Ethics of wealth and taxation

[Tiassa]

The Ethics of Wealth and Taxation

Last I checked, the top 5% of wage earners shoulder over half of the tax burden. How much exactly SHOULD the wealthy pay? (Immane1)

They pay more total, obviously, but they pay less percentage wise (JPS}

The top 5% are not "wage earners", they are just plain wealthy. (JusticeUSA)

This topic is a splinter from American Media, in the WE&P forum.

We hear about "tax cuts for the wealthy" almost as a cure-all for the United States' domestic ills. And while many people point to Reagan's tax breaks in the 1980s as a sign of success, taxes did in fact, go up in order to support that economy. Furthermore, trickle-down and its descendant economic mutations depend on the existence of a considerable poverty class in order to keep manufacturing and service prices low, and the American economic machine has led to a Cold War and a number of hot conflicts, and has contributed much to the disturbing events with which we now deal.

But beyond all that, Americans worry more about whether or not they're paying their "fair share" of taxes. So a few numbers derived from the United Nations and the US government, pulled from Wealth Distribution Statistics (1999)

- As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent.

- From 1983-1995 only the top five percent of households saw an increase in their net worth while only the top 20 percent experienced an increase in their income.

- Wealth projections through 1997 suggest that 86 percent of stock market gains between 1989 and 1997 went to the top ten percent of households while 42 percent went to the most well-to-do one percent.

- Between 1970 and 1990, the typical American worked an additional 163 hours per year. That's equivalent to adding an additional month of work per year - for the same or less pay.

- Between 1970 and 1990, the typical American worked an additional 163 hours per year. That's equivalent to adding an additional month of work per year - for the same or less pay.

- In 1996, the Census Bureau reported record-level inequality, with the top fifth of U.S. households claiming 48.2 percent of national income while the bottom fifth gets by on 3.6 percent.

- Spending on luxury goods grew by 21 percent from 1995 to 1996 while overall merchandise sales grew only 5 percent.

This last number is one of the reasons trickle-down doesn't work. The additional wealth at the top goes to luxury items, which form only a small portion of the commercial market and represent a small portion of the working economy. There was a great Doonesbury sequence about that in March, 1989.

And one last number that I just can't avoid:

- Adjusting for inflation, the net worth of the median American household fell 10 percent between 1989 and 1997, declining from $54,600 to $49,900. The net worth of the top one percent is now 2.4 times the combined wealth of the poorest 80 percent.

These are the reasons that you should tax the wealthy.

In the heart of the Reagan economy, conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke took a trip along the Volna River, I think it was (the essay appears, I believe, in Republican Party Reptile). He spent a few words on some Western Communists who sycophantically plied the Russians with all manner of question about real wages and relative wealth. It was a point of ridicule, and we see why: such considerations are bad for an economy which protects its wealthiest.

A socialist sponsored statistic from the 1990s indicated a stark truth about wealth. Compare the wealth of a CEO of a major corporation to that of the lowest-paid employee contributing to the company. In about 1997 I saw a note on Disney that put Eisner's "wages" in the thousands of dollars an hour compared to the pennies an hour paid the women in Honduras who made "Pocahontas" pajamas. Yes, it's a statistic designed to make a point, but it doesn't change the fact that the wealthy can better afford to contribute more to any taxation structure than the poor, and as we see from the 1990s, more than the middle class, as well.

So I guess the question comes down to what is the ethical way to tax?

Is one's contribution merely a number, or is it a substantial part of their worth?

For instance, a UN number pertaining to the world:

- UNDP calculates that an annual 4 percent levy on the world's 225 most well-to-do people (average 1998 wealth: $4.5 billion) would suffice to provide the following essentials for all those in developing countries: adequate food, safe water and sanitation, basic education, basic health care and reproductive health care. At present, 160 of those individuals live in OECD countries; 60 reside in the United States.

Four per cent of four and a half billion is a tall check for any one person to write. Furthermore, the nature of the economy is such that it's not guaranteed that any of, say, the 60 Americans would have that much cash available to them without threatening the stability of at least one company they've invested in.

However, while such a levy is not in any sense practical, it does provide a moment for reflection on the power of wealth distribution.

Given the history of American "trickle-down economics" and its mutant offspring, I don't see how "tax cuts for the wealthy" will do squat for the economy in the long run. Considering the nature of the American "recession" (manufactured and barely there) and a mere glimpse at the degree of doctoring necessary in the ledgers to pull off the Economy That Bush Killed (admittedly, it might possibly have actually been dying, but euthanasia isn't legal in the US, although there is an allegorical argument that it was an "assisted suicide") support for coddling the wealthiest of society grows more dubious.

But that's my take on it.

I mean, didn't Enron once file a tax return showing that the US government owed them money?

Yeah, let's put even more money into the hands of that ilk. That'll fix things..

Sound off. Pitch your two cents. Cut your cheese.

I mean ... er ... yeah.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[hypewaders]

I wish I could relax, and just let Dubyanomics run its course. We all know what happens when any structure gets too top-heavy.

 

[spacemanspiff]

this may be a stupid question

if you consider the very uneven distribution of wealth in the US the problem, I'm not sure how taxing the wealthy will fix this. The money isn't going to the poor is it?

 

[justiceusa]

I read a long time ago that the wealth gained by the Reagan tax cuts, for the most part, went to establish factories in foreign countries. There is no reason to believe that the current round of tax cuts will be any different. It is very obvious that the Chinese don't pay taxes here.

We can tax that top 5% at twice the rate that they are being taxed now and they will still be the top 5%.

 

[wesmorris]

Eh, a "slant tax" (mostly like a flat tax, but with a slant) is the only way to go in my opinion, the values at the top and bottom are the question. I think 0% below 20,000 ramped (with a constant slope) to 45% at 150,000 (and above) would be as fair as anything I can think up. The remaining question is: Does that generate enough revenue to maintain the "required" level of government? Does that bring up relavent issues?

 

[jps]

I think all income over 500,000 should be taxed 100%

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
I think all income over 500,000 should be taxed 100%

Then I think you're a thug and a thief.

 

[justiceusa]

wesmorris

Your slant tax idea sounds good to me. But we would have to eliminate the kind of loop holes that allowed Enron to file for a tax refund.

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Then I think you're a thug and a thief.

If a government has laws that allow for small groups of individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth(more than they could ever possibly use)
while others starve to death, then in my opinion, being a thug and a thief should be considered morally acceptable.

Why draw a distinction between accumulating wealth by running a corporation that abuses its workers and destroys the environment(and contributes to untold numbers of deaths) and robbing a bank for wealth. Well, both involve living off of other people's hard work, but the former does a lot more damage to society.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
If a government has laws that allow for small groups of individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth(more than they could ever possibly use)

You are obviously like, very young or your maturity was somehow stunted. You get what you earn. If you figure out how to earn a shitload of money, the government should take their fair share of it. "if a government allows", what is that shit? What does the fucking government have to do with it? You are displaying a very naive perspective.

Originally posted by jps

while others starve to death, then in my opinion, being a thug and a thief should be considered morally acceptable.

You're Robin Hood eh? Well, that's noble I suppose, but there's really little excuse besides pride that anyone actually starves nowadays (in the US anyway). Some probably do go hungry, but they are usually the kids of people who had kids and couldn't provide for them, and couldn't figure out how to put themselves in a position to negotiate for a better salary.

Originally posted by jps

Why draw a distinction between accumulating wealth by running a corporation that abuses its workers and destroys the environment(and contributes to untold numbers of deaths) and robbing a bank for wealth.

Let me see. Did you have a clue that people work for corporations VOLUNTARILY? There is nothing holding anyone's nose to a particular grindstone, it's just that a lot of people are too stupid to realize they can take control of their lives. I sympathize with them, but shouldn't be punished for their stupidity if I happen to be successfull. I make less that 50,000/yr, but I'd like to think if I'm ever successful enough to make a gazillion bucks, I'd get to KEEP some of it. Maybe I can feed some hungry people with it? You can trust me on this, if you imposed your tax, you would do FAR more harm than good. For instance, I would be quite motivated to make less and less based on where you set the limit. If you put it at 500,000 I'll see if I can make 499,999 bucks this year. This would horrible stifle everything, since you'd NEVER collect that 100% tax you think is such a great idea.

Originally posted by jps

Well, both involve living off of other people's hard work, but the former does a lot more damage to society.

That is just naive. If you're willing to suck my dick 24/7 for 20 bucks a month why should I stop you? I couldn't ever do it, I figure you pay someone what they're worth. Think about it though, if a fucking MONKEY could do your job... are you worth more than $5/hr?

One of the biggest problems in the work force (from the perspective of the worker) is that they generally have zero understanding of the relationship they have with their employer. Employers understand this relationship inherently and will use it to their advantage to the extent that the employee will let them. If the employee has a clue or for instance, something valuable to offer a company AND minimal negotiation skills, they can't be wronged. Teach a man to fucking FISH dude, don't just feed him and pity his lack of fishing skillz.

Sorry for railing on you a bit, but I used to think like you and it was because I didn't understand economics or the world very well. I'm a little embarassed about that, so I rail on that side of me when it appears. You happened to make it appear. Regardless, you're just naive. Hang with it and later, you won't be.

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris
You are obviously like, very young or your maturity was somehow stunted. You get what you earn. If you figure out how to earn a shitload of money, the government should take their fair share of it. "if a government allows", what is that shit? What does the fucking government have to do with it? You are displaying a very naive perspective.

How do you define earn? Is sitting and smoking cigars while the money you inherited from your parents accumulates interest "earning"? In my opinion someone who works hard at robbing banks is earning their money more than someone in the above situation.
What does the government have to do with it? I would think that would be obvious, but for the sake of the naive and immature I'll try and explain.
The government creates an environment in which businesess are able to prosper. This includes everything from providing protection for its assets in the form of enforcement of laws against theft, to granting subsidys during hard times, to printing the very money that is in question. Without a government it would be impossible for people to be wealthy.

Originally posted by wesmorris
You're Robin Hood eh? Well, that's noble I suppose, but there's really little excuse besides pride that anyone actually starves nowadays (in the US anyway). Some probably do go hungry, but they are usually the kids of people who had kids and couldn't provide for them, and couldn't figure out how to put themselves in a position to negotiate for a better salary.

The US is a small part of the world. The fact that people starve in other countries is in part because of our governments policies.
Why should children be punished for their parents mistakes?

Originally posted by wesmorris
Let me see. Did you have a clue that people work for corporations VOLUNTARILY? There is nothing holding anyone's nose to a particular grindstone, it's just that a lot of people are too stupid to realize they can take control of their lives. I sympathize with them, but shouldn't be punished for their stupidity if I happen to be successfull. I make less that 50,000/yr, but I'd like to think if I'm ever successful enough to make a gazillion bucks, I'd get to KEEP some of it. Maybe I can feed some hungry people with it? You can trust me on this, if you imposed your tax, you would do FAR more harm than good. For instance, I would be quite motivated to make less and less based on where you set the limit. If you put it at 500,000 I'll see if I can make 499,999 bucks this year. This would horrible stifle everything, since you'd NEVER collect that 100% tax you think is such a great idea.

People work for corporations because they need money to live. Is it your opinion that people working in sweatshops could, if they were smarter, could somehow "take control of their lives"?
I don't believe in instituting a 100% tax in the framework of our current government. As I've described in other threads, I believe that our government needs to be replaced with something more equitable and democratic, in which the issue of taxing wouldn't come up as no one would be permitted to make such huge sums of money in the first place.

Originally posted by wesmorris
That is just naive. If you're willing to suck my dick 24/7 for 20 bucks a month why should I stop you? I couldn't ever do it, I figure you pay someone what they're worth. Think about it though, if a fucking MONKEY could do your job... are you worth more than $5/hr?

People will subject themselves to a lot in order to survive. Its no necessary for anyone to be in a position where they would be forced to do such things to survive.
Can you think of any jobs that a monkey could do?

Originally posted by wesmorris
One of the biggest problems in the work force (from the perspective of the worker) is that they generally have zero understanding of the relationship they have with their employer. Employers understand this relationship inherently and will use it to their advantage to the extent that the employee will let them. If the employee has a clue or for instance, something valuable to offer a company AND minimal negotiation skills, they can't be wronged. Teach a man to fucking FISH dude, don't just feed him and pity his lack of fishing skillz.

Whether or not one has an understanding of their relationship with their employer is irrelevant. The power rests with the employer. This system is maintained in part by the federal reserves intentional maintance of a large unemployment rate.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Sorry for railing on you a bit, but I used to think like you and it was because I didn't understand economics or the world very well. I'm a little embarassed about that, so I rail on that side of me when it appears. You happened to make it appear. Regardless, you're just naive. Hang with it and later, you won't be.

It seems you still don't understand it very well.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
How do you define earn?

I define earn in the following manner: Whatever I can do within my ethics to make cash flow from somewhere, into my pockets.

Originally posted by jps

Is sitting and smoking cigars while the money you inherited from your parents accumulates interest "earning"?

Yes, that's called "earned interest". What is to question? Why would someone pay me for my money? Probably to make money, that's how the economy works, it's cool.

Originally posted by jps

In my opinion someone who works hard at robbing banks is earning their money more than someone in the above situation.

No, that's not "earning" that's "stealing". What the fuck? Get out of my society if you don't know the difference.

Originally posted by jps

What does the government have to do with it? I would think that would be obvious, but for the sake of the naive and immature I'll try and explain.

Look, explaining it to yourself will only confuse you further.

Originally posted by jps

The government creates an environment in which businesess are able to prosper.

What? Okay I suppose you're right to a limited extent, but you're only confusing yourself further, as it seems is your only ability on this issue. Government wouldn't EXIST if it weren't for the taxpayers, including businesses. So while government participates in "creating" said environment. If the government decides to impose too much on the taxpayers, the taxpayers go away. That is why the US exists.

Originally posted by jps

This includes everything from providing protection for its assets in the form of enforcement of laws against theft, to granting subsidys during hard times, to printing the very money that is in question. Without a government it would be impossible for people to be wealthy.

Well, correct, but you avoid the fact that the government in many cases is comprised of the PEOPLE, and again.. if the government does not make conditions condusive for prosperity... there will be no one left to attempt to attain it. The goverment also has no requirement to ensure you are prosperous, in the US, it is merely that you have the opportunity, which I beleive every single person in the US has, it's just that most of them don't realize it. Apparently you're on the list.

Originally posted by jps

The US is a small part of the world.

You mean acreage? In terms of economics, it's a LARGE part of the world.

Originally posted by jps

The fact that people starve in other countries is in part because of our governments policies.

Oh, and I'm immature. It would take far too long to respond adequately to your accusation, and you're right I'm sure. But is it the responsibility of the US to ensure that other people are fed? That is what THEIR GOVERNMENT is for right? Isn't that your entire lame ass argument? Further, if you want to whine along those lines, the US does more for other countries to assist with starvation, etc than ANY country in the history of the world. You are a simpleton to argue along these lines.

Originally posted by jps

Why should children be punished for their parents mistakes?

Because that's evolution dickweed. That's how it ends up working. I don't like it, but I can ASSURE you I was punished, as were you, for the mistakes of our parents. Mind you, I don't want children to starve ANYWHERE, EVER... but I can only influence my local sphere. I will NOT give food to warlords to sell for more guns in foreign countries, and when I have finally gained enough that I have excess, I'll do my best to help people in need. Will you, or will you just continue to whine about the travesties commited by your government on the poor hungry people of the world who are being fucked over by THEIR governments, not OURS.

Originally posted by jps

People work for corporations because they need money to live.

You're a fucking rocket scientist eh? Man, do I need to correct you here? Are you that stupid? The fact is, if the person really wants to be successful, START a corporation. Otherwise, you're free to work for whomever you want. IF you don't realize that, then you're an idiot.

Originally posted by jps

Is it your opinion that people working in sweatshops could, if
they were smarter, could somehow "take control of their lives"?

Yes, at least if they were in the states anyway. I'm not sure about overseas but I would tentatively contend "yes". I am tentative because I'm somewhat ignorant as to the details. In most cases they do it because of their parents if I'm not mistaken and well, that gets into cultural things and uh.. it gets complicated... but generally, yes... if people had a clue they could do better. I'm actually thinking that I may try to figure out a way to educate kids on this whole process earlier in life.... and make sure it sticks. It took me 30 years to realize it, I think everyone would be better off if everyone understood the bigger picture. Hmm, but jeez, then I wouldn't have the opportunity to correct you. I'd hate to miss out on all that.

Originally posted by jps

I don't believe in instituting a 100% tax in the framework of our current government. As I've described in other threads, I believe that our government needs to be replaced with something more equitable and democratic, in which the issue of taxing wouldn't come up as no one would be permitted to make such huge sums of money in the first place.

That would never work, COULD never work. You simply have zero understanding of economics. It's called resources, supply, demand and opportunity costs. Get a clue. You are quite presumptuous to assume your obviously limited understanding of government and economics should trump the US government. Take your communist/socialist ass out of my country if you don't like capitalism. Look, your presumption annoys me, but it's forgivable if you can grow up and admit that you don't really know what you're talking about. Your idea sounds very good on paper, but in practice it simply couldn't work.. and if you're savvy, you'd know that it's really kind of stupid.

Originally posted by jps

People will subject themselves to a lot in order to survive.

Is this insight? You are again, supporting the "I'm a naive idiot" theory. Of course they will, but that has no bearing on the argument at hand. You are an idealog, it's cute, but typical of a half-assed socially conscious youth. Honestly, I'm pretty sure I had the same theory at one point. Now I realize exactly how stupid it was... the intent was noble, but it's really just idealistic nonsense.

Originally posted by jps

Its no necessary for anyone to be in a position where they would be forced to do such things to survive.

Do such things? What things? Horrible things like "going to work"? Find a job you can bear would be my advice. If you don't like your job, generally, that's your fault. To your employer, you can be an extremely valuable resource. The employer/employee thing can be kickass. You simply shouldn't settle for less, which is what people tend to do, but you apparently didn't notice?

Originally posted by jps

Can you think of any jobs that a monkey could do?

Well, honestly, where I work a monkey could be trained to do most everything below a quality inspection or a supervisory position. I'm not exagerating at all. You need to make yourself a valuable resource or you don't deserver to be paid shit. Further, if you can't at least halfass sell your skills you're doomed to shit salary. That is how it works, that is what is economically fair. Argue all you want and you'll be wrong. Really, if you can wrap your unformed little mind around it eventually, you might see that it's actually a beautiful relationship. It's a humongous intricate dance, though obviously it's not pretty when you don't understand it.

Originally posted by jps

Whether or not one has an understanding of their relationship with their employer is irrelevant. The power rests with the employer.

That is absolute nonsense. Are there any adults in the room? I'll just leave it at, if you think that, then go be the employer. What's stopping you other than your lack of skills, intellect, understanding, or having anything worthy to offer? GET SOMETHING WORTHWHILE, AND OFFER IT. You just might get rich. Oh wait, not in your world. It'd be too bad if our government took your 234.5 million of the 235 million you made last year and spent it to block food from the rest of the world, when if they'd let you keep it you could have given it to the hungry people.

Originally posted by jps

This system is maintained in part by the federal reserves intentional maintance of a large unemployment rate.

Man, you're so simple! WHAT? That doesn't make sense. Man you're just wow... that is so stupid. WHAT? That just flips me out. What dump did you pull that retarded garbage from? Hehe, the uh.. retard dump? *giggle* Okay, yeah, the unemployement rate is intentional. You have a clue, really. No, really. Wait, yeah. NOT. Wow, that's a doozie. Kind of cracks me up now that I think about. Hehe, thanks for the chuckle. Please, get a clue man, you simply aren't thinking. Okay, I'll help you. More employment is good for everyone, so why would anyone maintain an intential unemployment level (even if that were POSSIBLE, which I would have a hard time being convinced of, probably because of my limited understanding of economics )

Originally posted by jps

It seems you still don't understand it very well.

Well, I guess you got me on that one. Nicely done.

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris

Yes, that's called "earned interest". What is to question? Why would someone pay me for my money? Probably to make money, that's how the economy works, it's cool.

No, that's not "earning" that's "stealing". What the fuck? Get out of my society if you don't know the difference.

Its a matter of semantics. When I say I earn, what I mean is that someone did sufficient work to deserve something.
If someone "earns" their money by sitting around collecting interest on the family fortune, in my opinion, they do not deserve that money, and morally, they have no claim to it.

Originally posted by wesmorris

What? Okay I suppose you're right to a limited extent, but you're only confusing yourself further, as it seems is your only ability on this issue. Government wouldn't EXIST if it weren't for the taxpayers, including businesses. So while government participates in "creating" said environment. If the government decides to impose too much on the taxpayers, the taxpayers go away. That is why the US exists.

Government exists for the benefit of the governed and therefore should do whatever is in the best interest of its citizens. If a government favors a small number of its citizens at the expense of the others then it is not fulfilling its purpose.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Well, correct, but you avoid the fact that the government in many cases is comprised of the PEOPLE, and again.. if the government does not make conditions condusive for prosperity... there will be no one left to attempt to attain it. The goverment also has no requirement to ensure you are prosperous, in the US, it is merely that you have the opportunity, which I beleive every single person in the US has, it's just that most of them don't realize it. Apparently you're on the list.

It may be true that technically everyone in the United States has a chance at prosperity(or at least a decent living) but certain people are born guaranteed to succeed at this chance and others almost guaranteed to fail, therefore the fact that everyone has a chance is not meaningful. It is possible for everyone to be prosperous.

Originally posted by wesmorris
You mean acreage? In terms of economics, it's a LARGE part of the world.

Population, obviously. The fact that starvation is somewhat uncommon in the US is hardly representative of the world at large.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Oh, and I'm immature. It would take far too long to respond adequately to your accusation, and you're right I'm sure. But is it the responsibility of the US to ensure that other people are fed? That is what THEIR GOVERNMENT is for right? Isn't that your entire lame ass argument? Further, if you want to whine along those lines, the US does more for other countries to assist with starvation, etc than ANY country in the history of the world. You are a simpleton to argue along these lines.

You've demonstrated your lack of maturity by your inability to engage in a debate without constant unwarranted personal attacks.
The aid that the US gives to other countries has strings attached, and in some ways actually contributes to the polarization of classes, and hence the starvation, of the countries citizens. This is a whole different issue, however which I won't get into further here.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Because that's evolution dickweed. That's how it ends up working. I don't like it, but I can ASSURE you I was punished, as were you, for the mistakes of our parents. Mind you, I don't want children to starve ANYWHERE, EVER... but I can only influence my local sphere. I will NOT give food to warlords to sell for more guns in foreign countries, and when I have finally gained enough that I have excess, I'll do my best to help people in need. Will you, or will you just continue to whine about the travesties commited by your government on the poor hungry people of the world who are being fucked over by THEIR governments, not OURS.

Evolution is a biological process and has no relevance here.
Yes, as I said, in our society everyone is either punished or rewarded by the status of their parents. This is a problem that would be corrected under a more equitable form of government. There is no need for children to starve anywhere. There is plenty of food to feed everyone, its just a matter of distribution.

Originally posted by wesmorris
You're a fucking rocket scientist eh? Man, do I need to correct you here? Are you that stupid? The fact is, if the person really wants to be successful, START a corporation. Otherwise, you're free to work for whomever you want. IF you don't realize that, then you're an idiot.

It is extremely naive to think that in our society anyone can just decide to start a corporation. As they say "it takes money to make money"

Originally posted by wesmorris
Yes, at least if they were in the states anyway. I'm not sure about overseas but I would tentatively contend "yes". I am tentative because I'm somewhat ignorant as to the details. In most cases they do it because of their parents if I'm not mistaken and well, that gets into cultural things and uh.. it gets complicated... but generally, yes... if people had a clue they could do better. I'm actually thinking that I may try to figure out a way to educate kids on this whole process earlier in life.... and make sure it sticks. It took me 30 years to realize it, I think everyone would be better off if everyone understood the bigger picture. Hmm, but jeez, then I wouldn't have the opportunity to correct you. I'd hate to miss out on all that.

If you believe this, you are more than somewhat ignorant of the details. Perhaps I can reduce your ignorance on this matter somewhat.
Sweatshops operate in countries with very lax labor laws with very little enfocement. They hire workers by offering them a certain amount of money(more than they could make doing anything else) to come and live at the factory. At this point the worker becomes for all intents and purposes the slave of the corporation. As soon as they start working, they are charged more than they actually make for the work for the room and board at the factory and are thus perpetually in debt to the corporation with no means of escape.

Originally posted by wesmorris
That would never work, COULD never work. You simply have zero understanding of economics. It's called resources, supply, demand and opportunity costs. Get a clue. You are quite presumptuous to assume your obviously limited understanding of government and economics should trump the US government. Take your communist/socialist ass out of my country if you don't like capitalism. Look, your presumption annoys me, but it's forgivable if you can grow up and admit that you don't really know what you're talking about. Your idea sounds very good on paper, but in practice it simply couldn't work.. and if you're savvy, you'd know that it's really kind of stupid.

And your reasoning for this is........?

Originally posted by wesmorris
Is this insight? You are again, supporting the "I'm a naive idiot" theory. Of course they will, but that has no bearing on the argument at hand. You are an idealog, it's cute, but typical of a half-assed socially conscious youth. Honestly, I'm pretty sure I had the same theory at one point. Now I realize exactly how stupid it was... the intent was noble, but it's really just idealistic nonsense.

This was in response to my saying "People will subject themselves to a lot in order to survive" ? Do you think people submit to horrible working conditions because they like them?!

Originally posted by wesmorris
Do such things? What things? Horrible things like "going to work"? Find a job you can bear would be my advice. If you don't like your job, generally, that's your fault. To your employer, you can be an extremely valuable resource. The employer/employee thing can be kickass. You simply shouldn't settle for less, which is what people tend to do, but you apparently didn't notice?

Sadly, this just isn't the case much of the time. See my above comments on sweatshops.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Well, honestly, where I work a monkey could be trained to do most everything below a quality inspection or a supervisory position. I'm not exagerating at all. You need to make yourself a valuable resource or you don't deserver to be paid shit. Further, if you can't at least halfass sell your skills you're doomed to shit salary. That is how it works, that is what is economically fair. Argue all you want and you'll be wrong. Really, if you can wrap your unformed little mind around it eventually, you might see that it's actually a beautiful relationship. It's a humongous intricate dance, though obviously it's not pretty when you don't understand it.

And how do you make yourself a valuable resource when you have no access to education?

Originally posted by wesmorris
Man, you're so simple! WHAT? That doesn't make sense. Man you're just wow... that is so stupid. WHAT? That just flips me out. What dump did you pull that retarded garbage from? Hehe, the uh.. retard dump? *giggle* Okay, yeah, the unemployement rate is intentional. You have a clue, really. No, really. Wait, yeah. NOT. Wow, that's a doozie. Kind of cracks me up now that I think about. Hehe, thanks for the chuckle. Please, get a clue man, you simply aren't thinking. Okay, I'll help you. More employment is good for everyone, so why would anyone maintain an intential unemployment level (even if that were POSSIBLE, which I would have a hard time being convinced of, probably because of my limited understanding of economics )

Apparently your much vaunted knowledge of economics has failed you. This is not a conspiracy theory, or a piece of leftist propaganda, this is a fact.
http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/aug2100.html

 

[hazy]

Originally posted by wesmorris



Further, if you want to whine along those lines, the US does more for other countries to assist with starvation, etc than ANY country in the history of the world.

I believe thats not true. A poll was taken in the late 90s showed that Americans believed that 20% of the national budget went to foreign aid. The truth is that less than "one half of one percent of our federal budget is spent on foreign aid." Also, "Of our gross national product, we give not much more than one-tenth of 1 percent to alleviate the suffering in other nations. The average citizen of Norway gives twenty times as much."
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/worldcom/carter.html (1997)

An even more recent article: "For every time an American gives a dollar, a citizen of Norway gives $17," http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1116-01.htm

 

[wesmorris]

I'm impressed. You're definatley more rational than I was giving you credit for. I apoligize for my harsh judgements and condescending jackassedness. I was in a mood about the whole issue, and your comments seemed retarded to me. They seem to be a bit more cogent now, but still I think you're way way off.

Originally posted by jps
Its a matter of semantics. When I say I earn, what I mean is that someone did sufficient work to deserve something.
If someone "earns" their money by sitting around collecting interest on the family fortune, in my opinion, they do not deserve that money, and morally, they have no claim to it.

So you don't think a parent is warrented in granting his fortune to his child? I do. I intend to mass one and bestow it upon those who I love and care about. In my opinion, that is the just reward for success. I came from a poor family and was envious of those who had more than I. I now intend to succeed in a very large way to fulfill my desire of monetary independence and philanthropic indulgance (including my family).

Originally posted by jps

Government exists for the benefit of the governed and therefore should do whatever is in the best interest of its citizens.

That is exactly the problem. You are qualified to say what is best for its citizens? I'm not convinced.

Originally posted by jps

If a government favors a small number of its citizens at the expense of the others then it is not fulfilling its purpose.

Well, affirmative action requires the government to favor a group of people that have been screwed over. Is it fulfilling its purpose? How is that applicable to the issue at hand? Do police officers recieve favored treatment because they can arrest people? Does congress get special treatment? We shouldn't give them security personnel because that's favorable treatment. For some reason, I keep thinking of stalin and communism. I think I'm broaching some of the reasons why it was doomed to eventually fail? Seems like it to me.

Originally posted by jps

It may be true that technically everyone in the United States has a chance at prosperity(or at least a decent living) but certain people are born guaranteed to succeed at this chance and others almost guaranteed to fail

I think you have a bad attitude. Yes, some people have to try harder and "the odds" are stacked right up against them.... sure. That is life bro. Regardless of your attempts to manipulate it, that's the game. People compete, that is pretty much nature, (which is what I meant by evolution below, but it was a rather obscure reference I suppose). Therefore someone has to lose, someone will win. Some will be naturally "gifted" in the contest and some not, that's just statistics kicking your ass!!! *giggle* It seems to me that you fail to see the next logical point.... how the game can be won by anyone who plays.... do you know it? Do you know what I'm going to say? PICK THE RIGHT GAME!!!!! THE ONE YOU'RE GOOD AT!!!!!!!!! If you do that, everyone wins... you get rich (either monetarily or spiritually (because you love what you do)) people around you get rich (because you have so much cash or "positive energy" and you give other people inspiration to follow their dreams. It seems to me that you would prefer to spoon feed everyone. I say, follow your dream bro, make sure it's the right dream and if it turns out that it isn't..... CHANGE IT. With a great attitude (not necessarily always positive) you'll win regardless of the details.

Originally posted by jps

, therefore the fact that everyone has a chance is not meaningful.

I think you're exactly bass ackwards on that one man, for real.

Originally posted by jps

It is possible for everyone to be prosperous.

I think so, it's not a given, and even with hard work it might not work, so it's wise to ensure you have fun on the way eh? Working smart will kick "working hard" in the ass every time (in my experience). Though I suppose that's overly optimistic. Sometimes it just takes hard work done slowly. *giggle*

Originally posted by jps

You've demonstrated your lack of maturity by your inability to engage in a debate without constant unwarranted personal attacks.

Nah dude, I'm mature, but I do take a break from it sometimes, especially when I think I'm dealing with an idiot (which I don't think you are, but I did... and I still think your analysis sucks, but it's not idiotic, just negative and stalinist). I vent on the boards from time to time ya know. Hey, even Tiassa gets pissed (have you seen him go off on Xev? DAMN!)... gimme a break! Hehe, oh, and I DID apoligize explicitely above.

Originally posted by jps

The aid that the US gives to other countries has strings attached,

Well, uh... yeah. It seems that side of humanity just won't go away eh? I had a girlfriend once who's family did that to her EVERY TIME they gave her a dollar. What do you expect? If I give you a billion dollars, even with the best intent I'd ask SOMETHING of you in exchange for my cashish. Maybe "don't spend it all in one place". Strings are inherent to an exchange of resources don't you think? Usually it's money for service or good right? Sometimes it's "favor" though eh? I contend that it's "human nature" and thusly reflected in human governments regarding how they distribute their resources.

Originally posted by jps

and in some ways actually contributes to the polarization of classes, and hence the starvation, of the countries citizens.

Sure, but to me that seems likely to be a negligible effect compared to the policies set forth by the government of the country in question. If the US is such a small place, why do you blame it for all the problems of the world? That seems mean to me. The US is a HUGE economic force, yes. It effects the whole world YES. I'd say that considering all the factors involved in "ruling the world" so to speak, the US does a fucking amazing job. Hell, I can't believe ANYTHING ever gets done. You should work in manufacturing for a while if you haven't. It's seriously amazing that it all comes together considering the incredible, and I mean incredible amount of sheer incompetence and apathy in the world. Wow. Thusly, that a government can keep the world from exploding for as long as they have, and that I have two beautiful children, a wonderfull home and a lovely wife... well damnit, that kicks ass. GO USA! (and you'll not hear that kind of propagandist crap from me again, I was on a roll though). I do love this country though.. but I mostly hate to admit it (cuz it's kind of gay *snicker*).

Originally posted by jps

Evolution is a biological process and has no relevance here.

Sorry, it does though. Uh, it's analagous to survival, it's analagous to capitalism.

Originally posted by jps

Yes, as I said, in our society everyone is either punished or rewarded by the status of their parents. This is a problem that would be corrected under a more equitable form of government.

I disagree, and think our form of government is amazingly equitable when contemplating the array of government styles and such from my somewhat limited knowledge of history.

Originally posted by jps

There is no need for children to starve anywhere. There is plenty of food to feed everyone, its just a matter of distribution.

I agree with you on that point and do find it shameful that people go hungry anywhere, but do not feel compelled that you have a viable solution (nor do I) to the problem. Hmm... I'll try to come up with something if you'd like. Maybe we should kick it around? I guess that's what we're doing eh, sort of? But only regarding individual wealth. You seem to forget that if you limit it, people will never exceed the limit, thulsy your net taxes decrease drastically, don't you think? Eh, I cannot see how you can do better than mother nature regarding the distribution of resources. The strong survive / keep the economy healthy... these will be hard to beat.

Originally posted by jps

It is extremely naive to think that in our society anyone can just decide to start a corporation. As they say "it takes money to make money"

If you have a good idea, determination and a mild amount of savvy, you can put yourself in front of people who have money. If you are a good salesman (or know one) for your idea, you can get it financed.

Originally posted by jps

If you believe this, you are more than somewhat ignorant of the details. Perhaps I can reduce your ignorance on this matter somewhat.

Okay.

Originally posted by jps

Sweatshops operate in countries with very lax labor laws with very little enfocement. They hire workers by offering them a certain amount of money(more than they could make doing anything else) to come and live at the factory. At this point the worker becomes for all intents and purposes the slave of the corporation. As soon as they start working, they are charged more than they actually make for the work for the room and board at the factory and are thus perpetually in debt to the corporation with no means of escape.

Who is responsible for this? Their governments? So how does the US do anything about this? Oh yeah, by attaching strings when we give that country money? Weren't you saying that was bad before? Do you see that I have a strong point?

Originally posted by jps

And your reasoning for this is........?

Because of human nature, because you have to allow demand to control supply, or supply dries up. Eh, I think I've already touched on it and it's too much effort to go into it, think about and you'll see I've got a point except for the personal attacks and junk.

Originally posted by jps

This was in response to my saying "People will subject themselves to a lot in order to survive" ? Do you think people submit to horrible working conditions because they like them?!

I didn't get what you were saying. No, I think they do it because their government let's them take advantage of them. That is horrible, but understandable given the opportunistic nature of humans.

Originally posted by jps

And how do you make yourself a valuable resource when you have no access to education?

I had access to education. Did you? I think almost everyone does... wait, YES, everyone does. Wait though, should we wasted resources educating stupid people? Who says who is stupid? (okay, I'll volunteer... eh, on second thought, that would suck). The federal student loan program is awesome... so is the fact that peace corps (I thought) or the military (who will take most anyone) either of which will financially assist your education. How about the Vocational Rehabilitation program? Shit, all you have to do is get diagnosed from some quack regarding your depression and the government will PAY for your ENTIRE EDUCATION.... and you WHINE about no access to education? Is it the responsibility of the US to educate the ENTIRE WORLD?... If we DID, you'd criticize it for cultural fucking bias. Ack. Gimme a break. I'm not saying things are perfect, but man, I swear I can't believe they're as good as they are considering we had SLAVES a mere 150 years ago. Damnit, give it a chance man, this thing will work! Everyone is just all messed up and ancy about it since 9/11. Our fragile nature is rarely thrust in our face as such, which really wigged everyone out. I try to remain positive that we will all be better off if we stay wary, but positive. Blah, quite the ramblage.

Originally posted by jps

Apparently your much vaunted knowledge of economics has failed you.

Nope, yours did. Actually, I have more "understanding" than "knowledge" regarding economics. I just "get it". I'm not bragging, I'm just stating it straight up. I would imagine your opinion might be somewhat different.

Originally posted by jps

This is not a conspiracy theory, or a piece of leftist propaganda, this is a fact.
http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/aug2100.html

I read it, I don't understand what the problem is though. Minimum wage is a political item of great economic impact. That article was mainly about that relationship and how reagan was smart not to raise minimum wage. How would that be a conspiracy theory? It's just two sides of politics waging policy on one another... leftists generally claim that raising minimum wage is good for the workers, whereas the right thinks "government can't tell me how to pay my workers". The assertions in that article paint the minimum wage as the key correlation to the unemployment rate. You try to paint it as if it weren't an ideological difference between two political parties. It is the result of this idealogical diffence that is what you call "the problem". You're right though, if there was no minimum wage, there'd be no unemployment, I'll buy that. How does that impact anything regarding this topic though?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by hazy
I believe thats not true. A poll was taken in the late 90s showed that Americans believed that 20% of the national budget went to foreign aid. The truth is that less than "one half of one percent of our federal budget is spent on foreign aid." Also, "Of our gross national product, we give not much more than one-tenth of 1 percent to alleviate the suffering in other nations. The average citizen of Norway gives twenty times as much."
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/worldcom/carter.html (1997)

An even more recent article: "For every time an American gives a dollar, a citizen of Norway gives $17," http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1116-01.htm

I'm talking more about the US government assisting other countries. Though it is a small percentage of the total budget, in sheer volume, there's never been anything like it in the history of the world. I would imagine that would be true regarding international involvement too. *shrug*

 

[jps]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I'm impressed. You're definatley more rational than I was giving you credit for. I apoligize for my harsh judgements and condescending jackassedness. I was in a mood about the whole issue, and your comments seemed retarded to me. They seem to be a bit more cogent now, but still I think you're way way off.

Thanks, no problem, I've certainly been guilty of the same before.

Originally posted by wesmorris
So you don't think a parent is warrented in granting his fortune to his child? I do. I intend to mass one and bestow it upon those who I love and care about. In my opinion, that is the just reward for success. I came from a poor family and was envious of those who had more than I. I now intend to succeed in a very large way to fulfill my desire of monetary independence and philanthropic indulgance (including my family).

Its only natural in our present society to want to leave our children with as much as possible so they have a good life, but this ceases to be an issue if ones children's well-being is guaranteed. If everyone had access to education and the resources to find what they're good at, then there would be no need for parents to worry about providing materially for their children.

Originally posted by wesmorris
That is exactly the problem. You are qualified to say what is best for its citizens? I'm not convinced.

I think the citizens themselves should be able to decide via an informed democratic vote. I do not believe this happens in our society(as discussed here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17709 )

Originally posted by wesmorris
Well, affirmative action requires the government to favor a group of people that have been screwed over. Is it fulfilling its purpose? How is that applicable to the issue at hand? Do police officers recieve favored treatment because they can arrest people? Does congress get special treatment? We shouldn't give them security personnel because that's favorable treatment. For some reason, I keep thinking of stalin and communism. I think I'm broaching some of the reasons why it was doomed to eventually fail? Seems like it to me.

These are specific examples of powers given to people because its viewed as beneficial to society for them to have them. I don't believe that the right of a small minority to vast wealth is beneficial to society.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I think you have a bad attitude. Yes, some people have to try harder and "the odds" are stacked right up against them.... sure. That is life bro. Regardless of your attempts to manipulate it, that's the game. People compete, that is pretty much nature, (which is what I meant by evolution below, but it was a rather obscure reference I suppose).

I think the issue of biological determinism is the fundemental disagreement between capitalism and communism and is what most debates I've had on the issue have come down to. I don't believe that people are inherently greedy or inherently lazy. I believe that these values are culturally rooted and would change if the culture changed. I don't believe there's any way this can be proven one way or the other until its tested.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Well, uh... yeah. It seems that side of humanity just won't go away eh? I had a girlfriend once who's family did that to her EVERY TIME they gave her a dollar. What do you expect? If I give you a billion dollars, even with the best intent I'd ask SOMETHING of you in exchange for my cashish. Maybe "don't spend it all in one place". Strings are inherent to an exchange of resources don't you think? Usually it's money for service or good right? Sometimes it's "favor" though eh? I contend that it's "human nature" and thusly reflected in human governments regarding how they distribute their resources.

The strings that are attached to that money are the reason the money is given. The strings tend to be things like, keep the unions down, keep the minimum wage low, don't tax our businesses when we move in, etc.. this "foreign aid" is often really just an investment in keeping the country exploitable.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Sure, but to me that seems likely to be a negligible effect compared to the policies set forth by the government of the country in question. If the US is such a small place, why do you blame it for all the problems of the world? That seems mean to me. The US is a HUGE economic force, yes. It effects the whole world YES.

I don't blame the US, I blame capitalism in general, the US is just the most glaring example as its the most powerful.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I disagree, and think our form of government is amazingly equitable when contemplating the array of government styles and such from my somewhat limited knowledge of history.

Historically, I agree, but I don't think its the pinnacle of whats possible.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I agree with you on that point and do find it shameful that people go hungry anywhere, but do not feel compelled that you have a viable solution (nor do I) to the problem. Hmm... I'll try to come up with something if you'd like. Maybe we should kick it around? I guess that's what we're doing eh, sort of? But only regarding individual wealth. You seem to forget that if you limit it, people will never exceed the limit, thulsy your net taxes decrease drastically, don't you think? Eh, I cannot see how you can do better than mother nature regarding the distribution of resources. The strong survive / keep the economy healthy... these will be hard to beat.

Yeah, I don't know that I have the perfect solution either, but I'm sure that it exists, and that humanity should endeavor to make it happen.
I'm advocating a society in which taxes are unecessary as people simply would not make more money than they work for(I'm not certain how this would be organized, perhaps different jobs at different levels would be assigned a certain income, or maybe everyone would make the same as long as they worked)

Originally posted by wesmorris
If you have a good idea, determination and a mild amount of savvy, you can put yourself in front of people who have money. If you are a good salesman (or know one) for your idea, you can get it financed.

Not necessarilly true, your accent, manner of dress, skin color, etc.. can all work against your getting an audience with a wealthy benefactor

Originally posted by wesmorris
Who is responsible for this? Their governments? So how does the US do anything about this? Oh yeah, by attaching strings when we give that country money? Weren't you saying that was bad before? Do you see that I have a strong point?

You'd have a point if the nature of those strings wasn't so often responsible for the government.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I had access to education. Did you? I think almost everyone does... wait, YES, everyone does.

Everyone has access to some semblance of an education, thats true, but often times its not one that serves them well, and even if it does it stops at the high school level, which doesn't leave people with a lot of oppurtunity.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I read it, I don't understand what the problem is though. Minimum wage is a political item of great economic impact. That article was mainly about that relationship and how reagan was smart not to raise minimum wage. How would that be a conspiracy theory? It's just two sides of politics waging policy on one another... leftists generally claim that raising minimum wage is good for the workers, whereas the right thinks "government can't tell me how to pay my workers". The assertions in that article paint the minimum wage as the key correlation to the unemployment rate. You try to paint it as if it weren't an ideological difference between two political parties. It is the result of this idealogical diffence that is what you call "the problem". You're right though, if there was no minimum wage, there'd be no unemployment, I'll buy that. How does that impact anything regarding this topic though?

I probably should have read that article in its entirety, but I posted it in response to your seeming disbelief of the fact that the federal reserve works to keep the unemployment rate at certain level and takes steps to raise it if it falls below that level.. I thought that article discussed it, but I should have looked for a better source.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by jps
I don't believe that people are inherently greedy or inherently lazy. I believe that these values are culturally rooted and would change if the culture changed. I don't believe there's any way this can be proven one way or the other until its tested.

In my opinion this fundamental assumption negates your entire argument due to the lack of the following distinction. I believe your first sentence to be correct as a statement of general truth, but the rub is that while it holds true for the general "people" it doesn't hold true for everyone. Oh, and everyone has their own version of greed as well. I haven't the tenacity to explicitely argue as to why, but I can assure you that in essence, a society is as good as its weakest link. If any member is greedy but stealthy, you'll get dictated. Simple as that... to me, seems like that is unquestionable. That's another significant reason that communism nor a variant can't be effective unless resources are virtually unlimited. Unfortunately, even if a resource WERE to become unlimited.... I'm quite sure we'd just learn to covet something else. Regardless of the level of spirituality it is possible to propagate into society, it can't be fully progagated except by force, which is exactly unethical and contrary to the purpose of the government per your definition. In my opinion, capitolism with a recyprocating splash of socialism is the only recipe for success that can possibly work when taking in to consideration the distribution of what I think people percieve as their "need" which cannot be ethically mandated by government. Rant off.

 

[wesmorris]

Oh and JPS, I find it somewhat uh... unfair, that you mention nothing of my other points. Are we politicians? Are you pretending that I didn't say all that other junk? Was it so meaningless as to completely ignore it? I did you the respect of responding to all that you said. It's not hard to "win" a debate if you pretend your "opponent" isn't talking.

 

[wesmorris]

Now that I think about it, I'm starting to think you're just a politician on his platform. Are you sure you're intellectually honest? I am somewhat insulted that you would WASTE my time posting a link that you didn't even actually READ. Man, that's really dishonest of you in my opinion, wasting my valuable time seemingly intentionally. Seems like a pretty cheap debate tactic to me. Are you just trying to wear me out? Hehe, good call I guess, I can't think well after reading articles you manipulated me into reading in support of a point you weren't sure you were making. Hehe.. bastard. That's harsh.