C
cynic
Guest
Those in the 1% of the population own 33% of America’s wealth, and the top tax rate is only 35%.
- Status
C
cmforte
Guest
It is not against American law to be excessively rich. And to want to hold on to your own money or do what you want with it. I find it very imsulting and a very pessimistic view of human nature that many think the only way to help the less fortunate is to forcively take money from those that rightfully earned it through the guize of taxation and give it to the poor (through welfare and other government services and programs). So 1% of Americans own 33% of America’s wealth. SO WHAT? That is their right. The only authentic alternative to this is to pass a law putting a limit on a person’s income or mandate people by law to donate a certain percentage to charity, which would, of course, blatantly contradict the concept of freedom. But no…instead some use more insidious means, like progressive taxation, which, by the way, I am not neccessarily against, but please don’t try to sugar-coat it or disguise it. It is wealth redistribution.
-Chris
-Chris
po18guy
Well-known member
Did you hear this from noted economist Michael Moore or something?
Hint: American manufacturing jobs are disappearing and service jobs are expanding. You are part of this problem, as am I. Corporations generally don’t move overseas until forced to. And, don’t ignore all of the CEOs that are dumped because they did not perform.
Tell me what the “super rich” do with their money. Keep it in their mattresses? No! They invest, and take the risk of gain, or loss. Do you?
But, it seems like you are complaining because you are not an investor. Corporations need money to exist, to develop new productrs and services, and to grow. Where do they get it? Investors like you and I. How do they encourage increased investment? Answer: by performing so that investors stand to profit from risking their money.
Bottom line: regardless of what you or I think, what private industry chooses to pay their board is none of our danged business! So what if they throw money down a corrupt CEO rathole? The market sees this and responds accordingly. The corporation suffers and investors pull out. This is part of the risk involved in a free market society.
Do you honestly think that corporations go into a slump due to CEO pay? Turn your guns on the Federal Reserve, which overtly and covertly controls the money supply. How? Through issuance of government bonds and the re-purchase of those bonds to control the money supply. This has absolutely nothing to do with any corporation or CEO.
Class warfare is easy.
Knowledge of economics not so much.
We are suffering from an appalling ignorance of economic theory in the US. And, that lack of knowledge fuels the class warfare that is so easy to engage in - and vote on.
Yes, there is. Just not a better way. What you are complaining about above IS the “other way” In case you haven’t noticed, government is in greater control of US business and the US economy than ever. Despite the expenditure of billions to fix it, how’s it going so far?
J
Jonatello
Guest
So long as you insist on basing your interpretation of my words on the idea that I’m driven by some kind of jealousy towards those more fortunate, you will struggle to read clearly. I have zero problem with people being rich and happy. I have no desire to “impoverish the rich”.
My citing of the rising difference in CEO:worker pay has nothing to do with me wishing I was a CEO (i certainly would never wish that lol). It was to illustrate the lunacy of the claim that the more money the top makes, the more jobs, pay, wealth finds its way to everyone else. Simply not supported at all by facts.
:
Offshore bank accounts are better than mattresses. And in light of recent evidence, please define risk lol. Lastly, please be careful not to confuse money with wealth. Not the same. Wealth dominance is horded and sat on like crazy.
No. I’m just making the point that loyalty to a pure money/profit-based bottom line (which is partially tied to investors and partially to the philosophical culture that extreme capitalism cultivates in everyone else) is the job of the CEO, not hiring more and paying more…a point I made, not to vent, but to explain why this idea that the top 1% ever increasing riches is somehow tied to job creation is false.
Sure it is if they try to affect public policy by claiming the effectiveness of trickle-down theory. They must show and prove. They haven’t. Meanwhile, what has been evident is that the control of resources and policy is being funneled into fewer, more powerful hands, and with it our democracy and the ability average person to have an effective presence in the market or civic arena.
How can the market respond if the masses are broke and the average mom and pop can’t compete with the crooked giant? The market is not a magic wand. There are a ton of things that the profit motive can’t accomplish well. In fact, I am hard pressed to find barely any job/product/service that isn’t cheapened in quality by a profits-above-all-else bottom line motive structure.
it’s much easier for the top class. So easy in fact, that it never even feels like warfare until the people under foot push back. Its like setting your picnic lunchbox ontop of an anthill, crushing it, and then accusing the ticked off homeless ants of declaring war as they emerge from the shambles that used to be theirs and crash your picnic looking for peanut butter.
I would argue passionately against anyone who would call all rich people bad or wish to turn the tables and make the rich poor. I’m not interested in vindictive attitudes toward the fortunate, nor am I interested in vengeance toward the members of the super elite who knowingly pulled the rug out from people. But the greedy members of the top (and their mimics in the ranks below) declare war on the rest every time they gain more control, amass more of the resources, buy more rules in their favor, and encroach further on things that everyone depends on.
No. Big Business is in control of government, which is then in control of small business. The reason why government seems like this big scary monster to the average joe is because the government no longer answers properly to it’s citizens.
94% of elections in 2010 were won by the candidate with the most money.
As someone said, “that’s not a democracy, that’s an auction”.
Take the money and lobbying out of the system and all of a sudden you have a government who answers to the public and a public who no longer fears their government, but uses it as the vessel for social justice and common good it’s supposed to be.
J
Jonatello
Guest
i’m not at all. I’m very explicitly saying that the current structure of things benefits the cut-throat and thus forces everyone else to either match or lose.
i’m not trying to ever make a case that every CEO is a bad person. That would be foolish.
On Michael Moore: not at all, although I don’t think he’s that far off base on a lot of things. I rather like him. But his work would improve greatly if he cut back on all the personal ad hominem attack stuff.
D
DaveBj
Guest
I have no problems with saying that the wealthy should do more to help those who are in need (through no fault of their own). However, some people on the left seem think that it is the government’s place to bring this about through increased taxes on the wealthy and re-distribution of the revenue. This is lunacy.
M
MrJaundicedEye
Guest
I wish just once the internet could break through to the second layer of this debate and have a discussion about why income inequality is bad or wrong from various points of view. I see a lot of percentages bandied about in America today, such as those above in this thread, but those who post them never, ever, ever offer what an acceptable set of figures would be.
It’s not hard, of course, to understand why. If they start thinking about that problem, there are only two conclusions:
1.There is not, in fact, an intrinsic morality to income inequality and no set of percentages is inherently any better than any other.
2.Income disparity is immoral in itself, and the only proper social order is one that outlaws income disparity and dictates that all should earn the same.
…and these two extremes are not allowed in polite American discourse. So, they muddle about in some indefensible middle ground where some income disparity is to be allowed, but not too much, and they fail to see that it is precisely the imprecise nature of this demand that makes it impossible to realize.
It’s not hard, of course, to understand why. If they start thinking about that problem, there are only two conclusions:
1.There is not, in fact, an intrinsic morality to income inequality and no set of percentages is inherently any better than any other.
2.Income disparity is immoral in itself, and the only proper social order is one that outlaws income disparity and dictates that all should earn the same.
…and these two extremes are not allowed in polite American discourse. So, they muddle about in some indefensible middle ground where some income disparity is to be allowed, but not too much, and they fail to see that it is precisely the imprecise nature of this demand that makes it impossible to realize.
J
jmcrae
Guest
And yet, Third World dictatorships are “bad” because one guy owns all the money, and everyone else is living in a cardboard box and having to work as his slave.
So, obviously, there is a level of income disparity that is "bad,’ and there is a degree of reduction in the number of rich people that is “bad.”
When we are down to one rich person with everyone else poverty stricken, it’s obvious to everyone except for that one rich guy that this is not an optimal situation, because here, laissez-faire capitalism has turned into a dictatorship.
At what point, then, does impoverishing the workers and concentrating the money into fewer and fewer hands become less like capitalism (even though it looks and feels like a free market system) and more and more of a dictatorship of the few?
At some point, there need to be rules - even if they are unspoken or unwritten rules - that allow for everyone to have the opportunity to profit from his or her daily work, and where the extremely wealthy feel obliged to pay the workers a living wage according to their worth, rather than as little as they can get away with in market conditions.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Yes, the government employs people, but those jobs don’t actually produce anything. OR, the service provided is much more costly than the private sector alternative.
Many communities, for example, have volunteer fire departments … people in the community voluntarily donate their time and money to organize a fire department and they monitor the money very closely. No pension costs, for example.
Many people fight to keep their children out of government schools.
Just because someone is a government employee doesn’t mean that the service provided is necessarily a worthwhile one.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
If income disparity was not allowed, then everyone would want to do the pleasant and easy and part-time jobs and no one would want to do the difficult, unpleasant, and overtime jobs.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Here is one of my posts from another thread in which someone was expressing guilt at income disparity:
There is another issue here also: innovations are supported by people with lots of money.
Originally, a four-function electronic calculator was the size of a typewriter and cost the equivalent of a month’s pay. Only the very wealthy could afford them.
But the very wealthy thought they were pretty cool things to have and bought them.
As a result of the encouragement from rich people, more and more smart designers got into the business of designing calculators. And fifty years later, calculators are almost giveaway items.
But it took a lot of work in the private sector by a lot of scientists and engineers who were encouraged by rich people who bought what initially were nothing more than toys.
And computers. Used to be very very expensive. Printers. Cell phones. GPS.
Without “rich people” willing to pay the difference, we would not have Apple Computers. And look at what Apple has done with their design approach with all the iPhones and iPads.
Digital cameras. *
I got blank looks when I told someone that my upstairs bathroom was originally used as a darkroom. No one does their own film development and processing anymore. But at one time, it was cutting edge. Even on a budget using equipment from a pawn shop.
All started out as very expensive … only affordable by hobbyists who were willing to pay biggie bucks.
And that applies to television sets. And cars! And airplanes! And pretty much any kind of innovation. And microwave ovens. And cordless electric drills. When they first came out, I could never justify buying a cordless drill. Now all my tools are cordless.
Initially, only wealthy people could afford them. Then only upscale artisans and contractors could afford them. Now, everyone can afford them. And they have better and better batteries.
Rich men (and women) provided the encouragement to the designers by buying their products at high prices.
Everyone benefited.
Tell your friend that by buying upscale stuff, she is helping to advance technology and helping to make those products and services available to everyone by encouraging development.*
There is another issue here also: innovations are supported by people with lots of money.
Originally, a four-function electronic calculator was the size of a typewriter and cost the equivalent of a month’s pay. Only the very wealthy could afford them.
But the very wealthy thought they were pretty cool things to have and bought them.
As a result of the encouragement from rich people, more and more smart designers got into the business of designing calculators. And fifty years later, calculators are almost giveaway items.
But it took a lot of work in the private sector by a lot of scientists and engineers who were encouraged by rich people who bought what initially were nothing more than toys.
And computers. Used to be very very expensive. Printers. Cell phones. GPS.
Without “rich people” willing to pay the difference, we would not have Apple Computers. And look at what Apple has done with their design approach with all the iPhones and iPads.
Digital cameras. *
I got blank looks when I told someone that my upstairs bathroom was originally used as a darkroom. No one does their own film development and processing anymore. But at one time, it was cutting edge. Even on a budget using equipment from a pawn shop.
All started out as very expensive … only affordable by hobbyists who were willing to pay biggie bucks.
And that applies to television sets. And cars! And airplanes! And pretty much any kind of innovation. And microwave ovens. And cordless electric drills. When they first came out, I could never justify buying a cordless drill. Now all my tools are cordless.
Initially, only wealthy people could afford them. Then only upscale artisans and contractors could afford them. Now, everyone can afford them. And they have better and better batteries.
Rich men (and women) provided the encouragement to the designers by buying their products at high prices.
Everyone benefited.
Tell your friend that by buying upscale stuff, she is helping to advance technology and helping to make those products and services available to everyone by encouraging development.*
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
I also wrote this:
There are a lot of parables about rich men who own vineyards and who hire people.
In none of those stories did Jesus condemn the rich men who owned the vineyards.
In one of the stories, a rich vineyard owner overpaid some of the laborers. “Am I not free to do what I want with my own money?”.
Jesus was trying to make a point about salvation and Jesus portrayed Himself as a vineyard owner rewarding people at the end of the day. Nevertheless, how did Jesus portray Himself? NOT as a poor person begging for food! Jesus portrayed Himself as a wealthy, successful businessman who had plenty of money available to buy whatever He wanted and to pay whatever He wanted to pay for the use of other peoples’ services.
If the OP is real, then the woman who has a lot of stuff should consider herself fortunate that she can retain the services of artisans who hand craft really nice handbags and shoes and clothes.
Good designers can only be paid by wealthy people who can afford to reward them for their services. Someone who makes “knockoffs” won’t have anything to copy from unless really excellent designers are out there available and successful.
Nice cars are great because they allow comfortable travel. I don’t see any merit in having a car that … to quote some friends who like small cars … “allow you to get the feel of the road”. I DON’T WANT TO FEEL THE ROAD!!
I want a car that will swallow the bumps and potholes and will allow me to reach my destination rested and not all beaten up.
If I had the money, I would buy a Gulfstream V jet!! So I could visit Catholic Answers in San Diego without suffering through the cattle car treatment that the airlines are now forced to dispense. And so when the weather gets really rotten, I could just head off to where the weather is decent. And when politicians condemn executive jets, all they do is cause the workers who make jets to lose their jobs.
A few years back, in a fit of envy? false modesty? something … a tax was put on certain luxuries, particularly yachts. What was the result? Did the government collect a lot of new tax revenue? NO! What happened was that people quit buying yachts and thousands of boat builders lost their jobs when the boat yards went out of business.
At no time did Jesus tell us to quit drinking wine. If He did, then the rich vineyard owners would go out of business and their knowledge of wine making would become extinct and there would be no one out there to hire the workers who line up in the town square waiting to be hired.
There are a lot of parables about rich men who own vineyards and who hire people.
In none of those stories did Jesus condemn the rich men who owned the vineyards.
In one of the stories, a rich vineyard owner overpaid some of the laborers. “Am I not free to do what I want with my own money?”.
Jesus was trying to make a point about salvation and Jesus portrayed Himself as a vineyard owner rewarding people at the end of the day. Nevertheless, how did Jesus portray Himself? NOT as a poor person begging for food! Jesus portrayed Himself as a wealthy, successful businessman who had plenty of money available to buy whatever He wanted and to pay whatever He wanted to pay for the use of other peoples’ services.
If the OP is real, then the woman who has a lot of stuff should consider herself fortunate that she can retain the services of artisans who hand craft really nice handbags and shoes and clothes.
Good designers can only be paid by wealthy people who can afford to reward them for their services. Someone who makes “knockoffs” won’t have anything to copy from unless really excellent designers are out there available and successful.
Nice cars are great because they allow comfortable travel. I don’t see any merit in having a car that … to quote some friends who like small cars … “allow you to get the feel of the road”. I DON’T WANT TO FEEL THE ROAD!!
I want a car that will swallow the bumps and potholes and will allow me to reach my destination rested and not all beaten up.
If I had the money, I would buy a Gulfstream V jet!! So I could visit Catholic Answers in San Diego without suffering through the cattle car treatment that the airlines are now forced to dispense. And so when the weather gets really rotten, I could just head off to where the weather is decent. And when politicians condemn executive jets, all they do is cause the workers who make jets to lose their jobs.
A few years back, in a fit of envy? false modesty? something … a tax was put on certain luxuries, particularly yachts. What was the result? Did the government collect a lot of new tax revenue? NO! What happened was that people quit buying yachts and thousands of boat builders lost their jobs when the boat yards went out of business.
At no time did Jesus tell us to quit drinking wine. If He did, then the rich vineyard owners would go out of business and their knowledge of wine making would become extinct and there would be no one out there to hire the workers who line up in the town square waiting to be hired.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
And Joseph Kemp quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia … longish post, but excellent:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=587700&page=7
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=587700&page=7
J
Jonatello
Guest
1: income disparity of any kind isn’t necessarily bad. i doubt anyone’s arguing that everyone should have exactly the same wealth across the board. some wiggle room is necessary.
2: rising income disparity, whether good or bad, is further proof that trickle-down economics is a myth.
3: the more extreme the disparity of wealth, the more control the top has over everyone else. this includes access to markets, influence on government, control over finite natural resources that God gave us all, and overall dominance over the means of opportunity. this leads to a ruling (aka dictating) class.
M
MrJaundicedEye
Guest
Quoted, but neither read nor understood.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Actually, the opposite is often true - for example, private hospitals cost a lot more per patient than government-run hospitals - because for-profit hospitals have to make a profit, whereas government-run hospitals only have to cover wages and expenses.
And slower response times, because you have to get people out of bed to come to the fire and put it out - they aren’t waiting at the ready in the fire station for the call to come.
And many people wouldn’t send their children to school at all, if there were no public schools to send them to. Not everyone has $20,000.00 a year of disposable income per child. For some people, that’s their whole take-home packet for the year.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Following up on what Monte RCMS posted, it is recorded at the end of Acts Chapter 4 that the early Church in Jerusalem eliminated poverty on a local level by having whoever owned property sell it and donate the procedes of the sale to the Church for redistribution. To put it in terms of modern economics, those who could have continued to provide jobs were no longer able to do so, because they had liquidated their capital base. This was partially responsible for a lengthy period of poverty among Judean Christians, to the point that 30 years later Paul is still collecting money for them.
When there is someone who can create jobs, discouraging him from doing so by excess taxation or regulation is not a good idea.
When there is someone who can create jobs, discouraging him from doing so by excess taxation or regulation is not a good idea.
C
cynic
Guest
Higher incomes for wage and middle-class salary earners would mean an increased demand for goods and services, while their savings get invested. Mega-wealthy investors don’t serve any unique function.
J
Jonatello
Guest
that’s what they want everyone to believe, so that we’ll continue to accept all power and control being funneled into the top 1%.
if the top 1% were really prone to use extra money on creating jobs, there would be more jobs now than ever.
oh but wait…there’s fewer jobs now than almost ever before.
why is that?
you can’t have such a tiny portion of the people controlling the means of production and opportunity, etc.
if you put rules in place to ensure the resources/power isn’t so concentrated, then you would have MORE job creators.
D
DaveBj
Guest
You keep believing that. Meanwhile, any increased taxes on the wealthy will disappear into the same D.C.-centered black hole that our own taxes are disappearing into, without creating a single job.
- Status