Raising taxes on the rich

[MarkInOregon]

MarkInOregon;8013696:

So … you think or believe the government can make these difficult jobs safer? Or do they impose so many rules and regulations that they cause industries to shut down?

O.K. Yes, I think government has made some of these difficult jobs safer. I gather you dispute that? Based on what evidence? I think government does both–is that so strange? Is that so hard to wrap your head around?

I’ve never argued that there are not many useless and mindless regulations–that are harmful to industry–I think if you go back an check you’ll find that I have willingly acknowledged that. I’ve seen workers legislated out of jobs by what I consider stupid regulation–apparently other people thought otherwise. I guess here is where we differ–this doesn’t mean I think all legislation and regulation is bad–it seems that you do. It sounds like you never met a rule, law or regulation that you think is worthwhile.

Please feel free to keep treating me like a moron and bolding and capitalizing the text to make sure I get your point. And I will leave you with this:

In 1913 here is the list of the UMWA’s seven demands on behalf of miners in Colorado (where the accident average was over twice the national average):

1. Recognition of the union as bargaining agent
2. Tonnage rate increase (= to a 10% wage increase)
3. Enforcement of the 8 hour workday law.
4. Payment for “dead work” (laying track, timbering, handling impurities, etc.)
5. Weight-checkmen elected by miners to keep the company weight-checkmen honest.
6. The right to use any store, and chose there own boarding houses and doctors.
7. Strict enforcement of Colorado’s laws (such as mine safety rules and abolition of script), and an end to the company guard sytem.

I call your attention particularly to #4, #5 and #6 given that you have stated previously “Private property starts with ownership of the fruits of our labor. Anything less than being able to retain the whole of our property is slavery”

In #4 who is keeping the fruit of these workers labor? The mine owner. He is essentially stealing the fruit of this labor by refusing to pay for work necessary to mine the coal he is profiting from.
In #5 again by weighing light they are stealing the fruit of someone elses labor.
In #6 they are forcing their workers to shop in their stores and pay rent for company owned housing. Who’s keeping the fruit of their labor? Certainly not the worker.
Were these unreasonable demands?

Additionally I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask that laws on the books be enforced and adhered to.

Most of these demands seem reasonable the only one that even seems like it should be contentious is the 10% wage hike.

Finally the mine owners put up money–they invested capital. They are entitled to a fair return on that investment comensurate with the risk they are taking but lets not claim the success of the mine is due to their effort. There effort extends to hiring good managers and reading financials–oh and hiring militias. The success the enterprise is determined by the effort put forth by the managers and miners who through their labor and productivity make the company successful–and they to should be compensated appropriately.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Monte_RCMS]

When government regulators become bullies:

retirementblog.ncpa.org/for-lincoln-and-lemonade-too-punishing-entrepreneurship/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RetirementReformBlog+%28Retirement+and+Taxes+Blog%29

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Monte RCMS;8016919:

O.K. Yes, I think government has made some of these difficult jobs safer. I gather you dispute that? Based on what evidence? I think government does both–is that so strange? Is that so hard to wrap your head around?

I’ve never argued that there are not many useless and mindless regulations–that are harmful to industry–I think if you go back an check you’ll find that I have willingly acknowledged that. I’ve seen workers legislated out of jobs by what I consider stupid regulation–apparently other people thought otherwise. I guess here is where we differ–this doesn’t mean I think all legislation and regulation is bad–it seems that you do. It sounds like you never met a rule, law or regulation that you think is worthwhile.

Please feel free to keep treating me like a moron and bolding and capitalizing the text to make sure I get your point. And I will leave you with this:

In 1913 here is the list of the UMWA’s seven demands on behalf of miners in Colorado (where the accident average was over twice the national average):

1. Recognition of the union as bargaining agent
2. Tonnage rate increase (= to a 10% wage increase)
3. Enforcement of the 8 hour workday law.
4. Payment for “dead work” (laying track, timbering, handling impurities, etc.)
5. Weight-checkmen elected by miners to keep the company weight-checkmen honest.
6. The right to use any store, and chose there own boarding houses and doctors.
7. Strict enforcement of Colorado’s laws (such as mine safety rules and abolition of script), and an end to the company guard sytem.

I call your attention particularly to #4, #5 and #6 given that you have stated previously “Private property starts with ownership of the fruits of our labor. Anything less than being able to retain the whole of our property is slavery”

In #4 who is keeping the fruit of these workers labor? The mine owner. He is essentially stealing the fruit of this labor by refusing to pay for work necessary to mine the coal he is profiting from.
In #5 again by weighing light they are stealing the fruit of someone elses labor.
In #6 they are forcing their workers to shop in their stores and pay rent for company owned housing. Who’s keeping the fruit of their labor? Certainly not the worker.
Were these unreasonable demands?

Additionally I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask that laws on the books be enforced and adhered to.

Most of these demands seem reasonable the only one that even seems like it should be contentious is the 10% wage hike.

Finally the mine owners put up money–they invested capital. They are entitled to a fair return on that investment comensurate with the risk they are taking but lets not claim the success of the mine is due to their effort. There effort extends to hiring good managers and reading financials–oh and hiring militias. The success the enterprise is determined by the effort put forth by the managers and miners who through their labor and productivity make the company successful–and they to should be compensated appropriately.

Peace,
Mark

Mark … mark … MARK! … THIS ISN’T 1913!

 

[MarkInOregon]

MarkInOregon;8017464:

Mark … mark … MARK! … THIS ISN’T 1913!

You are absolutely correct. But the idea that because things have improved they can never go back to the way they were - leads to a complacency in the general public that I find worrisome. And were their demands unreasonable? The mine owners thought so–thought they all were.

Why isn’t it 1913 anymore? (aside from the passage of time of course) Do you think regulation and labor law played no part? You never answer these questions.

The history of business practices up to the present day should tell us that if they could–they’d still have us shopping at the company store and buying patent medicine if they were allowed to.

The idea that we should just junk all regulation and let business go and do what it wants to because it will treat workers fairly and sell safe products because its not 1913 anymore–is not born out by the historical record of human existence. It is always 1913 if you aren’t vigilent.

From where I sit those who want to throw out all regulation are no better than the rabid environmentalists in my area who if they could would stop all logging and remove all the dams and if I lived in WV stop all mtn top mining. They never ask do the benefits outweigh the costs because as far as they are concerned they don’t view navigation, flood control, recreation, energy and jobs as a benefit. For them it is more important that we have wolves than cattle to feed people–probably because a good percentage of them don’t think we should eat meat. For the no regulation folks they don’t see the benefits of forcing an employer to take safety precautions or in keeping them from poluting. What’s wrong with exposing workers to DDT? It kills bugs and I can always get more workers. There’s no benefit to the business–you’re costing me profits. Love canal it was nothing. People getting cancer from contaminated ground water–lies all lies–our chemicals are safe and besides we don’t dump them. Cigarettes? Hey they are healthy! You can’t believe those cancer studies–all lies–trust us.

So on one side I’ve got those who want me to eat dandilions and be eaten by wolves–so the world can return to its natural state and on the other I’ve got those who want me living in brownfields and don’t care if my living or working conditions are safe just as long as businesses make the profits they desire.

Now before I get tarred and feathered–I am not against protecting the enviroment and I am not against profits both are important and I don’t see why they can’t coexist. I have issues with extemists at both ends of the spectrum.

So Monte–I got the message–yes I know regulation bad, business good. Rich good, workers praise the rich for allowing you to make profits for them and thank them for the crumbs they give you. Taxes bad. Government bad. I have seen the light. Absolutely no benefit has been derived from regulation and labor law. Our food and workers are not safer because of it. Got it.

Thanks,
Mark

 

[copperblade]

Do you think the recent gulf oil disaster was due to too much government regulation?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Do you think the recent gulf oil disaster was due to too much government regulation?

Accidents do happen. We learn from them and do better.

The gulf oil spill was not the end of the world disaster that it was predicted to be. Nature did the cleanup … not to encourage blowouts. The oil companies don’t want to have their employees killed, equipment destroyed, production lost and huge costs for recovery and remediation.

The stats are in; places with more heavy handed government have worse safety records.

This was already established during the debates at the time of the gulf oil spill.

Look at what the government HAS DONE since the gulf oil disaster … it has shut down the entire energy development sector in the gulf.

That’s what the government has done.

Do you wonder why the cost of gasoline and petroleum products is so high? Well, lower supply is one of the reasons. If you want lower costs, increase supply.

What the government does is shut things down.

If you vote for a green economy, then you can expect a much more expensive economy with smaller amounts of energy and fewer jobs. How does that work for you?

President Carter conducted an experiment and abolished the CAB and the ICC. The result was that the airline industry expanded and thrived. And safety did improve. Competitive factors led to airlines buying new planes and equipment. The FAA is still there and is strangling development. The NTSB is still there. In fact, with increased regulation, there has been a spike in the number of fatal accidents.

Without the ICC regulating every aspect of rail and other surface transportation, the railroads have been able to readjust their priorities to accommodate market demands. And they have expanded.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Do you think the recent gulf oil disaster was due to too much government regulation?

By the way, what is your understanding of “natural oil seepage”?

 

[Mark_David]

Tax the rich heavily; fund services for the destitute, poor, and laboring class.

Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:23-24

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Tax the rich heavily; fund services for the destitute, poor, and laboring class.

Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:23-24

What is your understanding of “the rich”? Who are they?

And what happens when you run out of other peoples’ money?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Do you think the recent gulf oil disaster was due to too much government regulation?

What gives you the idea that government regulation is the answer to disasters like the gulf oil blowout?

How would government regulation solve the flooding problem in the midwest?

The government already controls huge amounts of the economy and owns most of several states.

Given the enormous stake the government already has in the economy, then what makes you think the government is the answer to our problems.

Please be specific and detailed.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Monte RCMS;8017722:

You are absolutely correct. But the idea that because things have improved they can never go back to the way they were - leads to a complacency in the general public that I find worrisome. And were their demands unreasonable? The mine owners thought so–thought they all were.

Why isn’t it 1913 anymore? (aside from the passage of time of course) Do you think regulation and labor law played no part? You never answer these questions.

The history of business practices up to the present day should tell us that if they could–they’d still have us shopping at the company store and buying patent medicine if they were allowed to.

The idea that we should just junk all regulation and let business go and do what it wants to because it will treat workers fairly and sell safe products because its not 1913 anymore–is not born out by the historical record of human existence. It is always 1913 if you aren’t vigilent.

From where I sit those who want to throw out all regulation are no better than the rabid environmentalists in my area who if they could would stop all logging and remove all the dams and if I lived in WV stop all mtn top mining. They never ask do the benefits outweigh the costs because as far as they are concerned they don’t view navigation, flood control, recreation, energy and jobs as a benefit. For them it is more important that we have wolves than cattle to feed people–probably because a good percentage of them don’t think we should eat meat. For the no regulation folks they don’t see the benefits of forcing an employer to take safety precautions or in keeping them from poluting. What’s wrong with exposing workers to DDT? It kills bugs and I can always get more workers. There’s no benefit to the business–you’re costing me profits. Love canal it was nothing. People getting cancer from contaminated ground water–lies all lies–our chemicals are safe and besides we don’t dump them. Cigarettes? Hey they are healthy! You can’t believe those cancer studies–all lies–trust us.

So on one side I’ve got those who want me to eat dandilions and be eaten by wolves–so the world can return to its natural state and on the other I’ve got those who want me living in brownfields and don’t care if my living or working conditions are safe just as long as businesses make the profits they desire.

Now before I get tarred and feathered–I am not against protecting the enviroment and I am not against profits both are important and I don’t see why they can’t coexist. I have issues with extemists at both ends of the spectrum.

So Monte–I got the message–yes I know regulation bad, business good. Rich good, workers praise the rich for allowing you to make profits for them and thank them for the crumbs they give you. Taxes bad. Government bad. I have seen the light. Absolutely no benefit has been derived from regulation and labor law. Our food and workers are not safer because of it. Got it.

Thanks,
Mark

Mark, what is your point?

I read a lot of sarcasm.

But apart from that, not sure what you are getting at.

The world is an imperfect place.

It will never be perfect.

But it has improved for a wide variety of reasons.

This isn’t 1913 anymore in terms of living and working conditions. The poor today in the United States have much more than the rich of 1913.

DDT kills the malarial mosquitos … [it doesn’t actually kill “the workers”] but DDT has been banned and now a million people each year die from malaria. Love Canal … it was a government approved dump site for war production waste from WW2. It was capped and sealed and then the government broke the seal cap and used the site for building a school.

But as you have suggested, more government just makes it more imperfect.

Life is difficult and once you realize that life is difficult, then it isn’t quite so difficult anymore.

But, Mark, what would you suggest … apart from more sarcasm?

Sounds like we should have a dictator and that that dictator should be … who, exactly? And what exactly would that dictator do?

Please be specific … and without the sarcasm.

 

[Mark_David]

What is your understanding of “the rich”? Who are they?

What did Jesus mean by “the rich”? I would say: someone who owns much more than they need (as opposed to what they desire), has a steady, “comfortable” income, etc. This includes the “middle” classes, though they should be taxed proportionately (ie less so wealthier peoples).

And what happens when you run out of other peoples’ money?

Well, I’m no economist; mostly looking at this from a moral perspective. Maybe that’s largely untenable in today’s capitalistic climate.

 

[Ignats75]

What did Jesus mean by “the rich”? I would say: someone who owns much more than they need (as opposed to what they desire), has a steady, “comfortable” income, etc. This includes the “middle” classes, though they should be taxed proportionately (ie less so wealthier peoples).

Well, I’m no economist; mostly looking at this from a moral perspective. Maybe that’s largely untenable in today’s capitalistic climate.

**Well check out this quote from St John Chrysostom:

**

byztex.blogspot.com/2009/08/timely-quote-from-st-john-chrysostom.html

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

 

[Ignats75]

The following two quotes from The Catechism of the Catholic Church pretty much eliminates your argument for redistribution of wealth.

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. the teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

 

[Mark_David]

The problem with great wealth, though, is that, by default, it promotes greed and envy, and with it often comes with slack morals - you only have to look at the world around us. Capitalism works on its own terms because it often finds ways to push frivolous products on the people and tends to make much more money by appealing to the baser instincts of mankind - look at today’s media, for instance. Redistribution of wealth may not be Christian, but neither is unchecked capitalism. Either way, I do agree that excessive interference by the state is a bad thing - and thanks for those references; I stand corrected on some things.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What did Jesus mean by “the rich”? I would say: someone who owns much more than they need (as opposed to what they desire), has a steady, “comfortable” income, etc. This includes the “middle” classes, though they should be taxed proportionately (ie less so wealthier peoples).

Well, I’m no economist; mostly looking at this from a moral perspective. Maybe that’s largely untenable in today’s capitalistic climate.

Another issue is this: what if the rich are simply more talented or work harder or are better innovators than the average person?

If they have all their money taken away, then will they have an incentive to continue working harder, or smarter or coming up with better ways to do things or inventing new things?

I always thought that so some extent, money is an incentive … the ability to buy more stuff. Fixing up their house. But if every time they get a nickel ahead, it gets taken away, then why should they bother?

If someone who works on a drill rig finding oil gets paid a lot of money, and if he saves it up and then you come along and take it from him, why should he bother working anymore?

Those commercial fishermen on “Deadliest Catch” make a lot of money in a short period of time. Why should they work under such deadly conditions if you’re just going to take their money.

If “riches” are a spiritual issue, then what business is it of YOURS? Shouldn’t it be God’s business and only God’s business what they do with it … spend it, save it, or give it to charities that are important to them?

 

[Mark_David]

Another issue is this: what if the rich are simply more talented or work harder or are better innovators than the average person?

That’s a wild generalization; some wealthy people are clearly none of those things. Paris Hilton?

If “riches” are a spiritual issue, then what business is it of YOURS? Shouldn’t it be God’s business and only God’s business what they do with it … spend it, save it, or give it to charities that are important to them?

Nice pun. As for whose business it is - are you saying that how much a person earns, and how they earn it, is never a social issue? No man is an island.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

That’s a wild generalization; some wealthy people are clearly none of those things. Paris Hilton?

Nice pun. As for whose business it is - are you saying that how much a person earns, and how they earn it, is never a social issue? No man is an island.

No pun at all.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s.

So, how will you sort out the contributors from the celebrities?

God has a pretty good idea of what and how HE will judge.

BUT, even God allows for repentance … even at the last second.

But you seem to be sounding pretty merciless.

What does that mean? No man is an island.

Now you are mixing a religious/spiritual issue with a social issue.

Who are YOU to judge?

But you evaded the question … clearly some or even MANY of the rich are more productive for society than the average person.

So, how will you decide which contributions and which of the rich people are WORTHY?

How will YOU decide?

 

[Mark_David]

So, how will you sort out the contributors from the celebrities?

I never said I would - I’m not a politician or economical reformer.

BUT, even God allows for repentance … even at the last second. But you seem to be sounding pretty merciless.

Not sure how you got that impression. I’ve never said that God ignores or rejects one’s sincere repentance. Unless you’re somehow referring to the Matthew 19 verses I posted - in which case, you’ll have to argue that one with God, not me.

Now you are mixing a religious/spiritual issue with a social issue.

Spiritual and social issues aren’t mutually exclusive, you know.

Who are YOU to judge?

Who am I judging? I’m only trying to follow God’s teachings, and share those with others. Furthermore, who are you to judge?

But you evaded the question … clearly some or even MANY of the rich are more productive for society than the average person.

You’ve let the cat out of the bag - you have an elitist attitude. You need to repent for that. That’s all I’ve got to say to you, sir.

 

[vz71]

But you evaded the question … clearly some or even MANY of the rich are more productive for society than the average person.

You’ve let the cat out of the bag - you have an elitist attitude. You need to repent for that. That’s all I’ve got to say to you, sir.

Is this an example of sarcastic humor?