy ones. How do you think people get wealthy in the first place?
Banks need to already have money, if they are private banks. They don't borrow from the government. Maybe you should educate yourself. Now you are arguing my position?
I'm not against people having wealth, but they should be subject to a progressive income tax. That's all I'm saying. It's fair because all Americans are subject to the same rules. If you work hard you will still be able to get rich, albeit slightly less so.
"Progressive" could mean anything; let's agree on this: as long as the top margin doesn't pay more than 12% in income tax, then we're good. And the lower margins can pay less. See? It's still progressive; just, LOW. That's what matters.
may sound that way.. if i had the option of buying a 2000usd honda or be given a mclaren F1 id day the car that i can buy over anything that makes it truly mine and i know i will take care of it better and it gives me the feeling of self accomplishment... kids out here are spoiled shits 80% of them who have to respect for there elders or any self modivation to do anything be complain about what others dont have. selfish prics really
Here are the reasons for resentment: 1.a/ If wealthy people are born wealthy, it is just damn good luck.And they didn't even do anything for it. 1.b/ If got lucky later on (lottery, marriage) it is still not skill, just luck. But at least they did something for it although probably little (buying a lottery ticket) 2. Wealth usually means privilege and who doesn't hate the privileged? Special treatment in the court of law, in restaurants, whatever.... 3. Wealth also helps in health. The amount of money you have can mean life or death in certain situations.
maybe because ppl think they are kinda snorty, but hey that could be just their personality, i mean it takes a lot of snort to screw someone over hahahaha!
I suggest 70%. That means a lower rate up to 3 million a year, and 70% applied to any money over that threshold. The rich are our tax base, that's what having a wealthy nation means, it enables it to modernize with public transportation, green energy, livable communities, clean water, sustainable cities, and the like. Do you realize that the top 10% own 80% of the wealth in the US? If you aren't born into a wealthy family, then you have quite a disadvantage in ever becoming wealthy. You won't have the education or resources to fulfill your potential. It is said your diet and the amount of intellectual stimulation you receive as a child will effect your brain development. The political right uses the exceptions to this situation, the people that were able to overcome adversity, as a tool to withhold resources to the other half of our nation, the lower classes. Certainly, if you apply yourself and try hard, you can accomplish anything, that's the hope. But practically, having rich parents goes a long way to ensuring your success later in life.
you have hit the nail on the head. for instance if you institured a second income tax of say 75% across the board and than paid that out according to say a pay out system of lowest quintile 1 share next 2 next 3 next 4 and last 5 the economy would probably expand. yes the guy who makes 50 million after tax now would walk away with around 13 or 14 million but all the people who would go from say 15k to 40k would drastically increase the economy not to mention the added bonuses of that communties have the money through private work to fix inner city neibhorhoods, fewer broken families, less crime(poverty is a factor for crime), and a vastly expanded subsection of the population able to compete while being at the fullest potential of their abilities.
though im sure the goverment could use the extra revinue wouldnt it be better to link CEO sallery to the lowest paid worker in the company? Bob Brown (leader of the greens) wanted to link it to the PMs salery (10 times the salery of the PM which currently would be 10 times 300,000 so 3,000,000) but im not sure this benifits anyone. Forcing CEOs to keep rates of pay up in the company would benifit people more.
the government would get the money from the second income tax. it would be redistrubuted back to the people in its entirety
You guys are totally nuts - especially you, dude. Appareantly, neither of you can even start to spell I-N-F-L-A-T-I-O-N!!!!!!!!! As a direct result of implementing your very stupid proposal, bread would jump to $8 a loaf and milk to $10 a gallon - and *everything* else would follow right along. You're already crying about paying 3-4 dollars for a gallon of gasoline, how would you like the $15/gal your idea would cause???!!! (Yeah, I knew you'd never thought that through in the least.)
true but if you increase base rates of pay you can lower the amount NEEDED by goverment AND increase goverment revinue. Lets look at one company (real company but i dont want to name it), the current lowest salery in the company (as far as im aware) is $6 per hour. That means that if you link CEO salery to lowest income (say 100 time though personaly i perfer something like 20 or 50 times) then the most this CEO could earn would be 600 per hour. That equates to 7,488,000 per year (based on a 40 hour week) which actually isnt much less than what he is currently earning (8,000,000). Now if we cut that down to 20 times he would be earning 249,600 per year. So we have raised share dividendsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but if we plug in something in the middle like 3mil you could raise the base rate in the company to $72 per hour in order to alow the CEO that rate of pay. The goverment can then tax those people more because they are earning more and there would be less need to supliment there income with goverment services there by increasing revinue and cutting expenses
ah the holdout for the ritch comes out, "oh no, we cant pay people a decent wage because that causes inflation!!!!!!!". This is exactly WHY the poor are owed so much because goverment policy is DESIGNED to keep them out of work because as soon as you get close to zero unemployment the reserve banks hike up intrest rates to KEEP them unemployed.
remember your dealing with someone who thinks that the poor family suddenly being able to buy 2 3 dollar loaves of bread will suddenly make them cost 8. the idea that poor people being able to live at a level above the poverty line will dramitically increase prices is absurd. inflation is caused by the increase of wages/income in total(well one of the reasons). if the same level of total wages/income exists any effect on inflation would be negligible.
That's just plain dumb, Asguard! If you do not understand that tripling wages (for no increase in production) would immediately lead to HYPER inflation, then you need to go back to school all over again.:bugeye:
