Government, Taxes, and the Wealthy [Archive]

annaelizabeth

08-27-2009, 07:57 AM

I supposed subsidized medicine, not socialized medicine. There is a difference between government run and government funded.

timetraveler added to this post, 12 minutes and 1 seconds later...

Who says Americans plan to compete? We will use our weapons to kill the competition like it has always been. This is why wars happen every generation, this is how competition actually takes place and the winner of the world war or the cold war gets the spoils and wins the game. That is what Iraq was about, that is what Vietnam was about, if you think that countries will compete in the marketplace or in the classroom its as silly as thinking countries will compete in the olympics to see which country will dominate the planet.

That being said, the USA is no longer the master of war either because we got our asses kicked in Vietnam, and Iraq, and haven't really won a war since world war 2. We may have won the cold war against the soviets but we bankrupted the country to do it. You could be right, if the USA does not become a military based economy then we will be a country of uneducated losers who can't find jobs. However if we become a military economy, we can build weapons, bring back the draft, and create jobs by fighting wars. In this way the US economy and US worker will survive if they serve the US government.

I don't think healthcare has much to do with our ability to compete and win wars. I admit you are correct that without healthcare the troops/veterans lose morale, but it's already a situation here if you serve the government you at least in theory get veterans healthcare benefits. All they have to do to bring universal healthcare to American citizens is do something like what Isreal does and have a required national enlistment of some sort and then everyones a veteran and gets benefits that way. They'd have to define this enlistement in the broadest term possible, if you serve the US gov in any fashion whether war or peace operations, civilian or military, you get free healthcare.

This wont really solve it for all people but if the USA really wants to go down the socialized medicine path that is the easiest route to it. It's also the easiest route to full employement and the fastest way to fix the economy. It's just a question of do we want to be a military/war economy? If the economy doesn't improve, that is the path we are headed as a culture and economy based on government investments and where the jobs are being created.

timetraveler added to this post, 20 minutes and 24 seconds later...

You speak like a true capitalist. Unfortunately capitalism and the "free" market is a myth. Merit never determined wealth. Last name and connections determine wealth more than the myth that hard work shall set you free. If you are such a capitalist then you should be even more pissed off about the bailouts, and even more pissed off that CEO's are laying off the hardest working people in this country to boost their own salaries, stealing their labor in the same exact way the government does. The fact that you have empathy for the CEO but no empathy for the worker who builds the company but whos salary isn't high enough to afford healthcare means that you probably don't have empathy for either and you are simply using the CEO's talking points in hopes that the CEO will give you a raise.

I do not agree with the wording in the bill but I do agree with the intentions of the bill. You can go to your bosses and tell them I'm a communist if you want, but the truth is that capitalism as it exists now is just as unfair as communism. The CEO's salary is unlimited but the workers salary is capped. The CEO's companies get bailed out but the workers lose their jobs, and their healthcare along with it.

I can't agree more with your opinions on capitalism. Only those who are in high positions, by terms of luck, connections, or maybe in some cases hard work, can relate to this. I work my ass off, yet my manager makes 4 times my salary because he has connections in the company. He does very little work, spending most of his time on personal calls and online. But hey, capitalism, work hard and you'll get ahead. It's the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard. And yes, I am looking for another job. Unfortunately, I've seen this at other jobs as well. The little workers keeping the company running are usually the lowest paid, while the highest paid are the ones who do absolutely nothing but fuck up the company with their stupid business decisions (if they even make any) and are a waste of space. They contribute so little it's ridiculous. I could make decisions which would actually benefit the company, improve efficiency, and contribute to a profit but no one cares about my ideas because I'm not in management. Not all companies are like this I'm sure, but there are enough. And yes, I have a college degree. I don't work at McDonald's either.

Alex

08-27-2009, 08:31 AM

Oh, bollocks. I definitely won't deny that connections and family can ensure wealth, but never necessarily "success". People who pass their wealth down to their children don't even COUNT in the equation, to me; it's their property, they can do with it what they will.

As for everyone else, it's not "hard work" that will set you free - that, indeed, is a myth. It's ingenuity and hard work that will do this. And no, it doesn't happen to EVERY person with a good idea and work ethic to back it up. Sometimes it depends on the market and what it needs at the time you come along. So I'd say a bit of luck plays into it, too.

And again, if you're talking about "the top 2%", who cares? Yes, the top 2% make a LOAD of money. They also pay THE most taxes - all of your Medicaid, national defense, roads, public libraries, schools, is funded the MOST by those evil capitalists. And whatever they don't pay for federally, they donate privately to charity. Rich people are so evil and mean, yet I honestly don't see poor people donating much. That may sound like a rather obvious statement, but the way some people bitterly refer to the wealthy in this country, you'd think it was the poorer and lower middle classes banding together to help each other out while the rich giggle and swim in pools of money they'll never share with them. And it's just not that way.

Most of us with ambition will end up as middle class or upper middle class. Anyone who believes "fairness" equals everyone having a million or two in the bank is living in a fantasy world.

The truth is, you complain about "the little workers who keep the company running" and their pay grades, but without the wealthy and those who hold business degrees and know HOW to run a business, those workers wouldn't even have THAT job. There'd be nothing for them to do. You have to put what they do in perspective; yes, their combined efforts keep the company running from an operational standpoint, but their jobs require barely ANY skill. The less skill a job requires, the greater the number of people who are able to do it. So the bigger the workforce pool, the lower the price for that particular type of labor. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is. It's not the higher-ups you need to blame for how low the wages for those jobs are; you need to blame the bottom rung who are WILLING to do the work for such a low price. Labor is a business expense, just like groceries are an expense to you, the consumer. Are you going to buy the higher priced goods out of the principle of supporting a certain company - or are you going to seek the best value for the lowest price you can? The latter is what most people call a "smart shopper". If a company does this in terms of labor, they're called evil. It's an unfair double-standard pushed by those who simply don't understand how business works.

If people don't want to do those kinds of jobs, they need to learn a valuable trade, or go to college. Not everybody is academically inclined, but I'll guarantee that a carpenter or mechanic makes SCADS more money than a register jockey at McDonald's. There ARE opportunities in this country, plenty of them, you just have to get over being bitter and go after them. And, just having a college degree doesn't guarantee you anything either - you have to display drive. If you've got a general degree in, what, liberal arts - what does that even mean? What are you ACTUALLY qualified to do? If you don't know, why do you expect employers to know? Did you ever join any academic societies? Do any volunteer work in keeping with your degree to help boost your experience? Show a leaning towards a specialization so that an employer will know what skills are actually your strong suit? If you think you could run a McDonald's better - is your degree in any kind of business? What kind of degree is it - a bachelor's degree from a worthwhile college, or an associates' or technical degree from some unknown online racket?

People have to plan and actively direct their lives, instead of shuffle through the motions and expect to come out clean on the other side. I simply don't buy this rhetoric that says if you actually devote everything you have into becoming a well-educated, driven professional, you still won't get anywhere in life. Opportunity is everywhere - and either you're someone who goes out and looks for it, or someone who sits around waiting for others to point it out.

Hamburglar

08-27-2009, 08:56 AM

nobody (at least myself) is saying the top 2% are evil...but we are saying that they got there and they are much wealthier than EVER before. I hate to use the word 'blame' for all the problems that capitalism creates inherently, but the rich are the easiest target to hit. The rich do have an obligation to the workers which they would shirk if it were not for taxation....Public utilities like roads, etc were not built for workers, they were built for business/military interests. Water rights were secured by farming and industrial interests, etc, etc.. Nothing is ever done for the workers at least until social security, medicare/medicaid were passed. Or perhaps the minimum wage increases in the mid/late 90's. But these were token changes that did little to improve the quality of life of HARD WORKING-working poor Americans.

Yes, opportunity exists, but being in the right place at the right time is still the determinant factor of success. You can argue that this can be planned for and achieved, but most cases will not support that notion.

Alex

08-27-2009, 09:13 AM

The rich do have an obligation to the workers which they would shirk if it were not for taxation....Public utilities like roads, etc were not built for workers, they were built for business/military interests. Water rights were secured by farming and industrial interests, etc, etc.. Nothing is ever done for the workers at least until social security, medicare/medicaid were passed. Or perhaps the minimum wage increases in the mid/late 90's. But these were token changes that did little to improve the quality of life of HARD WORKING-working poor Americans.

If that were true, virtually none of the top 10% wealthiest Americans would donate to charity, which they routinely do. I mean, why bother? Even the adjustments made to taxable income compensate for the amount they donate - basically, the government says, "You've done your bit for the less fortunate through private charity, here's a deduction in what we normally MAKE you pay otherwise for the same purposes, if through a different avenue." So it's essentially broken down as - they can either forcibly give money up to the government, or they can give it willingly. And many wealthy people do BOTH; when indexed to how much tax savings they'll receive for charitable donations, they'll often end up spending FAR more than they save.

Again, this myth that rich people don't care and would never help the less fortunate without force is ridiculous. It's nothing but bitter wealth envy.

And minimum wage has never done a thing but help drive up inflation, and increase unemployment (if a certain bottom-line for labor is DEMANDED, employers can simply compensate by hiring fewer workers).

timetraveler

08-27-2009, 09:17 AM

Time~ "Gov't" does not care about us, to be sure. However, the members of government do care about the constituencies which elected them to their privileged position. This distinction must be accounted for in discussion of the topic.

Hamburglar added to this post, 24 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Came across this...since so many seem to love flowcharts in this thread.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I disagree, I think most of those politicians who are elected care about special interests. Lobby groups like big oil, big pharma, big telco, and these groups basically write all the laws and then force the politicians into signing off and voting for it. These special interest groups don't care about the whole, they care only about maintaining control over their monopolies and this is how you can explain away the last 8 years.

timetraveler added to this post, 30 minutes and 28 seconds later...

"I can't agree more with your opinions on capitalism. Only those who are in high positions, by terms of luck, connections, or maybe in some cases hard work, can relate to this. I work my ass off, yet my manager makes 4 times my salary because he has connections in the company. He does very little work, spending most of his time on personal calls and online. But hey, capitalism, work hard and you'll get ahead. It's the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard. And yes, I am looking for another job. Unfortunately, I've seen this at other jobs as well. The little workers keeping the company running are usually the lowest paid, while the highest paid are the ones who do absolutely nothing but fuck up the company with their stupid business decisions (if they even make any) and are a waste of space. They contribute so little it's ridiculous. I could make decisions which would actually benefit the company, improve efficiency, and contribute to a profit but no one cares about my ideas because I'm not in management. Not all companies are like this I'm sure, but there are enough. And yes, I have a college degree. I don't work at McDonald's either."

Anna this is because you know the game isn't about which robot works the longest hours, or the hardest. The corporate rulers have convinced workers that they are robots and if they just work a little harder they'll make more money. Americans already work the longest hours in the world with the least vacation time. Americans do not have the highest quality of life or the best healthcare, but Americans work the "hardest" and still get shafted in favor of the cheaper robots. In some cases workers get replaced by machines literally. Arbeit macht frei "Hard work will set you free" is a concept from Nazi concentration camps. The evidence is right here To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hard work is valuable if you are given unique opportunities to be great.
This might apply if you are a member of the country club, otherwise hard work will get you no where. Society at the upper level is very much members only, and you are either in or you are out. If you are out, you'll never get past a certain level in that industry because you aren't in the club and all the important bosses and gatekeepers of that industry are in the club.

The era of hard work is over. That era was the 1900s when the industrial revolution favored hard work. We are in the information/robotics era now, if you work harder you'll only be speeding up the construction of the robots that will replace you. If you work more hours it wont save your job from being outsourced. Hard work in school is still important, because you get graded, but in the real world it doesnt matter how hard you work, your salary has nothing to do with that. Work smart, try to have the best possible quality of life you can for the money, try not to go into debt and let the robots toil.

As far as a college degree, a college degree is just a highschool diploma now. Why? Because now you have a global economy where a corporation can hire anybody out of 6 billion who have college degrees. Corporations can have multinational citizenship and move to where the workers are, you on the other hand are stuck here in the USA while your job gets shipped to China. It's no longer enough to have a college degree, to free yourself now you need to have a masters degree from an ivy league school. Anything less than what Obama, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy and the other elites have and you'll have no chance of getting ahead because the new competition is between elites, and the middle class is a mere relic at this point.

The competition is between the Chinese, Indian, European, American elites. This competition between elites is what capitalism is. Everybody else just work for them or get out of their way. If you aren't from an elite family you probably wont get into an ivy league school, so it's a rigged game, so why even try and pretend like its fair? It's a pyramid scheme.

curiousgeorge01

08-27-2009, 09:51 AM

annaelizabeth

08-27-2009, 09:52 AM

timetraveler

08-27-2009, 10:00 AM

If that were true, virtually none of the top 10% wealthiest Americans would donate to charity, which they routinely do. I mean, why bother? Even the adjustments made to taxable income compensate for the amount they donate - basically, the government says, "You've done your bit for the less fortunate through private charity, here's a deduction in what we normally MAKE you pay otherwise for the same purposes, if through a different avenue." So it's essentially broken down as - they can either forcibly give money up to the government, or they can give it willingly. And many wealthy people do BOTH; when indexed to how much tax savings they'll receive for charitable donations, they'll often end up spending FAR more than they save.

Again, this myth that rich people don't care and would never help the less fortunate without force is ridiculous. It's nothing but bitter wealth envy.

And minimum wage has never done a thing but help drive up inflation, and increase unemployment (if a certain bottom-line for labor is DEMANDED, employers can simply compensate by hiring fewer workers).

A majority of them donate to charity to avoid paying taxes. It's a tax haven. Yes you have some rich people who care but the majority don't and if theres nothing in it for their families they aren't out to help you and yours.

Rich people don't care on average. Yes you will have some rich people who care, but it's never going to be the majority, and it's probably not even a quarter. Rich people have no reason to care about people they don't know just like middle class families don't have a reason to care about families living in the US ghettos, and just like poor families in the USA don't have a reason to care about families in the third world. Rich families see poor families as getting in the way of their competition for global resource control. You want food and water? Too bad, coke and pepsi need to profit so the rich owners can pay for new mansions and their childrens ivy league education. So you can eat McDonalds and Drink Coke, and when you die an early death it's all for the good of whoever owns it. And if you believe rich people care about you, go ahead and trust them and see what happens.

As I see it, poor people don't care about each other, so why on earth would I be dumb enough to think rich people care? You look in prison and prisoners don't care about each other, in fact the richest families have convinced these prisoners to be so racist that they can't even form one big gang, they are divided into every kinda racial gang imaginable and they all compete for the prison resources. Outside of the prison it's less racist but its the same thing, families form gangs and compete for control of blocks, and neighborhoods they don't even own but they think they do so they kill and die for it. This mentality doesn't end, it's this fight over turf that continues up to the highest most elite levels. Do you really think rich people don't fight over who controls the land and oil? They fight over resources and their turf is countries, their turf is industries, their family probably owned that industry for hundreds of years and they'll go to war to keep control.

This is just common sense, I thought you were an INTJ?

Alex

08-27-2009, 10:22 AM

A majority of them donate to charity to avoid paying taxes. It's a tax haven. Yes you have some rich people who care but the majority don't and if theres nothing in it for their families they aren't out to help you and yours.

Do you even know how our taxation system works? It's a progressive system meant to make everyone pay a percentage of their income, as a share of responsibility for various social expenses and programs. Everyone, based on his taxable income, pays a share. The only reason tax breaks are given to those who donate to charity is because they're essentially taking the burden off the GOVERNMENT to pay money out to the needy, by paying it directly TO privately funded charities out of their own pockets.

So, if I give a load of clothes and shoes and toys to the Salvation Army, and I receive a receipt that allows me to take a small deduction, the ONLY reason I get that deduction is because, by providing those materials directly TO foundations that help the poor, I have spared the government the time and administrative cost of taking my tax money and doing the same thing with it. You don't "get out of" paying taxes when you donate to charity; you simply get to decide where it goes. For instance, if I feel that cancer patients deserve my money more than a family with six kids who won't stop having children long enough to GET themselves out of poverty, I can choose to make a donation instead of pay a percentage of that tax.

Please learn how our taxation system works and the REASON for those taxes before you take your wealth envy out on those who probably do the MOST for our society.

Rich people don't care on average.

Your opinion, not fact, unless you've got some "rich people don't care" study underway with testable evidence tot he contrary.

Yes you will have some rich people who care, but it's never going to be the majority, and it's probably not even a quarter.

Care to back that up with, I don't know, ANYTHING supporting this argument? Some decent sampling that might prove that "the majority" of the rich don't care?

Rich people have no reason to care about people they don't know just like middle class families don't have a reason to care about families living in the US ghettos, and just like poor families in the USA don't have a reason to care about families in the third world.

So what you're essentially saying is, people are less inclined to "care" when problems don't affect them - and you're right. And you've just admitted that poor people have this problem too, not just the rich. It's called being human. I myself have that problem, to a degree; I care for myself and MY family before I go trying to fix others' problems. It's called rational self-interest, and everyone has it. Not to mention, could you please direct me to the part where anyone else was OWED charity? I'm not saying it's not good to give to charity, and I'm not saying there aren't people with some truly unfortunate circumstances with which I sympathize. I'm saying, exactly when were they ever OWED the clothes off someone else's back, or the money out of someone else's wallet? Because that seems to be your attitude. "Everyone else needs to pay for everyone else, and when they do, don't expect me to be grateful" - after all, if the rich EVER do anything kind for the less-fortunate, it's "just for a tax break".

Seriously, I should use your posts later on in discussions I get into on other forums as examples of how the poor/middle class hate the rich FAR more than the rich hate or disdain the lower classes.

As I see it, poor people don't care about each other, so why on earth would I be dumb enough to think rich people care?

So your actual point is that no one cares about each other. Why, then, do the rich get singled out. One answer: wealth envy. That's it. Instead of aspiring to BE successful or wealthy, you're among those who spit in their direction because of what you don't have.

You look in prison and prisoners don't care about each other, in fact the richest families have convinced these prisoners to be so racist that they can't even form one big gang, they are divided into every kinda racial gang imaginable and they all compete for the prison resources.

I barely even know what you're talking about here, save to say that prisoners . . . criminals, in other words . . . don't care about other people.

What a revelation.

This is just common sense, I thought you were an INTJ?

You should look up the No True Scotsman fallacy, and in fact, every other logical fallacy so that you can form a coherent argument. HALF of what you said doesn't even make sense, it just sounded like a cynical "boy, people suck" rant. And I don't necessarily disagree with you that people on the whole tend to suck - but I'm not going to single out the rich out of sheer jealousy.

Alex added to this post, 30 minutes and 6 seconds later...

My manager could not do my job. I have no doubt of that. He'd probably openly admit it if asked. You'd be surprised how many lower wage workers have skills, but are unable to use them in their current jobs.

Couldn't do it, or simply wouldn't WANT to? An unskilled job can be learned, that's the definition of an unskilled job. I might say in hyperbole, "God, I could NEVER be a construction worker" and it wouldn't mean that I don't have the cognitive ability to understand how construction works, it would simply mean that I wouldn't have the desire to expend that kind of physical effort, out in the sun all day, getting covered in dirt and paint and debris. I might not even be in a physical condition to be able to handle the demands of the job; but that doesn't mean I'm not qualified. Trust me, if your manager is your manager, he's qualified to do your job, he just doesn't WANT to, or isn't yet aware of the technical procedures of it. Please don't take offense to that; I'm not saying he's in any way "better" than you or that your job isn't important. Honestly, if your manager was technically UN-qualified to do your job? He really shouldn't be your manager. But most companies, on the whole, aren't that ill-run. Segregation and delegation of duty by management is often a big part OF the operational environment. So even if they don't readily know which buttons to push or nails to hammer, I'm positive it's nothing they couldn't learn.

Besides, management isn't MEANT to do a subordinate's job; in fact, management is often meant, in the occasion that that employee isn't available, to delegate someone on equal footing to cross-train on that position in order to have a back-up. So even if you weren't there, it wouldn't be the manager's job to pick up your slack, but to appoint someone else to do so. To you, that might sound like, "Oh, so he only stands around and tells people what to do." And he does delegate responsibility, but I assure you, it isn't the only thing he does, by FAR. And if it IS, he needs to be fired in favor of a more effective, efficient manager.

I find the continual argument that the rich routinely give to charity amusing. How exactly do you know this? Many of the rich people I've met are selfish, racist, money hoarding whiners who will complain if overcharged $2.00. I'm not kidding. And it's not bitter wealth envy. It's a fact. We usually joke that is how they stay rich, by hoarding their assets.

Publicly traded company assets are often public domain; I work in an accounting firm, and know that most of the financial reports we generate are meant for shareholders - sometimes those shareholders are just family members, but in the case of larger corporations, those shareholders are members of the general public, and they have a right to see how the company in which they hold stake is spending their money and allocating their resources. Besides, many of the biggest players' financial dealings are actually NEWS - such as, how much Bill Gates gave to charity in a year. That's a news article. It's easy to find.

This is over and above, once again, the OVER 50% of federal and local taxes the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans pay - which is still kind of like "forced charity" but charity nonetheless.

And I'm not a wealthy person, but *I* would complain about being overcharged $2.00. Why does any person deserve to be overcharged on a specific retail price over someone else? How is that fair? If your net worth is $10 or $10,000,000, it's simply good business sense - and FAIRNESS - that everyone pays the asked price for a good or service, unless the seller is willing to negotiate. They don't have to be RUDE about it, mind you, but then again, I can imagine the kinds of attitudes they encounter in a day - that attitude that, because they "make enough", they should be fine with tossing out money left and right on any old thing.

Truth is, many people can build a pretty impressive personal net worth not by starting some giant business, but by being financially responsible and conservative, by asking for better interest rates, by investing wisely, by keeping an accounting of where their money goes and making cutbacks and adjustments as necessary. It's not some guarded knowledge held only by the rich (whatever your definition of "rich" even is - is a doctor who makes $200,000 a year rich? Or only the mogul who has a net worth of $30 million or above?)

Yes, we all have to go out and make our own futures, create our own success, etc...but to pretend that that's all there is to earning wealth is naive.

I didn't say that's ALL there was - note that I did specify that luck is involved. Sometimes you have to be in the right place at the right time; you have to have an idea for a company that represents a blank space in the market. Which means you either have to identify and capitalize on that need (for instance, when Microsoft began building its first personal computers for people who needed a more practical way to manage information), or CREATE that need (by inventing a mini-burger frying pan and suggesting to people that they simply can't LIVE without trying it - like Billy Mays, and other inventors/marketers). That doesn't happen for everyone.

But, seven or eight-figure net worths aren't the only option, it's just the most highly visible and extreme option. Like I said, people CAN have some modest degree of wealth by working hard, getting a well-paying job, saving much of their money, not spending too excessively, investing, and taking an active INTEREST in their financial health. I don't know about you, but the majority of people *I* know never seem to leaf through the Finance section of the newspaper unless they're already employed in that field. It's simply not something most people are interested in, and then they wonder why, even with something as decent as a $45,000/yr job, they're still having a little trouble making ends meet.

I'm not saying I've never met snotty rich people, but since wealth is honestly NOT that common compared to middle/lower-middle class incomes, I think it's safe to say I meet MORE snotty middle/lower-middle/poor people. If a person's an asshole, he's an asshole, no matter what he's got. The fact that a man doesn't want to be overcharged by $2 doesn't make him an ass; the fact that he has to be rude about it, rather than just point out the error gracefully, does.

timetraveler

08-27-2009, 11:31 AM

Do you even know how our taxation system works? It's a progressive system meant to make everyone pay a percentage of their income,

In my opinion incomes taxes are regressive because they punish everyone. However the middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxes.

as a share of responsibility for various social expenses and programs. Everyone, based on his taxable income, pays a share. The only reason tax breaks are given to those who donate to charity is because they're essentially taking the burden off the GOVERNMENT to pay money out to the needy

Do you know what happens to the money? Neither do I. It's not difficult to hide money. If you don't know the details of all of these so called charities you can't comment. Look at those commercials to save starving children in Africa, I grew up as a kid looking at those commercials, and my parents grew up looking at those commercials, and those commercials are still on TV today. It's clear that at some point the money is not reaching the Africans, and since it's very difficult to track the movement of money globally, you don't know what rich people are doing with their charities or even if these charities serve a social purpose.

, by paying it directly TO privately funded charities out of their own pockets.

You don't know whos hands this money ends up in. Just because you donate to charity doesn't mean anything if you don't track the hands the money ends up in. That money could be going to warlords, drug lords, or whomever. That money could be used for food or weapons and you'd have no way to know. It's very difficult to track money.

So, if I give a load of clothes and shoes and toys to the Salvation Army, and I receive a receipt that allows me to take a small deduction, the ONLY reason I get that deduction is because, by providing those materials directly TO foundations that help the poor, I have spared the government the time and administrative cost of taking my tax money and doing the same thing with it.

Not all charities are equal. Review the function of a charity before you actually try and claim every charity is good. There are many schemes on wallstreet, pyramid schemes like Bernie Madoff was running. These schemes are also run as non profits where a fake non profit is invented and a bunch of rich people give money to it, and that money ends up in someones pockets and we lose track of whos pockets. How can you trust that charities are run by people with integrity? Are you naive?

You don't "get out of" paying taxes when you donate to charity; you simply get to decide where it goes. For instance, if I feel that cancer patients deserve my money more than a family with six kids who won't stop having children long enough to GET themselves out of poverty, I can choose to make a donation instead of pay a percentage of that tax.

Actually there are some ways where rich people actually EARN money by donating to charity. There are many loopholes, schemes, scams and tricks that rich people can exploit. For example buying treasury bonds, running hedge funds, manipulating currencies, all of those wallstreet tricks.

Please learn how our taxation system works and the REASON for those taxes before you take your wealth envy out on those who probably do the MOST for our society.

I don't want to be like the people I'm describing. You think they do the most for society because you either work for them, or you are them. Some rich people do a lot, but most don't and this is just human nature. Accept that many humans by nature aren't good, and that these humans are equally distributed among all classes including the elite. So yeah the best 10% of wealthy people care, the bottom 90% don't care, just like the bottom 90% of humanity in general does not care, and this goes for the poor too. It's always rare for people to care about people they don't know.

Your opinion, not fact, unless you've got some rich people don't care study underway with testable evidence tot he contrary.

So you believe we are in Iraq because the USA cares about Iraqi children? You think we dropped those bombs to spread Democracy to the middle east? You believe Fox News?

Care to back that up with, I don't know, ANYTHING supporting this argument? Some decent sampling that might prove that the majority of the rich don't care?

Dunbars number To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'s_number

So what you're essentially saying is, people are less inclined to "care" when problems don't affect them - and you're right. And you've just admitted that poor people have this problem too, not just the rich.

I never said poor people are inherently better. I'm saying both the majority of rich and majority of poor don't care. A lot of the poor don't want universal healthcare because they just don't care. If you want to know the science, there are 6 degrees of separation between "us" and "them". The more degrees away from a person you are, the less likely you are going to help them. Rich people tend to help people who are socially near them, and there has been countless social network analysis studies on the behaviors of rich people to back this up.

It's called being human. I myself have that problem, to a degree; I care for myself and MY family before I go trying to fix others' problems. It's called rational self-interest, and everyone has it. Yes and it makes sense for someone who isn't rich to have it because you'll never get rich if you don't. However if you are wealthy, and you'll never run out of money, this equation changes. Yes you should help people nearest to you because you know a lot more about those people, but if rich people were going out of their way to do that, don't you think we'd have a lot more schools and a lot less prisons in the USA? Prisons are being built at a faster rate than schools because rich elites don't give a $#*! about our childrens future. They don't care, they just don't.

Not to mention, could you please direct me to the part where anyone else was OWED charity? I'm not saying it's not good to give to charity, and I'm not saying there aren't people with some truly unfortunate circumstances with which I sympathize. I'm saying, exactly when were they ever OWED the clothes off someone else's back, or the money out of someone else's wallet? Rich/wealthy people get that way off someone elses back. It's called giving back to the community you came from. I know I'd give back if I became rich. If this world made me rich, if this society made me rich, why should I feel like society owed me riches, or that I'm entitled to it? I'm a member of society, I'm not somehow above social responsibility just because I got rich. In fact the richer you are the most socially responsible you should be, they do owe it to society to give to charity.

Because that seems to be your attitude. Everyone else needs to pay for everyone else, and when they do, don't expect me to be grateful - after all, if the rich EVER do anything kind for the less-fortunate, it's just for a tax break.

That is not what I said at all. First of all, a majority of rich people aren't doing kind things for the less fortunate. I don't know what circles you are in or what world you live in, but thats a fantasy world. It was never like that. The rich elites crashed the economy in the 1920s causing the great depression. This lead to world war 2. In the USA the rich have been trying to protect their wealth at any cost, to the point of starting wars. In these wars started by these rich elites, many poor families sacrificed lives to protect their empires. You are telling me that these poor families owe the rich families? Rich families often dodged the draft to add insult to injury.

Seriously, I should use your posts later on in discussions I get into on other forums as examples of how the poor/middle class hate the rich FAR more than the rich hate or disdain the lower classes.

I don't hate the rich. I dislike evil greedy people who don't care. It just so happens that the most destructive of that sort of human happens to be the wealthy kind. There are good rich people who aren't like that, but those good rich people are clearly outnumbered and anyone who is around rich people will tell you that.

So your actual point is that no one cares about each other. Why, then, do the rich get singled out. One answer: wealth envy. That's it. Instead of aspiring to BE successful or wealthy, you're among those who spit in their direction because of what you don't have.

Rich people reap all the benefits of society. They should be the most responsible. I don't expect a poor person to be responsible. Yes I'm poor and responsible to a degree, but if I were rich society should expect a lot more from me because environment wouldn't play much of a role anymore.

I barely even know what you're talking about here, save to say that prisoners . . . criminals, in other words . . . don't care about other people.What a revelation.

You are a complete elitist. Prisoners and criminals aren't always bad people just like rich people aren't. The same percentage of good and bad people exists in any environment and I used the prisoner example to describe human nature. We can observe prisoners better than any other population. A majority of people in any environment will not care about other people, unless it's church or something.

You should look up the No True Scotsman fallacy, and in fact, every other logical fallacy so that you can form a coherent argument. HALF of what you said doesn't even make sense, it just sounded like a cynical boy, people suck rant. And I don't necessarily disagree with you that people on the whole tend to suck - but I'm not going to single out the rich out of sheer jealousy.

Your argument is that we should all suck up to the rich at any cost. Kiss up and kick down strategy of success right? Well if you care about people then you won't keep protecting and encouraging evil rich people to do cruel acts. There may be good rich people and there may be responsible rich people, and we poor and middle class people will figure out who they are and reward them for their kindness. All goodness should be rewarded no matter if its expressed in a rich elite person or a poor defenseless person, it's the same trait and we should reward all who express the trait or behavior. I do not think a majority of rich people express that kind of behavior, and yes a majority of people do suck and thats why society keeps getting worse, and until we accept that most people don't care, we aren't going to be able to accomplish anything because naive individuals want to assume rich people care about them, and corporations care about them, and the government cares about them, even when their taxes rise, their salaries shrink, and their working hours increase.

Alex

08-27-2009, 12:03 PM

All I heard there was "I'm a victim, rich are evil". Interspersed with unprovable "facts", and a couple of unrelated examples - such as the Dunbar's number link. How on earth does that provide a verifiable number of rich who "don't care"? And do you even realize that such a thing really isn't even quantifiable, as "not caring" is a completely subjective term?

Pointless argument is pointless. I'll save my energy, thanks.

jesse

08-27-2009, 12:07 PM

Unfortunately I don't think you do get it. This has nothing to do with anyone hating anything. A government, any government is concentrated power and this makes it an inherant danger to anyone or anything that threatens that power with thoughts of liberty, individualism or freedom. The people who forged our constitution knew this which is why the agrued so fiercely for limited government watched closely by the people. Now more than ever it is paramount for the people to be watchful and aware of what is happening because the odious intent of this current administration is to fundamentally alter our way of life. Universal healthcare is just one cog in the nefarious machinery they mean to set into motion. The goal of the statist is to make its subordinates dependant on the state because once dependancy is in place absolute power follows. Focusing on just one part of what's going on is dangerous and negligent. It's the big picture that needs to be viewed. It's not a pretty picture. It's pure evil.

The spirit of the time when the US constitution was written in my opinion was very aware of the danger of accumulating power until it became a tyranny and thus unfit for anyone who values liberty.

It is pure evil when you get these proposals which are supposedly for the benefit of the less well off having unlimited dual use potential, such as banning doing or saying something which the current leadership of the time is not going to tolerate because it threatens them in some way. Sometimes the statist tyrants only get one small piece of the puzzle in place while these days, especially with Dubya, they've made massive progress in this direction.

Time~ "Gov't" does not care about us, to be sure. However, the members of government do care about the constituencies which elected them to their privileged position. This distinction must be accounted for in discussion of the topic.

Politicians and bureaucrats only care when their seat is to be won, or kept. Otherwise the electorate is really nothing more than a mosquito. Annoys you for a while and makes a buzzing noise which you learn to ignore over time.

annaelizabeth

08-27-2009, 12:33 PM

Alex, maybe I should have been more specific. I am not on the lowest rung of the organization. I handle quite a bit and take on a lot of responsiblity. The manager I'm referring to is the manager of the entire company, not my department. I believe we have equal schooling. He has connections ties to the owner. Figure it out. It happens all over the place. You get ahead via the people you know. I'm just giving one small example - it happens everywhere. The shithead manager I worked for at my last company didn't give two craps about anything. The one thing I needed help from him with, and he ignored me, and left me to figure it out on my own. He was a stuffed suit waiting to be paid. It was pathetic.
By the way, I have managed others at a past job (and even this job), and I know what it means to be a manager.
Also I agree with timetravelers. Most people only care about things that affect them directly. That includes rich, poor and those in between. The rich have a higher responsibility to help the poor, given the fact that they have shitloads of money to throw around, when the poor can barely put food on the table. Do you think the same person who can't afford to feed their children has equal responsiblity to give to charity than someone who spends $5,000/month on clothing? Seriously. They just don't have it to give.

Alex

08-27-2009, 12:48 PM

The rich have a higher responsibility to help the poor, given the fact that they have shitloads of money to throw around, when the poor can barely put food on the table. Do you think the same person who can't afford to feed their children has equal responsiblity to give to charity than someone who spends $5,000/month on clothing? Seriously.

Why? This is the crux of my argument here - why? What exactly gave them this "responsibility"? Again, I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile endeavor to try and help people who need help. But I take issue with the difference between calling it a choice and a responsibility. I happen to think everyone is responsible for taking care of him or herself.

To answer your question, I think the poor person who can't afford to feed her children has the SAME level of responsibility to give to charity as the person who spends $5,000 on clothing - none. The rich person might have greater MEANS to give to charity, but has not somehow taken on more responsibility just because he happens to have a lot of money.

I must warn you, you're talking to a person who considers taxes for anything other than basic infrastructure costs - roads, communications, emergency services, things EVERYONE regardless of class will need and use - to be flagrant theft. Had I my preferences, ALL means of subsidy would come from private charitable efforts, rather than forced wealth redistribution. So I suppose it's safe to say we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

These matters are why I take things like reproduction very seriously. I don't consider the act of having children a given right; I consider it one of the greatest responsibilities one can ever undertake, because when you bring a new person into the world, in my opinion, you are bestowing upon them an equal burden of responsibility. After so much time as a dependent, they will then be responsible for surviving and being a productive member of society on their own. It isn't fair to have them go from being dependent on mom and dad for 18 years, only to have them continue to be dependent on everyone else until the day they die. The public has no say in that; we don't get to say who has children or not (which is a good thing). Therefore, I think it's more than fair to adopt the ideal that every man is responsible for himself.

This is why I don't automatically feel a tug on my heartstrings whenever I hear about parents barely being able to feed their kids. "Kids"? If it's all you can do to keep a roof over your own head, and food in your own stomach, where on earth did you get the notion that a child would LESSEN this burden? At what point does the paying public get to say, "Hold on a second, you can't afford to raise children yet"? When does the poor's responsibility kick in?

Why do the poor have "rights", while everyone else (not even just "the rich") has "responsibilities"?

themuzicman

08-27-2009, 01:12 PM

annaelizabeth

08-27-2009, 02:54 PM

Tell you what, try being rich without the middle class. It's not possible. They need the workers as much as the workers need the jobs. Without their workers, there is no company. There is no profit. There is no bottom line.

As far as why the rich have a responsiblity to give to the poor, I believe it's a matter of moral obligation. Those with the most should share and help those with nothing. It's a human issue, not a political one. If we aren't put on this earth to help one another, what are we here for? When you're in your last days, will you be grateful that you kept it all for yourself, and helped no one? Turned your back on those less fortunate? Is that what our society has come to? It's MINE, all MINE, hands off. All I can picture is some old man hovering over his bag of money, with greed in his eyes. Unfortunately, I do not believe all people, in and of themselves, will give to others willfully. Some, yes. All, no. People are motivated by greed. This is a fact, and a sad one at that. If you think the poor will be sufficiently aided by charity based solely on voluntary contributions, I would have to disagree. Congratulations and good for you if you give to charity. I truly respect that. However, don't fool yourself into thinking everyone does.

The basic disagreement here is a matter of wanting to help others, and every man fend for yourself. It couldn't be simpler than that.

Alex, I agree being a parent is a huge responsiblity, and not everyone is up for the task. When I mentioned parents without money for food, I was referring to working class citizens in a tough bind, many of which you can find across the US right now with the recession. Not referring to welfare moms who have 10 children and pump the system. I have blatant disgust for those.

thod

08-27-2009, 02:56 PM

The rich are the most acquisitive not the smartest or the best. They are simply people who focus on a single aspect of life. Frequently they have no interests outside of acquisition, they ignore family life, social life and intellectual development in order to further their bank balance. Thus they can be considered to have a psychological problem. The workaholic is unbalanced, that he is socially useful does not change this. I see two major drives at play, the desire for security and the desire for status.

The rich are just monkeys like other humans. They seek to sit on the highest, and therefore most desirable, branch of the tree. Once there, they must repel other monkeys that would displace them. But what happens if the troop decides to move location? They don't want to be left sitting alone up there, they must move with the troop. Thus they do all they can to prevent the troop moving. The rich are conservative because when you are the top change is a bad thing.

The problem with the rich is that they are short sighted. Their world revolves around self-advantage and not system optimization. They would always choose a bigger slice of a smaller pie rather than a smaller slice of a bigger pie. They choose to superbly educate their children rather than having their children live in a world where everyone is educated. It is about relative advantage not best outcome.

The fact is that rich are getting richer and the poor are staying the same. Thus all the gains we made through technological improvement have gone to the few. Yet still the rich protest they are taxed too much. So lets look at that. The taxes on the rich are low, much lower than historical norm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The golden days of the US had top tax rates of 90%. The policies of Reagan did not raise American living standards, the only group to do well out of it were the rich. Thus low top rates are a failed policy.

The medieval kings extracted tax from their barons. The barons extracted their wealth from the labour of their peasants. The peasants paid no tax. They had nothing and anything that could be taken was taken by the baron. Thus in taxing the baron, the king was taxing the peasant. The rich are akin to the barons. They still extract profit from the poor, yet they are refusing to hand it over to the king, demanding the poor, who they have already taxed, be taxed again.

So we need some proposals. I propose no income tax on the first 40k a year. Thed a gradual rise to 90% for those on 500k a year. I know that the rich will shout that they will have no incentive to get richer. What they really mean is they want higher status since their needs are already met. But we do not want them getting richer. We benefit from having 10 independent shopkeepers rather than 1 man owning 10 shops and hiring the others as employees. The problem we face is too much wealth concentration. The aspiring shopkeeper now has a chance to own his own shop and show that he is a better shopkeeper. We actually want the 'best' shopkeeper to get out of the way and let others have a chance. Otherwise we would have just one 'best' shopkeeper in the nation until he is displaced by someone better. Americas own economy show the merit of this. It's golden age was when the rich were heavily taxed. It has stagnated with the rich becoming ever richer. It allows them to build ever bigger corporations which work against a meritocracy favouring the incumbent via economy of scale.

Alex

08-27-2009, 03:07 PM

RBM

08-27-2009, 03:10 PM

So we need some proposals.

I propose
Monetary Reform. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Also see the work of Paul Grignon (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and read what he says on his site,

This is a system designed for elite control of the people by those who have given themselves the privilege of creating money. It is also, I believe, a system that is designed for catastrophe. As the movie explains, there can be no sustainable civilization without a sustainable money system

There are alternatives - support them !

themuzicman

08-27-2009, 03:12 PM

Tell you what, try being rich without the middle class. It's not possible. They need the workers as much as the workers need the jobs. Without their workers, there is no company. There is no profit. There is no bottom line.

The "middle class" as workers is a fairly recent invention. traditionally the "middle class" was small and consisted of crafters and tradesmen who hadn't made the bigtime.

As far as why the rich have a responsiblity to give to the poor, I believe it's a matter of moral obligation. Those with the most should share and help those with nothing. It's a human issue, not a political one. If we aren't put on this earth to help one another, what are we here for?

What gives you the right to impose your morals on others?

When you're in your last days, will you be grateful that you kept it all for yourself, and helped no one? Turned your back on those less fortunate? Is that what our society has come to? It's MINE, all MINE, hands off. All I can picture is some old man hovering over his bag of money, with greed in his eyes. Unfortunately, I do not believe all people, in and of themselves, will give to others willfully. Some, yes. All, no. People are motivated by greed. This is a fact, and a sad one at that. If you think the poor will be sufficiently aided by charity based solely on voluntary contributions, I would have to disagree. Congratulations and good for you if you give to charity. I truly respect that. However, don't fool yourself into thinking everyone does.

Wouldn't think of it. But what gives you the right to forec this on others?

The basic disagreement here is a matter of wanting to help others, and every man fend for yourself. It couldn't be simpler than that.

Actually, it's not. You just want to express everything in black and white so you can be white and anyone who disagrees is black.

The fact is that, in the US anyway, the poor don't need money. They're already obese. They need a system that helps them, rather than feeding their problems.

Alex, I agree being a parent is a huge responsiblity, and not everyone is up for the task. When I mentioned parents without money for food, I was referring to working class citizens in a tough bind, many of which you can find across the US right now with the recession. Not referring to welfare moms who have 10 children and pump the system. I have blatant disgust for those.

i defy you to find someone in the US who doesn't have access to money for food.

Profit

08-27-2009, 03:38 PM

The fact is that, in the US anyway, the poor don't need money. They're already obese. They need a system that helps them, rather than feeding their problems.

i defy you to find someone in the US who doesn't have access to money for food.

Actually obesity is a symptom of poverty. It is cheaper to eat highly processed or canned food loaded with sodium than it is to buy fresh vegetables, fruits, bread made without high fructose corn syrup, and organic meat (cows finished on with corn and ground up chicken parts/droppings have a much higher fat content in their meat). Most grocery stores in low income neighborhoods don’t even carry a lot of healthy/fresh food or organic meats so low income workers don’t even have access to them. How many Whole Foods (and its not like I can shop there either) do you see in undeveloped rural areas or low income inner city neighborhoods? Also it takes time and energy to prepare home cooked meals (for the most part better for you – unless you deep fry everything).

thod

08-27-2009, 03:57 PM

How about we just remove American citizenship from the rich. Make them leave the country, remove their rights to hold any assets in the country, charge anyone that does business with them with 'trading with the enemy'.

They are so full of their rights, they have no right to live amongst us, we determine that, they have no rights to trade with us, we determine that. Lets kick them all out to some leper colony where the strongest of them can eat the others. We do not want them, we do not need them, they need us. The worker shall be his own boss and profit from the sweat of his own brow rather than giving his labour to a parasite capitalist. We need not fear a 'brain drain' they are not the brains. All we would get is a 'bastard drain' and kicking them out of the country would make it a more pleasant and prosperous place.

daydreamer

08-27-2009, 04:05 PM

How about we just remove American citizenship from the rich. Make them leave the country, remove their rights to hold any assets in the country, charge anyone that does business with them with 'trading with the enemy'.

They are so full of their rights, they have no right to live amongst us, we determine that, they have no rights to trade with us, we determine that. Lets kick them all out to some leper colony where the strongest of them can eat the others. We do not want them, we do not need them, they need us. The worker shall be his own boss and profit from the sweat of his own brow rather than giving his labour to a parasite capitalist. We need not fear a 'brain drain' they are not the brains. All we would get is a 'bastard drain' and kicking them out of the country would make it a more pleasant and prosperous place.

on what schedule? do you recommend a yearly ritual cleaning of the creme de la creme as a new set of wealthy rises to the top ?

thod

08-27-2009, 04:18 PM

on what schedule? do you recommend a yearly ritual cleaning of the creme de la creme as a new set of wealthy rises to the top ?

I was trying to make the point that if they wish to live in our house, they must live by our rules and we are free to make any such rules. If society wishes to be communist, they may vote it such. There is no right to be allowed to be rich or to get rich. What the rich need to do is convince the poor that it is advantageous to have rich and poor. There are many more poor and they will vote to redistribute the wealth unless they can be convinced otherwise, they are like the rich in seeking self advantage in this. Yet the poor can not see how they gain, or how society gains from billion dollar a year hedge fund managers. They see parasite skimming the wealth of the people and buying the votes of politicians. They see the wealth of Paris Hilton an insult to meritocracy. They see corporations owning everything and running everything and no place for themselves other than as an employee. They see the rich getting richer, an elite, established and exclusive with 'no entry' signs for the likes of them. They get angry and they say 'tear it all down, I would rather communism than aristocracy'.

Profit

08-27-2009, 04:26 PM

I'm in no way trying to speak for everyone who has posted on this forum in favor of higher taxes for the rich or whose post has come off as somehow being anti rich but….I think what bothers them is the income disparity in the US at the moment. Income disparity has increased since the 1950’s, when the difference in income between the rich and the poor was at the lowest level in the country’s history. This difference though has increased drastically in the last few decades.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I, and I would say others on this forum, believe that when there is wide disparity in the way that economic assets are distributed in society something should be done to even it out a bit. When people in a society do not benefit from economic development more or less equally (something that has not happened in the last few decades) it leads to social and structural problems. This doesn’t mean everyone should make the same amount of money or have the same standards of living or that the rich should be punished for being wealthy (however they became wealthy). Just that when the economy grows the majority of people should see an increase in their standard of living….just like when the economy tanks everyone sees a decrease in their standard of living ; ).

daydreamer

08-27-2009, 04:34 PM

I was trying to make the point that if they wish to live in our house, they must live by our rules and we are free to make any such rules.

ok i get it.

There is no right to be allowed to be rich or to get rich.

the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness?

annaelizabeth

08-27-2009, 05:39 PM

"No, they'll have no incentive to expand. They're GOING to recoup the lost revenue somehow. You know how they're going to do it? Cutting production costs, which includes labor - which means jobs. Or they'll cut health benefits (not by dropping plans, but by severely reducing the quality of coverage). If you're in business, your goal is to increase assets, increase owner's equity, and minimize liability. That's it. You're basically doing everything you can to KEEP them from doing their jobs."

Did you notice one thing you did not mention? Oh yeah, cutting their own salaries. The CEO's will do everything in their power to gain more profit for themselves.

annaelizabeth added to this post, 10 minutes and 1 seconds later...

What gives you the right to impose your morals on others?

i defy you to find someone in the US who doesn't have access to money for food.

First of all, are you serious that you don't think it is our moral obligation to help others on this planet? If that is true, then I honestly think you are missing out on a lot in this life. It's not what we can collect, hoard, and keep for ourselves. It's what we can give to others. Our time, our money, our compassion, our company, our kindness. Believe me, there are many times I'd rather spend my afternoon with my dog than some people, but to act like we shouldn't care about others is just sad. I mean, really, really sad. Like I said before, in this country, many ask why would we want to care for others? In many other countries, they ask, why wouldn't you?

Oh, and by the way, you're completely denying the hunger problem in America. Yes, soup kitchens and food pantries are just there for fun, not for people who actually are hungry. Are you kidding? I have a friend who works full time, single mom, educated, and couldn't get food stamps because she earned something like less than $10.00/month too much. I'm not exaggerating. So yes, there are people out there in need. Open your eyes.

Alex

08-27-2009, 07:09 PM

Did you notice one thing you did not mention? Oh yeah, cutting their own salaries. The CEO's will do everything in their power to gain more profit for themselves.

But why would they do that? They're under no obligation to provide jobs for the public; they DO, and they know it's a happy side effect of starting a business, but it's not their primary concern. I've participated in a few small business endeavors in my life (and by small, I mean garage sales & thrift stores), and our concerns were: keep down operating costs, maximize profit. Ask anyone what they'd rather do when it comes to their money, whether they're talking about their household budgets, their small businesses, or their weekend yard sales: would they rather take a cut in pay, or find ways to reduce their overheads? Why would you expect a large business owner's answer to be any different?

That said, my firm has clients - fairly large businesses - whose owners have stopped taking a draw in order to keep their business afloat and keep their employees from taking a pay cut. So not all of the wealthy are insufferable misers. Again, what I'm arguing here is choice vs. forced obligation. Those business owners are under NO obligation to stop taking a monthly draw if they so desired; but they do, because they want to. Because they're decent people.

The answer isn't to punish them for being successful and having lots of money. The answer is to give them MORE incentive to spread the wealth around. Strangulating them with exorbitant taxes isn't going to make any person feel particularly charitable, and I don't blame them. Especially when the general public sentiment is, "The rich are all assholes."

First of all, are you serious that you don't think it is our moral obligation to help others on this planet? If that is true, then I honestly think you are missing out on a lot in this life. It's not what we can collect, hoard, and keep for ourselves. It's what we can give to others.

This is just a philosophical difference here, and I think the easiest way to address it is to, by default, give everyone a clean slate and let them choose what to do. Those whose life purpose is to help others can do so (and probably has greater means to do so without the burden of a humongous tax load), and those who don't feel that way have the freedom to live their lives - however empty others might think they are - the way they want. I think that's what he meant by imposing morality.

And I don't speak for muzicman, but that's the general building block of my political ideals - it's not that I support "greed" or that I'm "on their side". The only side I'm on is that of liberty and responsibility.

Profit

08-27-2009, 07:30 PM

The only side I'm on is that of liberty and responsibility.

Care to define liberty and responsibility.

BostonIan

08-27-2009, 07:55 PM

Lotta replies:
But hey, capitalism, work hard and you'll get ahead. It's the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.

Capitalism isn't "work hard and you'll get ahead", it's a system of ownership; buying, selling, and trading what you own. The term was coined by Marx in the 19th century.

Tell you what, try being rich without the middle class. It's not possible. They need the workers as much as the workers need the jobs. Without their workers, there is no company. There is no profit. There is no bottom line.

I was working on a project the other day, and I remembered thinking that it would be easier with a team of trained monkeys or robots. I'd need them, but the project would be my own.

People are motivated by greed. This is a fact, and a sad one at that.

If all people, that includes the politicians who control the tax revenue, and the poor who vote themselves unearned services in exchange for aiding politicians.

The basic disagreement here is a matter of wanting to help others, and every man fend for yourself. It couldn't be simpler than that.

The disagreement is about ownership, using coercive power to take what other people own for your charity work. You're free to act in accord with your beliefs and distributing what you own to help others.

The rich are the most acquisitive not the smartest or the best. They are simply people who focus on a single aspect of life.

Maybe not, but a case could be made that the poor are the least intelligent and the worst. The relative success of a person in the modern American system can be predicted by a marshmallow test of self-control on a 4-year old.

The rich are just monkeys like other humans. They seek to sit on the highest, and therefore most desirable, branch of the tree. Once there, they must repel other monkeys that would displace them.

There are monkeys high in the economic tree, high in the command tree, high in every tree. There are complaining low monkeys in every tree as well.

The fact is that rich are getting richer and the poor are staying the same. Thus all the gains we made through technological improvement have gone to the few.

"We" = they. The gains made through technological improvements have gone to those who improved the technology and implemented it, making them rich in the first place.

The medieval kings extracted tax from their barons. The barons extracted their wealth from the labour of their peasants.

In other words, better to be a king than a baron than a peasant in a feudal system. Better to be rich than middle-class than poor in an economic system. Better to be a power-broker or politically-connected in a managed system. Why aspire to be a happy peasant, not a baron?

How about we just remove American citizenship from the rich. Make them leave the country, remove their rights to hold any assets in the country, charge anyone that does business with them with 'trading with the enemy'.

Or they could remove citizenship from you. If they own more of the country, it's literally more theirs than yours. For practical concerns, I'm guessing it'd be easier to ship a set of consumer goods abroad than real assets.

Lets kick them all out to some leper colony...kicking them out of the country would make it a more pleasant and prosperous place.

The world is full of resource-rich places where peasants/workers sweat, and many of them aren't prosperous or peaceful. Pure speculation, I'd give it two generations until the workers migrate to the leper colony for jobs and refuge.

I was trying to make the point that if they wish to live in our house, they must live by our rules and we are free to make any such rules. If society wishes to be communist, they may vote it such.

Another way of looking at it would be that we live in their houses as ungrateful tenants. Any political movement will prove as difficult as economic success for those who fail marshmallow tests.

I, and I would say others on this forum, believe that when there is wide disparity in the way that economic assets are distributed in society something should be done to even it out a bit.

Economic assets aren't distributed in a capitalist system, they're simply owned and traded. Assets are only distributed in managed systems (including those managed by central banks). The solution is unlikely to be more management.

Oh yeah, cutting their own salaries. The CEO's will do everything in their power to gain more profit for themselves.

More profit for themselves means less investment for the company, means an opening for a better-managed company to take their market share, so long as no one comes later and bails them out for the sake of the workers.

First of all, are you serious that you don't think it is our moral obligation to help others on this planet? If that is true, then I honestly think you are missing out on a lot in this life.

The question is whether you're consistent in agreeing with the imposition of personal morality, enforcing it by rule of law.
I'm comfortable navigating whatever landscape all this popular squabbling turns into. Banker, baron, businessman, oligarch, whichever. My personal preference would be to deliver a valuable service to the population efficiently, rather than manipulating a crowd or using coercive force.

LaoTzu

08-27-2009, 07:59 PM

I tend to disagree with the 'incentive' aspect of being rich. I'm sure you can find thousands of candidates who would work for 100 times the average company rate, rather than the 400 times that CEO's are making... you can't convince me that current CEO's are the absolute best of the best in their respective fields. There are always others...

I think that some government reform is helpful, but I think real change would have to come from industry itself.

Shareholders.

Why in god's name shareholders agree to pay their CEO's the exorbitant rates that they do is beyond me...

I think change needs to begin there.

timetraveler

08-27-2009, 08:55 PM

Why? This is the crux of my argument here - why? What exactly gave them this "responsibility"? Again, I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile endeavor to try and help people who need help. But I take issue with the difference between calling it a choice and a responsibility. I happen to think everyone is responsible for taking care of him or herself.

As an American citizen, and as a member of society, we are all in this together. That is the point of the constitution which we defend. That is the point of having united states. Rich people owe it to their country, to society, to be the most responsible people and set the example of what an American should be.

To answer your question, I think the poor person who can't afford to feed her children has the SAME level of responsibility to give to charity as the person who spends $5,000 on clothing - none. The rich person might have greater MEANS to give to charity, but has not somehow taken on more responsibility just because he happens to have a lot of money.

That is ridiculous. It's fine that you believe that but you aren't taking this to the logical conclusion, you are a social darwinist. The constitution was invented to prevent social darwinism, it was designed to prevent every man/woman for his or herself. Charity is just another way of giving back to your country. Nobody is successful without the help of others, and everyone who is successful owes somebody, giving to charity is a way of paying it forward.

I must warn you, you're talking to a person who considers taxes for anything other than basic infrastructure costs - roads, communications, emergency services, things EVERYONE regardless of class will need and use - to be flagrant theft. Had I my preferences, ALL means of subsidy would come from private charitable efforts, rather than forced wealth redistribution. So I suppose it's safe to say we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I agree with you on income taxes, but you cross a line when you say that wealthy people shouldn't give to charity. You act like wealthy people are entitled to live off everyone else and not give anything back to society. That is ridiculous. And to think that wealthy and poor people owe the same amount back is just incorrect, you do the math yourself and you'll see that it's not fair.

These matters are why I take things like reproduction very seriously. I don't consider the act of having children a given right; I consider it one of the greatest responsibilities one can ever undertake, because when you bring a new person into the world, in my opinion, you are bestowing upon them an equal burden of responsibility.

I'm not disagreeing that the rich should have more children. I'm saying if you are wealthy then you are "MORE" American than somebody who is a poor immigrant, and by more American I mean you reap all the benefits without the pain associated with being an American. If you are going to benefit from the economic progress and hard work of this country you owe it to the people who allow you to live in a mansion, who allow you to be safe and not get robbed, and most importantly its just smart to pay the poor off so they have no reason to rob you in the future. If rich wealthy people act like they owe nothing back to society, eventually they'll be hated by the poor and they'll have to deal with the consequences of being surrounded by people in poverty which in my opinion is a crappy situation and I don't know why anyone would want to be in that situation.

After so much time as a dependent, they will then be responsible for surviving and being a productive member of society on their own. It isn't fair to have them go from being dependent on mom and dad for 18 years, only to have them continue to be dependent on everyone else until the day they die. The public has no say in that; we don't get to say who has children or not (which is a good thing). Therefore, I think it's more than fair to adopt the ideal that every man is responsible for himself.

If you are wealthy and you have a lot of kids it does not mean they'll be more productive than a poor family. It simply means they'll spend more money. Spending more money could be more damaging to society depending on what they choose to buy. A majority of the pollution and waste is generated by the spending habits of rich Americans who buy stuff they don't need. These rich kids who are not environmentally and socially conscious could wind up doing more damage with their money than if they were a poor kid of equal intelligence, this means the rich kid is not always worth more than the poor kid, it should be measured by the amount of damage the individual does to society itself. Because rich people do more damage to society they should also be more responsible.

This is why I don't automatically feel a tug on my heartstrings whenever I hear about parents barely being able to feed their kids. "Kids"? If it's all you can do to keep a roof over your own head, and food in your own stomach, where on earth did you get the notion that a child would LESSEN this burden? At what point does the paying public get to say, "Hold on a second, you can't afford to raise children yet"? When does the poor's responsibility kick in?

It's not about heart, it's about mind. It's just plain stupid to let a bunch of parents be both poor and desperate because you will be paying one way or the other. Either you'll pay to build schools and put them on welfare, or you'll pay to build prisons and put them in jail, or you'll be paying their salary to protect you from the wrath of the other poor people who want your riches. You have to understand that even under feudalism there were rich people who took care of certain classes, the rich people did not rule the earth but were a part of the feudal food chain. This means a rich person under feudalism as a Lord or Baron has a responsibility to the people who protect him, he has to make sure they are taken care of using his money, that is the deal. If you decide to stop paying for the poor who are you going to have to protect you and your wealth?

Why do the poor have "rights", while everyone else (not even just "the rich") has "responsibilities"?

Poor people are dying to protect your ability to get rich and have wealth. You are so selfish that you seem to think that your freedom is truly free and that by being rich you don't have to fight to keep what you have. Poor people are protecting your right to be rich every day, and if you let the poverty get too bad these poor people will start forming mafias just like they have in other countries, and these mafias will demand you pay protection money (a tax), and you'll end up paying that way. But you will pay either the government or the mafia, there is no way to live in a society and not pay.

timetraveler added to this post, 16 minutes and 53 seconds later...

What gives you the right to impose your morals on others?

The rich love to have poor people and middle class people fight for their morals. The fight against communism is a perfect example of that. What reward did the poor and middle class receive for winning the cold war? What reward did these families receive for Vietnam or Iraq? Somehow you think it's okay for rich people to force their morality upon us all, and have us die for their right to be rich, but they can't compromise at all? You don't seem to understand that it's the poor and middleclass who keep rich people safe, if it wasn't for the poor and middle class these rich people would be fed to the communists. Even today it's the poor and middle class bailing out their banks. And during world war 2 it was the poor and middle class who had to defeat Hitler.

If rich people don't want to pay taxes, let them pay for private armies and fight their own wars.

Actually, it's not. You just want to express everything in black and white so you can be white and anyone who disagrees is black.

It's not black and white, it's right and wrong, and you can measure the rightness and wrongness of an idea based on how many individuals it makes happy and how many individuals it makes safe. If the idea makes a majority of individuals safe and happy, its more right than an idea which makes a majority of individuals unsafe and miserable. A lot of rich people have ideas and make decisions which make a majority of Americans unsafe and miserable, and how is that being a good American citizen if you make your countrymen unsafe and miserable?

The fact is that, in the US anyway, the poor don't need money. They're already obese. They need a system that helps them, rather than feeding their problems.

Like I said, unsafe and miserable. These obese poor are buying products from Coke, Pepsi, McDonalds, which have chemical additives in them much like how tabacco products were marketed. These additives like High Fructose Corn Syrup are proven to cause obesity and death in rats, if you don't believe me use Google and look it up. These rich people are causing the pollution, creating and selling the food products, and poor people are supporting them and in the process becoming Obese. Now you want to tell the Obese miserable person that they cannot blame Coke and Pepsi for adding chemicals to their product? Are you going to defend big tabacco too?

And for the record I'm not saying people aren't responsible for what they eat. What I'm saying is that wealthy Americans stay wealthy off the sickness and obesity of the poor. This means what gives them the right to complain about a problem their corporations helped to generate? If you own McDonalds and Duncan Donuts you shouldn't complain that the police officers who protect you are now obese.

i defy you to find someone in the US who doesn't have access to money for food.

Food is not always of equal quality. Some food is more polluted and more toxic than others. Some food is so toxic that you can get cancer from eating it, and other food is so toxic that you can get diseases, there are many pesticides in foods. Do some research.

Hamburglar

08-27-2009, 10:15 PM

To add a visual component:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

timetraveler

08-27-2009, 10:36 PM

"The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth
and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into a
perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance even as it was the heritage of previous generations.
This condition of combat may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the
soft deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or Tolstoi, but it cannot be eventually evaded by
any human being or any tribe of human beings. It is there and it stays there, and each
man(whether he will or not) has to reckon with it. It rules all things; it governsall things;
it reigns over all things and it decides all who imagine policemanized populations,
internationally regulated tranquility, and State organized industrialism so joyful, blessed
and divine. "(Might is Right)

What many of you here who support this attitude that the rich owe nothing to society do not understand is that without order, a society will revert to a state of government which is governed entirely by natural law. The rich often understand the laws of nature the least because they are sheltered and protected from nature. Their wealth allows them to live in gated communities, they don't have to see human nature if they choose not to.

In a society without a social contract (an agreed upon morality), and without integrity and laws, we get reduced to social darwinism. Hitlers Germany was formed by social darwinism. Dictatorships are formed through a process of social darwinism. Social darwinism is a system of might is right, and in the context of capitalism the individual with the most $ is right, and has the most rights. The problem is if you don't pay off lots of people, you won't be safe in these rights for very long because the mob always has more might than the individual in any society. If you refuse to pay the mob in the form of paying the tax, then you have a problem and it's always like this because these are ancient tribal laws. These ancient tribal laws reflect the laws of nature.

The rules of life are not to be found in Korans, Bibles, Decalogues and Constitutions, but rather the rules of decadence and death. The law of laws is not written in Hebrew
consonants or upon tables of brass and stone, but in every man's own heart. He who obeys any standard of right and wrong, but the one set up by his own conscience, betrays himself into the hands of his enemies, who are ever laying in wait to bind him to their mill stones. And generally a man's most dangerous enemies are his neighbors.(Might is Right)

Once again in a state of nature, it's every man against every man. Every woman against every woman. Every family against every family. You can be as rich as you want, and you wont be able to trust your rich neighbors. You can be rich, powerful and elite but if you have nobody you can trust it will be too late to try and buy your way out. Natural law works on an ancient set of rules which are defined by men and women of conscience and of reason. The behavior of a rational man or woman is to protect themselves and their own, and this is in the nature of the human animal itself. It is also in the nature of most mammals and this nature is what generates the laws of nature, the patterns we see in the animal kingdom as well as in the human family.

Strongmen are not deterred from pursuing their aim by anything. They go straight to the goal, and that goal is Beauty, Wealth, and Material Power. The mission of Power is to
control and exploit the powerless, for to be powerless is to be criminal. The world would
indeed be a house of horrors, if all men were good and all women —padlocked.
As far as human search lights have yet penetrated, into the darkness that enshrouds the
origin of nations, we see the subduers and the subdued, the plebeians and the patricians,
the chiefs who governed, and the vassals who obeyed. And there is nothing in the most
modern social developments (of these deedless days) to warrant any belief that this
ancient and natural division of human animals, into castes of superiors and inferiors,
sovereigns and serfs, can ever be dispensed with. The slave-owner's whip cracked from
the beginning and it will crack till the day of doom. In every kingdom, republic and
empire on earth, we have (in one disguise or another) the master and the slave —the
ruler and the ruled. In the course of centuries, names alone have changed, essentials have
remained the same. Forms of royalty may alter but kings can never die. There was
mastership at the beginning, and there will be mastership to the end. We build, but as our
fathers built. Change is not progress, nor numbers advance. (Might is Right)

The greatest change that the world has ever seen came with the creation of national governments. The birth of The Constitution and the American revolution led our country out of feudalism. The birth of human rights came from the birth of America. But we have to seriously ask the question why was racial slavery ended? It was not ended because it "felt" wrong, it was ended because it ceased to serve a logical function in society. Society had moved on with the birth of the industrial age. The industrial revolution is what killed racial slavery.

Racial slavery was replaced with a system where workers worked in factories for 12 hours a day, for just enough money to live and not a penny more. A worker could be fired for being 2 minutes late and replaced by another worker willing to work 12 hours a day. Guilds ceased to exist as the industrial revolution gave us a new style of work based around the 12 hour work day, from 6 AM to 6PM. Children were forced to work along with adults in factories around the world but mostly in England. There were no child labor laws, there were no workers rights, there were no right to a raise and there were no unions. You were a robot who was governed by the clock. This is how society functioned in the 1800s until the early 1900s.

Human rights and wrongs are not determined by Justice, but by Might. Disguise it as you may,the naked sword is still king-maker and king-breaker, as of yore. All other theories
are lies and — lures. (Might is Right)

In the end natural law is determined by might, and the mob has strength in numbers. The reason to pay the taxes, or the protection money, is so as not to be robbed and abused by the mob. Whether the mob be the government, or the king of the streets, if you don't pay one or the other you'll be bullied into submission. It's very much like being in school and deciding which bully you want to give your lunch money to. If you decide not to give any bully your lunch money then you better be prepared to fight everyone to defend it.

Behind all the hypocritical veneer of piety and fashion; women of all ranks are
still a marketable commodity. Whenever the supply exceeds the demand, they are
straight away transmuted into magdalenes, concubines, slaves. When
few in number (as in young colonies) they possess a certain proportion of selective
influence, but when for every eligible man, there is a score of eligible women, their
market value dwindles, and instead of selecting, they become the selected or as
Darwin puts it: The sexual struggle is of two kinds. In the one it is between the
individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals,
the females remaining passive; while on the other, the struggle is likewise between the
individualsof the same sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but
select the more agreeable partners. (Might is right)

The laws of nature dictates that even among the elite there would be competition for the best women. This alone could lead to wars and the ancient way of solving these sorts of problems was through arranged marriage. Once again this reduces liberty for both the man and the woman, the only reason this trend ended is because the US government gave rights to women, after a long fight by middle class women to win those rights. It started with the children, child labor laws were created so that children did not have to work 12 hour days, and eventually these laws made it so children did not work at all. The men in this time period decided that women must be treated as children and so women did not have to work anymore either and it was only when women and children had stopped working did these women fight for their husbands to have their day reduced from 12 hours to 8 hours, so as to have time to be with their families and make plenty of babies. The reason the 12 hour workday was reduced to 8 hours is due to the influence of women on society who felt that their men were never home anymore, and the influence of children who felt that they didn't know their dad.

There are many rich people today who want to bring us all back to the 12 hour workday, where both the husband and wife work 12 hours a day, and then they'll make the kids work 12 hours a day once again, and bring society right back to where it was 100 years ago. This is what many rich elites want and if you look at the trends you'll see that everyone is basically working longer hours, even children have to spend more hours in school, yet everyone expects these families to have time to fight for social change and be socially responsible. Just like 100 years ago when people worked 12 hours including on weekends, when you work 60-70 hours a week you don't have time to do much else.

Is this the society we want? Do we want a bunch of robot workers who work 60-70 hours a week and neglect their social commitments? Then you have rich conservatives complain about how traditional values and how the sense of community is gone, of course that is gone. Isn't that what we wanted when we create this sorta fast paced workaholic culture?

aku chi

08-27-2009, 10:44 PM

As an American citizen, and as a member of society, we are all in this together. That is the point of the constitution which we defend. That is the point of having united states. Rich people owe it to their country, to society, to be the most responsible people and set the example of what an American should be.

That is ridiculous. It's fine that you believe that but you aren't taking this to the logical conclusion, you are a social darwinist. The constitution was invented to prevent social darwinism, it was designed to prevent every man/woman for his or herself. Charity is just another way of giving back to your country. Nobody is successful without the help of others, and everyone who is successful owes somebody, giving to charity is a way of paying it forward.

Are you talking about The Constitution of the United States of America? If so, you should at least refer to it as 'The Constitution' (note the capitalization) to distinguish it from any other constitution. I have studied The Constitution and I don't recall reading any section entitled: "The Point". The closest thing The Constitution has to a single 'point' might be the preamble, which discusses the purpose of The Constitution. It reads as follows.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I don't see anything about 'rich people' and their responsibilities, social darwinism, or charity in the preamble. In fact, none of these concepts are mentioned in the entirety of The Constitution. Nor are the general principles of collectivism and entitlement at all encouraged by The Constitution (in fact I could make a strong case to the contrary). Would you care to support your claims or concede the The Constitution of the United States does not support, nor directly oppose, your views?

timetraveler

08-27-2009, 10:52 PM

Are you talking about The Constitution of the United States of America? If so, you should at least refer to it as 'The Constitution' (note the capitalization) to distinguish it from any other constitution. I have studied The Constitution and I don't recall reading any section entitled: "The Point". The closest thing The Constitution has to a single 'point' might be the preamble, which discusses the purpose of The Constitution. It reads as follows.

I don't see anything about 'rich people' and their responsibilities, social darwinism, or charity in the preamble. In fact, none of these concepts are mentioned in the entirety of The Constitution. Nor are the general principles of collectivism and entitlement at all encouraged by The Constitution (in fact I could make a strong case to the contrary). Would you care to support your claims or concede the The Constitution of the United States does not support, nor directly oppose, your views?

Read Thomas Hobbes the Leviathan. Read about the what the founders of the Constitution believed in. They created a US Constitution because they wanted to defend against a state of nature. The reason we have a military is to defend against a state of nature. John Locke also was involved and agreed that a state of nature is a state of war and in a state of war liberty is diminished. The reason the federal government was created was to provide a monopoly of force, to defend the liberty of every American citizen from other American citizens. The concept of property rights for example was created to avoid a state of nature, courts were created to solve disputes non violently. In a state of nature the dispute would be solved by a duel.

aku chi

08-27-2009, 11:44 PM

Read Thomas Hobbes the Leviathan. Read about the what the founders of the Constitution believed in. They created a US Constitution because they wanted to defend against a state of nature. The reason we have a military is to defend against a state of nature. John Locke also was involved and agreed that a state of nature is a state of war and in a state of war liberty is diminished. The reason the federal government was created was to provide a monopoly of force, to defend the liberty of every American citizen from other American citizens. The concept of property rights for example was created to avoid a state of nature, courts were created to solve disputes non violently. In a state of nature the dispute would be solved by a duel.
You have accurately describes Hobbes's views on the state of nature and the purpose of government but you are incorrect in assuming Locke's concurrance with those views. Locke also wrote about a state of nature but his version was not the state of war that Hobbes described in his Leviathan. In fact, the state of nature wasn't such a bad place according to Locke (his laws of nature included private property rights). Locke concluded that government was desirable in order to construct an impartial justice system to sort out some of the problem withe the state of nature but he did not subscribe to an authoritarian government like Hobbes. I recommend you read more about Locke's views on the state of nature and the role of government. Also, both Hobbes and Locke agreed that the state of nature, while not ideal, was an environment of perfect liberty, not dimished liberty (I don't know where you got that idea from). If you would like to continue this discussion of enlightenment philosophers, I recommend you start another thread.

This recent discourse has been interesting but hardly relevant to The Constitution of the United States of America. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke did not write The Constitution (they were both long gone at this time, in fact). Certainly their philosophy had some effect on our founding fathers. I am under the impression, however, that Hobbes did not have nearly as much influence on our founding fathers as Locke, Montesquieu, and Hume. But one needn't look any further than the document itself (and maybe the Federalist Papers) to understand and interpret The Constitution. I ask only that you back up your claims concerning 'the point' of the Constitution or rescind them.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 02:10 AM

You have accurately describes Hobbes's views on the state of nature and the purpose of government but you are incorrect in assuming Locke's concurrance with those views. Locke also wrote about a state of nature but his version was not the state of war that Hobbes described in his Leviathan. In fact, the state of nature wasn't such a bad place according to Locke (his laws of nature included private property rights). Locke concluded that government was desirable in order to construct an impartial justice system to sort out some of the problem withe the state of nature but he did not subscribe to an authoritarian government like Hobbes.

Ultimately Hobbes was right. We have an authoritarian government, and while I don't agree with the authoritarian style of government either, both the far left and far right are authoritarian. The middle are the ones complaining about loss of civil liberties. The problem is that the far left and far right are both inspired more by their passions than by reason. They far left I'm sorry to say, is often inspired by a hatred of the rich. In that respect people like Alex are right that many of the extreme left do hate the rich and want an authoritarian government as a form of robin hood economics. The far right on the other hand hates the poor and is also inspired by their passion to try and build prison a prison industrial complex not wanting to pay taxes, the extreme right hates the poor. The rest of us are caught in the middle between the hatred on both sides.

Locke was not as authoritarian, but he did believe in property rights and you cannot have property rights if you do not have a government with enough might to enforce those rights.When I argue that the rich must give back, I'm arguing from Lockes philosophy that in order to have property rights at all you need law enforcement, and you need men of integrity, and these men aren't rich. The men who defend and protect your property aren't rich, but without these men nothing would stand in the way of the poor who would rob you just like they rob celebrites. And once again there will be no privacy anywhere on earth for the wealthy because everyone knows who they are and where they live, so if they are surrounded by poverty people will make a job out of following them around and stalking them just as is being done now to celebrities. Look at how Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are treated, yes you can be rich and wealthy, and you can be selfish, but you wont have any privacy anywhere on earth and without men of honor and integrity, the law enforcement and the government, you wont have any security anywhere on earth. That is my argument, that wealthy people have to invest in the poor not just out of the kindness of their heart but as a means of increasing their own security.

I recommend you read more about Locke's views on the state of nature and the role of government. Also, both Hobbes and Locke agreed that the state of nature, while not ideal, was an environment of perfect liberty, not dimished liberty (I don't know where you got that idea from). If you would like to continue this discussion of enlightenment philosophers, I recommend you start another thread.

You misunderstand both Locke and Hobbes. The state of nature is not "ideal" or "perfect" liberty because we aren't all equal in a state of nature.I can enslave you and leave you with no liberty at all, and in a state of nature what happens is those who have the most might and who are the biggest thugs will enslave the majority and leave everyone with diminished liberty. Liberty is diminished because you no longer can focus your energies on trying to be happy, or on making money, all of your energies will be focused on protecting even the smallest most insignificant of things, starting with your body, extending to your family, and your friends, and your house. You won't have liberty in this situation because others will constantly infringe upon your liberty, this is what I mean by liberty is diminished. In a state of nature everyone is forced to become a warrior from the moment they are born until they day they die, and if you don't fight you'll be enslaved and be the property of someone else who does fight.

Basically in that environment you are either a fighter or someones property. It's very much like how prison would be, without the guards, just a prison run by the prisoners. Even if you are a stone faced killer you wont be completely free because you'll be surrounded by other stoned faced killers, and any time you get some property they'll physically gang up on you and take it and so nobody can get rich or be free in this environment.

This recent discourse has been interesting but hardly relevant to The Constitution of the United States of America. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke did not write The Constitution (they were both long gone at this time, in fact).Certainly their philosophy had some effect on our founding fathers. I am under the impression, however, that Hobbes did not have nearly as much influence on our founding fathers as Locke, Montesquieu, and Hume. But one needn't look any further than the document itself (and maybe the Federalist Papers) to understand and interpret The Constitution. I ask only that you back up your claims concerning 'the point' of the Constitution or rescind them.

I'm explaining the reason why we moved on from Feudalism to become a Republic. Hobbes is the man in my opinion who most influenced the birth of Republics around the world with his philosophy. He made it very clear that government was necessary and you can't tax the public if they cannot be convinced that government is necessary. Hobbes showed that without government life would be a lot less free and a lot more miserable for the vast majority of people. The king of the warlords might have the "perfect" liberty you speak of but even he would live a short brutish life.

The concept of the Presidency came from the ideas expressed in the Leviathan. When the USA was formed there were many who wanted to give the President absolute authority, so it's not so simple that you can say that the founders did not disagree. They didn't even agree to name him the "President" and fought for over a month just about that. Hobbes inspired the founding fathers to establish the first principles and his ideas of the state of nature were the basis for the social compact theory of government.

James Madison - “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

This is proof that the purpose and point of the creation of government according to Madison the founder of the US Constitution is to prevent a state of war as described by Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan. Men are not angels and that is the gist of what Thomas Hobbes described as the state of nature.

The Federalists favored the creation of a strong federal government that would more closely unite the states as one large, continental nation. They tended to come from the wealthier class of merchants and plantation owners. Federalists had been instrumental in the creation of the Constitution, arguing that it was a necessary improvement on the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, the country's first attempt at unifying the states in a national political arrangement. Leaders among the Federalists included two men who helped develop the Constitution, JAMES MADISON and ALEXANDER HAMILTON, and two national heroes whose support would greatly improve the Federalists' prospects for winning, GEORGE WASHINGTON and BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
Read more: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Federalists were made up of the elites and the anti-Federalists were made up of the farmers/peasants. You had localized power structures with local bosses and these local bosses did not want to give up their turf to create a United States. The best argument for the creation of a federal government is national defense.

Alex

08-28-2009, 07:44 AM

No one ever said the government wasn't necessary, I don't know where you're getting that. Of course a government is necessary. Their sole purpose is to protect rights and protect its constituency from aggressive infringement of those rights - including and especially from the government itself. Those rights are largely set forth in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Beyond that, as set forth in the DOI, we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And nowhere, in any of those, is any sort of forced idea of charity. In fact, if we're going to throw around quotes, here's a nice tidbit:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson

Or, how about this one:

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty." – Thomas Jefferson

And oh, how true. Sure, seizing other peoples' assets makes everything "equal" (although not really) and things more "pleasant" for all (although it doesn't, because even WITH the welfare and entitlement programs and private charities we have in place, I STILL see bitter lower-class people do nothing but rehearse their own prejudices against the wealthy), but it's still no different than theft (the despotism of which Jefferson spoke). Earning your own living and carving out a niche for yourself is hard, it's damned hard, but the inability to do so does not justify theft. Think of the attitude behind theft: "I want/need this more than you do". "I have a right to take this because you have things, and I do not." The next time someone steals your car, pickpockets you, or robs your house, I hope you remember your attitude about reallocating the resources of others for reasons that don't beg your own input, and don't call the cops or file a report. After all - it's obvious that that person wouldn't have taken your belongings if they didn't really NEED them. What, they didn't ask you first? They didn't obtain your consent? Neither was my consent obtained when my income was taxed. You say the majority "voted for" said taxation? Well, I guess if TWO robbers pillage your house, and you're only one man, the majority wins.

Ooh, good quote time again:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens." – Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

"You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." – Abraham Lincoln

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – Thomas Jefferson

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." – Thomas Jefferson

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 07:53 AM

Actually obesity is a symptom of poverty. It is cheaper to eat highly processed or canned food loaded with sodium than it is to buy fresh vegetables, fruits, bread made without high fructose corn syrup, and organic meat (cows finished on with corn and ground up chicken parts/droppings have a much higher fat content in their meat). Most grocery stores in low income neighborhoods don’t even carry a lot of healthy/fresh food or organic meats so low income workers don’t even have access to them. How many Whole Foods (and its not like I can shop there either) do you see in undeveloped rural areas or low income inner city neighborhoods? Also it takes time and energy to prepare home cooked meals (for the most part better for you – unless you deep fry everything).

You don't need to go organic or shop whole foods to eat healthy.

My point is that even from the cheap stuff, those on welfare are getting too much of it.

I'd propose a WIC style program where, rather than giving them money, we give out meals, easy to prepare and inexpensive to buy, that are balanced with an appropriate carb/calorie count for the number of people in the home. It'd be complicated, but kids on welfare wouldn't be obese anymore.

themuzicman added to this post, 6 minutes and 19 seconds later...

First of all, are you serious that you don't think it is our moral obligation to help others on this planet? If that is true, then I honestly think you are missing out on a lot in this life. It's not what we can collect, hoard, and keep for ourselves. It's what we can give to others. Our time, our money, our compassion, our company, our kindness. Believe me, there are many times I'd rather spend my afternoon with my dog than some people, but to act like we shouldn't care about others is just sad. I mean, really, really sad. Like I said before, in this country, many ask why would we want to care for others? In many other countries, they ask, why wouldn't you?

Personally, I accept that we should be helping others. VOLUNTARILY. And that's the key. You want to forcibly take money from the rich and spend it on things they may potentially object to.

And the rich DO engage in charity. They DO give to the poor. They DO support their communities. So don't act like they don't.

Oh, and by the way, you're completely denying the hunger problem in America. Yes, soup kitchens and food pantries are just there for fun, not for people who actually are hungry. Are you kidding? I have a friend who works full time, single mom, educated, and couldn't get food stamps because she earned something like less than $10.00/month too much. I'm not exaggerating. So yes, there are people out there in need. Open your eyes.

My eyes are open. I've been there. Seen the lines. My wife has also been to Haiti, West Africa, Thailand and a host of other places, and reports back that life in our soup lines is cake compared to the poor around the world.

Further, the people eating in these soup kitchens have access to housing and public assistance that they refuse to accept. Many are mentally impaired, many are alcoholics and drug addicts. Unfortunately, we cannot help them without them asking for help. It is available to them.

So, I suggest that you open your eyes to the bigger reality, not just that soup kitchens exist, but why there are people in them, and why they cannot be helped without their consent.

And open your eyes to the rest of the world. The conditions these people live in is far better than most of the poor around the world. if you want to help the poor start in Haiti or Thailand or West Africa.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 08:07 AM

That said, my firm has clients - fairly large businesses - whose owners have stopped taking a draw in order to keep their business afloat and keep their employees from taking a pay cut. So not all of the wealthy are insufferable misers. Again, what I'm arguing here is choice vs. forced obligation. Those business owners are under NO obligation to stop taking a monthly draw if they so desired; but they do, because they want to. Because they're decent people.

this is common. sometimes people forget about this. being either a (small) business owner or a large business executive often means going without pay; risking one's security for a greater reward. many choose not to take such a risk, but that doesn't guarantee security. it's an issue for all.

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 08:42 AM

I'd propose a WIC style program where, rather than giving them money, we give out meals, easy to prepare and inexpensive to buy, that are balanced with an appropriate carb/calorie count for the number of people in the home. It'd be complicated, but kids on welfare wouldn't be obese anymore.

themuzicman added to this post, 6 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Personally, I accept that we should be helping others. VOLUNTARILY. And that's the key. You want to forcibly take money from the rich and spend it on things they may potentially object to.

And the rich DO engage in charity. They DO give to the poor. They DO support their communities. So don't act like they don't.

My eyes are open. I've been there. Seen the lines. My wife has also been to Haiti, West Africa, Thailand and a host of other places, and reports back that life in our soup lines is cake compared to the poor around the world.

Further, the people eating in these soup kitchens have access to housing and public assistance that they refuse to accept. Many are mentally impaired, many are alcoholics and drug addicts. Unfortunately, we cannot help them without them asking for help. It is available to them.

So, I suggest that you open your eyes to the bigger reality, not just that soup kitchens exist, but why there are people in them, and why they cannot be helped without their consent.

And open your eyes to the rest of the world. The conditions these people live in is far better than most of the poor around the world. if you want to help the poor start in Haiti or Thailand or West Africa.

I agree a WIC program would work wonders.

I really admire your view on voluntary contributions. I do. And yes, we should all give voluntarily. I know many people who do not, will not, and never will give to charity. Therefore, I am basing my opinions on the fact that not everyone will donate. I do not believe you can support the needs of the underpriviledged in this country based on voluntary contributions alone. I'm sorry, I just don't. I'm not saying there aren't rich people who donate - I'm sure there are. I'm saying it's not enough to support the need out there.

I do have to disagree with your thoughts on hunger. There are drug addicts, homeless, mentally ill, etc...visiting soup kitchens. That is a fact. However, the need in this country has grown incredibly over the past even year. Most food pantries are in need of donations because MORE PEOPLE NEED THEM. I'm talking about working class, hard working people, some with probably more than one job. Did you take into consideration my previous example of my friend? She has a full time job, is edcuated, is not on welfare, and couldn't get a little help. It's a disgrace. However, I do agree there are many places on this earth where there is great need, need which we can't even imagine. Desperate conditions, no running water, no food, no clothing. That doesn't erase the fact that there is need in this country. I think you are blaming the people who need help, saying there is help they just don't want it, rather than taking into consideration every person's situation is different.

Profit

08-28-2009, 08:58 AM

You don't need to go organic or shop whole foods to eat healthy.

My point is that even from the cheap stuff, those on welfare are getting too much of it.

I'd propose a WIC style program where, rather than giving them money, we give out meals, easy to prepare and inexpensive to buy, that are balanced with an appropriate carb/calorie count for the number of people in the home. It'd be complicated, but kids on welfare wouldn't be obese anymore.

First of all you missed the entire point I was trying to make. Low income families (and I'm not talking about just people on welfare, I'm talking about the working poor) are often forced to eat highly processed food because it is much cheaper (and they are on a fixed income) and because many grocery stores in low income areas do not have a large selection of fresh foods or healthy alternatives. Just go look at the canned section of your grocery store, even to buy low sodium canned vegetables will cost you more. 10 to 20 cents might not sound like much per can but it adds up quick when you are on the lower end of the pay scale. I never said you had to shop at a whole foods – or any other high end grocery store for that matter in order to eat healthy. But nice job pulling that one example out and disregarding the rest of my post.

It sounds like you are in favor of rationing food supplies to welfare recipients. That’s a nice thought, having the poor line up for daily food rations, dolling out perfectly calculated servings. Something tells me they would resemble public school lunches – mostly highly processed crap. Would ketchup being counted as a vegetable?

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 08:59 AM

this is common. sometimes people forget about this. being either a (small) business owner or a large business executive often means going without pay; risking one's security for a greater reward. many choose not to take such a risk, but that doesn't guarantee security. it's an issue for all.

You know what, I applaud those CEO's who choose not to take a salary. I really do. However, I'll bet the percentage who choose that is much, much lower than those who give themselves raises, while their workers suffer with pay cuts, or at the least raise freezes.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 09:07 AM

You know what, I applaud those CEO's who choose not to take a salary. I really do. However, I'll bet the percentage who choose that is much, much lower than those who give themselves raises, while their workers suffer with pay cuts, or at the least raise freezes.

i'm saying it's not mutually exclusive. the same ceo's and vp's giving themselves big bonuses are often - yes, often - the same people who have gone without pay at some point. and btw, in a lot of cases, their salary may even be dependent directly upon the profit margin of the company, and not terribly high, but mitigated by incentive bonuses. it is a different way to go about making a living.

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 09:08 AM

First of all you missed the entire point I was trying to make. Low income families (and I'm not talking about just people on welfare, I'm talking about the working poor) are often forced to eat highly processed food because it is much cheaper (and they are on a fixed income) and because many grocery stores in low income areas do not have a large selection of fresh foods or healthy alternatives. Just go look at the canned section of your grocery store, even to buy low sodium canned vegetables will cost you more. 10 to 20 cents might not sound like much per can but it adds up quick when you are on the lower end of the pay scale. I never said you had to shop at a whole foods – or any other high end grocery store for that matter in order to eat healthy. But nice job pulling that one example out and disregarding the rest of my post.

It sounds like you are in favor of rationing food supplies to welfare recipients. That’s a nice thought, having the poor line up for daily food rations, dolling out perfectly calculated servings. Something tells me they would resemble public school lunches – mostly highly processed crap. Would ketchup being counted as a vegetable?

I wanted to mention that eating healthy is indeed more expensive. Anyone who cannot see that is not shopping with their eyes open. I am in awe at the beautiful food at Whole Foods (have you seen their produce section ? It outshines any produce section in any of my area supermarkets) and would love to shop there weekly, but a. it's too far to drive and b. I can't afford it on a weekly basis.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 09:19 AM

I wanted to mention that eating healthy is indeed more expensive. Anyone who cannot see that is not shopping with their eyes open. I am in awe at the beautiful food at Whole Foods (have you seen their produce section ? It outshines any produce section in any of my area supermarkets) and would love to shop there weekly, but a. it's too far to drive and b. I can't afford it on a weekly basis.

if you buy only produce at whole foods you will save a bundle. if you buy packaged foods it's gonna cost ya big time. i take a friend who doesn't drive there once a week because she is supposedly all health conscious. she routinely spends between $250-$300 because she buys some of everything in the store. i spend between $50-$75 by comparison and feed 3 adults. i listen to her bitch all the way there and back about how she doesn't have enough money blah blah blah. the only reason i take her there is because it's good for her to have access to the produce and the supposedly healthier packaged foods, and it's convenient for her to have me drive her and push her cart for her and load her groceries etc. and i knew her since high school. otherwise she is a pain. a lot of people i help are pains and they don't seem very grateful either lol.

but you're right soup kitchen food generally isn't healthy. lots of social programs depend on donations from the food industry and allow their menu to be dictated by the surplus that the food industry has available. in san francisco, for instance, there is an abundance of candy year round from each christian holiday's overrun available to anyone. it is a problem of food management, not availability or lack of funds. while it's true that the average soup kitchen volunteer may feel powerless to change this setup, there are those in the bureaucracy that can, and should.

point of clarification, after exchanging a few pm's
$50-$75 is the price i spend at whole foods. i regularly purchase food from target and costco as well.

Alex

08-28-2009, 09:25 AM

On the topic of cheaper food production, involving things like high fructose corn syrup and corn-fed animals, I'm pretty certain you can give the "charitable" government a hand for that one - corn subsidies in this country are huge, which is why corn syrup is a much cheaper sweetener than cane sugar, and why corn feed is far cheaper than grain or grass feed.

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 09:32 AM

I agree a WIC program would work wonders.

I really admire your view on voluntary contributions. I do. And yes, we should all give voluntarily. I know many people who do not, will not, and never will give to charity. Therefore, I am basing my opinions on the fact that not everyone will donate. I do not believe you can support the needs of the underpriviledged in this country based on voluntary contributions alone. I'm sorry, I just don't. I'm not saying there aren't rich people who donate - I'm sure there are. I'm saying it's not enough to support the need out there.

Given the waste in government welfare programs (last I saw, like only $.40 of ever $1 gets to a recipient), and the level at which we are all taxed, I think we could do better with private donations. Most non-profits are in the $.80-$.90 out of each dollar, and they would be able to be more specific in meeting specific needs as they wouldn't need bureaucratic rules and they could actually hold people accountable.

I do have to disagree with your thoughts on hunger. There are drug addicts, homeless, mentally ill, etc...visiting soup kitchens. That is a fact. However, the need in this country has grown incredibly over the past even year. Most food pantries are in need of donations because MORE PEOPLE NEED THEM.

Food pantries aren't soup kitchens.

I'm talking about working class, hard working people, some with probably more than one job. Did you take into consideration my previous example of my friend? She has a full time job, is edcuated, is not on welfare, and couldn't get a little help. It's a disgrace. However, I do agree there are many places on this earth where there is great need, need which we can't even imagine. Desperate conditions, no running water, no food, no clothing. That doesn't erase the fact that there is need in this country. I think you are blaming the people who need help, saying there is help they just don't want it, rather than taking into consideration every person's situation is different.

And the fact that every person's situation si different is exactly why the government can't help. For a government agency, every person has to be treated under the same rules, and there simply cannot be proper accountability and the government is simply to inefficient with our money.

If you know your history, you know that non-profits cared for the poor up until the 1930s, and we started a "war on poverty" in the 1960s, which appears to have failed, $6TRILLION later.

It's time to do something different. It's time to let the American people, rich, middle class and poor, solve this problem. Forcibly taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor isn't working.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 10:04 AM

And nowhere, in any of those, is any sort of forced idea of charity. In fact, if we're going to throw around quotes, here's a nice tidbit:

You can pay charity, or pay taxes, or pay protection money, but you will pay one way or the other simply because if everyone knows you are rich, they'll make you pay for the privilege. To be rich is a privilege not a right. There is nothing in the constitution which says you have a right to be rich, which means the government can go socialist or even communist if it wants to and it would still not violate the constitution.

And oh, how true. Sure, seizing other peoples' assets makes everything "equal" (although not really) and things more "pleasant" for all (although it doesn't, because even WITH the welfare and entitlement programs and private charities we have in place, I STILL see bitter lower-class people do nothing but rehearse their own prejudices against the wealthy)

The hatred towards the wealthy is not generated by the lower class, but by left wing socialists and communists of the Marxist variety. Get your facts straight on who is fueling the fight against the wealthy. Not every poor person is a marxist just like not every rich person is a capitalist. The socialist movement is led by rich/wealthy people, and they write the articles in magazines, they create the media which the poor see and read and learn to agree with. If you have a problem with that, call Michael Moore and tell him you don't like his socialist documentaries.

But it's still no different than theft (the despotism of which Jefferson spoke). Earning your own living and carving out a niche for yourself is hard, it's damned hard, but the inability to do so does not justify theft. The wealthy people built their wealth on theft. Ask yourself where that oil came from that made their families rich. Ask yourself where the land came from that allowed their families to own plantations and farms. You think that the wealthy didn't get rich from theft? They killed, robbed and stole their way to being wealthy and now we have people like you coming on forums trying to act like these wealthy families which built their fortunes on piracy, theft from other cultures, and in some cases war, you are telling me they don't owe something back in the form of charity? I'm not even talking about reparations here, I'm talking about the fact that most of these wealthy families you talk about got wealthy by taking from others.

Think of the attitude behind theft: "I want/need this more than you do". "I have a right to take this because you have things, and I do not." The next time someone steals your car, pickpockets you, or robs your house, I hope you remember your attitude about reallocating the resources of others for reasons that don't beg your own input, and don't call the cops or file a report. After all - it's obvious that that person wouldn't have taken your belongings if they didn't really NEED them.

Rich people take from the middle class all the time. The wealthy classes are making the middle class pay for these wars in the middle east that secure their business interests but which have nothing to do with the rest of us. That war costs trillians and the middle class will be paying to keep their corporations in business, then you have the banks who get bailed out and rich people giving themselves raises, claiming their banks profited when in reality it was tax dollars not profits. Why does the CEO deserve wealth? Is that not theft from the shareholders and tax payers? Is that not theft from the workers who get laid off so the CEOs can give themselves raises even when the corporation is not profitable? No of course it's not theft, it's only theft when the poor steal from the rich, not the other way around. When the rich steal from the poor it's business. And that stolen money is just profits.

What, they didn't ask you first? They didn't obtain your consent? Neither was my consent obtained when my income was taxed. You say the majority "voted for" said taxation? Well, I guess if TWO robbers pillage your house, and you're only one man, the majority wins.

When did I say I was for the income tax? I never claimed to support the income tax. I said the income tax is regressive because it punishes everyone equally.

You can throw quotes around all you want but I doubt you grasp the meaning of these quotes. The freedom you speak of isn't free, people had to die to protect your ability to get rich. And your richness in some cases results in someone else being poor, giving back is just efficient for the system itself. If we are one body, and one body part which is our right hand, keeps taking all the blood from many other body parts, this eventually deprives these other body parts of blood. This lack of oxygen and blood eventually will deprive blood from the very heart which sustains the host. Once the heart is gone, that hand with all it's blood is completely useless because the body itself is dead. In this situation we'd say that the hand is diseased, or even cancerous, and the typical solution would be to remove the hand to save the host.

What function do these wealthy individuals you speak of provide to society if they don't pay taxes or donate to charity? If they don't want to do either, then they are parasites, far more dangerous than the people who are poor, because the wealthy are keeping other people from becoming rich. Poor people don't keep other poor people from becoming rich and they don't keep rich people from becoming richer.

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 10:05 AM

thod

08-28-2009, 10:09 AM

I am reminded of the leftish slogan "Eat the rich". I suspect they would not provide a balanced diet though and would leave a bad taste in the mouth. Still, beggars can't be choosers and I am sure parts of Paris Hilton would be succulent.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 10:10 AM

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 10:11 AM

Good luck musicman getting people to voluntarily contribute. I know people who won't give one dime to charity, some of them wealthy, some of them not. If they know someone else is going to do it, why should they?

As you pointed out, there are many who feel a moral obligation to help others. Evidence points to many rich people being generous and helping others.

I think the key to lower giving is the idea that the government is already taking my money to give to the poor, so that moral obligation is fulfilled. Should the government reduce its roles in that function, more would feel obligated to give.

However, you have yet to give us a justification for forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another. There is a vast difference between voluntary and involuntaryl.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 10:13 AM

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 10:14 AM

I wanted to mention that eating healthy is indeed more expensive. Anyone who cannot see that is not shopping with their eyes open. I am in awe at the beautiful food at Whole Foods (have you seen their produce section ? It outshines any produce section in any of my area supermarkets) and would love to shop there weekly, but a. it's too far to drive and b. I can't afford it on a weekly basis.

Alex would chime in and say it's your fault for being poor, and that if you aren't rich enough to afford to shop at Whole Foods then you deserve to eat the cheap unhealthy food. And I'm sure his rich elite friends would like to sell you cheap unhealthy food. What most people don't know is that cheap unhealthy food is actually subsidized, so the corn is subsidized and this is why the farmers sell the corn, and this is why the corn is used to make high fructose corn syrup. This corn has to be used one way or the other because it's not a free market but a type of socialism for the factory farms which produce the corn, then corporations buy the corn and turn it into syrup and use it.

I'd rather this corn be used to make ethanol and power our cars. We don't need to be eating corn.

timetraveler added to this post, 2 minutes and 45 seconds later...

Good luck musicman getting people to voluntarily contribute. I know people who won't give one dime to charity, some of them wealthy, some of them not. If they know someone else is going to do it, why should they?

And musicman probably thinks we can pay for universal healthcare through charity? Okay here is a deal. If these rich people are willing to pay for the Iraq war via charity, and pay off the national debt via charity, then we can give them a tax holiday.

These kinds of wealthy people want to reap all the benefits of being American, while giving themselves taxcuts, and then making poor families from the ghettos go to Iraq and kill to protect their empire. If they just want to act like we need them here in the USA, while they don't want to pay taxes or do anything to contribute to society, then yes they are wrong if not evil.

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 10:18 AM

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 10:21 AM

And musicman probably thinks we can pay for universal healthcare through charity? Okay here is a deal. If these rich people are willing to pay for the Iraq war via charity, and pay off the national debt via charity, then we can give them a tax holiday.

Muzicman thinks that government IS one of the major problems with health care being expensive, and IS one of the major barriers to health providers doing work pro bono for the poor.

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 10:25 AM

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 10:31 AM

Muzicman thinks that government IS one of the major problems with health care being expensive, and IS one of the major barriers to health providers doing work pro bono for the poor.

the rest of your quote is pure emotional bitterness and drivel not typical of an INTJ.

It's not an emotion at all. You and Alex assume I hate the wealthy.I don't hate the wealthy, but if they are of no benefit to me, I don't love the wealthy either. And I think you and Alex are being irrational for loving the wealthy at any cost. Either you both are wealthy and then it's rational to love yourself at all costs, or you are the emotional one.

Once again, I'm not wealthy so why would I care of these wealthy people who don't want to pay taxes, or donate to charity, decide to leave the USA? Their wealth in some cases isn't even real wealth, it's just a bunch of currency wealth which only exists because the US dollar is backed by the might of the US military. Once again these wealthy people don't realize that if the common man does not back the dollar, all of their paper weath is worthless. Yes you have the old money families that have gold, and wealth which isn't in just dollars, and these families can avoid being taxed if they want. But once again if you are wealthy and you don't push the country into war or manipulate social policy and you just want to live on an island somewhere, that is not the same as being wealthy and using your wealth to try and take over the world, and drive the country to war, and cause all sorts of damage.

Even if it's carbon taxes, or taxes based on pollution, which in my opinion is better than the income tax, if you are wealthy you probably pollute more than someone who is poor and so you should pay more. There is not much to debate about that. Now if you are wealthy and you don't damage society, then you should pay less, but you should be taxed based on the damage you cause, and once again being rich/wealthy is a privilege not a right. Nobody has a right or entitlement to be rich.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 10:36 AM

I forgot to mention one other thing in terms of health care and capitalism. Not only does my manager get paid much, much more than I do, work less hours, and have a lighter workload, because he is a manager, he is entitled to a company benefit of reduced insurance deductions from his paycheck. A significant reduction. My insurance would actually cost me more than his would for the same exact plan, simply because of his position of authority. He gets the "manager rate", I get the regular rate. So I'm paying more for the same insurance, because I'm not a manager. That's fair? I'm sure this varies a huge amount from company to company, but just giving you an example of how the working man gets screwed. We make less and we're expected to pay more for health coverage.

i'm sorry but i'm so tired of hearing how the working man gets screwed. maybe those who think they are the working man and that i'm the man should listen to my bitching for a chance.

i've run a few small businesses and so often i hear from my employees how i must be doing ok, i must have nothing to worry about, i own the company, blah blah blah. bullshit. i make a place for them to work. i go get the accounts that create the need for their jobs. i keep the cash flow flowing. and i don't take anything home for many YEARSSSSSS. meanwhile, employees come and go, get better jobs or move. i pay them well, treat them well, and listen to their incessant bitching !!

how is it that i can start a business with no money? my husband and i live off of his salary, where he is an employee, just another cog in the business world. he does not make a lot, but we make it work. we live on half to a quarter as much as the majority of those around us (and yes i know this for a fact.) we go without a lot of things for the privilege of my entrepreneurialship. we see it as a long term investment, so that, in the future, many many years from now, we MIGHT have a modest income from the businesses we've created. it's not about retiring rich or becoming rich. it's about taking care of ourselves. we're getting older - anything can happen - we are trying to maximize our chances of not being in debt at any time in the future, being able to take care of our own, and paying our way the rest of our lives.

this is every bit as legitimate of a way of being as it is to rely on handouts.

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 10:37 AM

Muzicman thinks that government IS one of the major problems with health care being expensive, and IS one of the major barriers to health providers doing work pro bono for the poor.

you ought to read the link in : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wait a second...did you just say that HC providers WANT to do pro-bono work?....Hah, that is a laugh. I don't know one government policy preventing the Health providers from doing free work. Please explain your thinking on this one.

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 10:43 AM

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 10:48 AM

i'm saying it's not mutually exclusive. the same ceo's and vp's giving themselves big bonuses are often - yes, often - the same people who have gone without pay at some point. and btw, in a lot of cases, their salary may even be dependent directly upon the profit margin of the company, and not terribly high, but mitigated by incentive bonuses. it is a different way to go about making a living.

So if you are this kind of capitalist, what do you think of the bank bailouts? That money could have gone directly to us so we could start our own small businesses and the recession would be over by now. But instead the gov gave the money to big banks because they were too big to fail, shouldn't you be very upset about this? Shouldn't you be upset that bank of America gave out bonuses recently?

Why are you only upset about the poor trying to get healthcare?

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 10:54 AM

why is the government the reason healthcare is so expensive? What about the insurance companies?

Government created a system by which employers were encouraged to offer "compensation" increases through increased health "insurance." Enough people received "insurance" for the every day medical expenses that almost no one cares what their own medical expenses are anymore.

A demonstration:

Two doctors, graduated at the same time, same specialty, same skills.

One opens a small office with a cramped waiting room, hires a nurse/receptionist to handle all those duties, and offers out of date magazine subscriptions while yuo wait. Cost for a visit: $25.

The other opens an opulent office with 20 foot ceilings, two plasma screen TVs, a receptionist and two nurses to cater to your every need, 15 magazine subscriptions, all up to date, a large play area for kids, etc. Cost for visit: $100.

If we all pay our own medical costs, some will choose $25,some $100, based upon their financial situation and preferences.

Now, introduce health "insurance" for doctor visits. Everyone pays $20 copay regardless of where you go.

The $100 doctor has a huge increase in business, the $25 loses patients.

So, the $25 doctor opens a BIGGER office with MORE staff, and FOUR plasma TVs, etc.. and charges $125.

You can see where this is going. When we have "insruance" for the planned and non-catastrophic expenses, those costs will go up.

And we have this "insurance" (which is really a third party tax avoidance system) because the government encourages employers to offer this kind of benefit because of a HUGE tax break businesses get for offering it.

The problem with medical costs is that those of us who have insurance have TOO MUCH insurance, and it costs us all money in the end because there are no market cost controls in health care.

Now, there is an increased cost due to increased medical capability. And MRI costs more than an X-ray. But if we are going to have an use this new technology, then we as individuals are going to have to be prepared for those expenses, or opt for older technology. It's just a cultural item that we should have adjusted to, but haven't because health "insurance" gets in the way.

And why don't we all want "insurance?" Insurance ALWAYS costs more for a group than paying for it ourselves. The only time it doesn't is when the insurance company goes out of business. They HAVE to cover their costs and salaries AND take a profit before paying the bills. Thus, paying the doctor $50 directly is ALWAYS less expensive than paying the insurance company to pay the doctor $50.

why do we have insurance? To protect against the unplanned and catastrophic loss. No one can absorb a $100,000 bill for a quaduple heart bypass. that's why we have insurance. We pay a certain amount per month to the insurance company so they will pay tht expense, should it happen. That's why the sick and elderly have higher health insurance costs: they tend to incur more costs, and insurance companies always take in more than they put out.

So, the solution is to remove the huge tax break, and let insurance return to being real insurance and letting the health care industry compete for patients on COSTS in addition to services, which will make costs go down.

Does that make sense?

themuzicman added to this post, 2 minutes and 22 seconds later...

you ought to read the link in : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wait a second...did you just say that HC providers WANT to do pro-bono work?....Hah, that is a laugh. I don't know one government policy preventing the Health providers from doing free work. Please explain your thinking on this one.

They don't because of legal exposure. More than one doctor has been sued because they tried to provide medical help pro bono, and the patient didn't recover like they thought they should have. They won't take the risk, presently.

Also, hospitals are feeling the money crunch as much as any because the governement forces them to take a loss on every medicare and medicaid patient they see (about 60% of their business). They can't afford to give anything away.

Alex

08-28-2009, 10:58 AM

daydreamer, no offense but I am so tired of hearing the owners, etc. make it sound like you are DOING US A FAVOR by having us work for you. It is so incredibly elitist. As I've said, without your workers, you have no company. You soundlike the exact situation I would be in if my husband and I started a business (which he wants to), in terms of trying to start with little money, living off his salary, going without for a long time before we'd even make a profit. However, I would never see the employees as a means to an end. If you have productive, intelligent, dedicated employees, you should be grateful for them.

I hate to tell you this, but there will never not be workers. There will never not be a group of people willing to work for a negotiated price. If the indignant want to shout, "You'd have no business without us", they can; but the truth is, there is always - always - someone willing to step up into their places. They're often more than HAPPY to, in that case.

If people think they can do better than to play into that system where they are easily replaced, then please DO! That's ambition. That's drive and determination not to be one of the numbers. It may not be guaranteed that you'll succeed on your endeavor, but there's no such thing as risk-free. Part of life is risk, and it can't be eliminated. So you try - and if you win, you win; if you fail, you fail.

What I'm hearing are a bunch of people wanting guarantees, promises, the kind of manufactured "fairness" that doesn't and will never exist. Some people are cut out for the top rung; most people are cut out for the middle; and some people are cut out for minimum wage. That's not something the government can or should fix, and if you believe they can . . . well, I hate to go where that line of thought naturally leads, but you're pretty much asking for a system that has NEVER worked.

Why are you only upset about the poor trying to get healthcare?

Again, with this mass assumption. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I know I, for one, in no way supported the bank bailouts. Not a for a moment.

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 11:00 AM

It's not an emotion at all. You and Alex assume I hate the wealthy.I don't hate the wealthy, but if they are of no benefit to me, I don't love the wealthy either. And I think you and Alex are being irrational for loving the wealthy at any cost. Either you both are wealthy and then it's rational to love yourself at all costs, or you are the emotional one.

So, you don't care about them, you just want them to give you their money...

Once again, I'm not wealthy so why would I care of these wealthy people who don't want to pay taxes, or donate to charity, decide to leave the USA? Their wealth in some cases isn't even real wealth, it's just a bunch of currency wealth which only exists because the US dollar is backed by the might of the US military. Once again these wealthy people don't realize that if the common man does not back the dollar, all of their paper weath is worthless. Yes you have the old money families that have gold, and wealth which isn't in just dollars, and these families can avoid being taxed if they want. But once again if you are wealthy and you don't push the country into war or manipulate social policy and you just want to live on an island somewhere, that is not the same as being wealthy and using your wealth to try and take over the world, and drive the country to war, and cause all sorts of damage.

LOL... Are you really buying into that conspiracy theory? Is it Zionists or Jewish bankers??

Even if it's carbon taxes, or taxes based on pollution, which in my opinion is better than the income tax, if you are wealthy you probably pollute more than someone who is poor and so you should pay more. There is not much to debate about that. Now if you are wealthy and you don't damage society, then you should pay less, but you should be taxed based on the damage you cause, and once again being rich/wealthy is a privilege not a right. Nobody has a right or entitlement to be rich.

Oh, and a global warming cultist, too.. Wonderful.

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 11:09 AM

The other opens an opulent office with 20 foot ceilings, two plasma screen TVs, a receptionist and two nurses to cater to your every need, 15 magazine subscriptions, all up to date, a large play area for kids, etc. Cost for visit: $100.

I've never been to a doctors office like this...EVER. Not to mention uninsured visits are well over $200 for a primary care physician.

They don't because of legal exposure. More than one doctor has been sued because they tried to provide medical help pro bono, and the patient didn't recover like they thought they should have. They won't take the risk, presently.

Also, hospitals are feeling the money crunch as much as any because the governement forces them to take a loss on every medicare and medicaid patient they see (about 60% of their business). They can't afford to give anything away.

Uhh, really???? You should have seen Inglewood, CA (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a few weeks ago!!! The most important lesson that we learned from the end of WWI was that punishing the losers of society was a HUGE mistake that allowed for the breakout of WWII....It is sad that we haven't taken this lesson home.

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 11:13 AM

I've never been to a doctors office like this...EVER. Not to mention uninsured visits are well over $200 for a primary care physician.

Thanks for making my case. Regardless of what they spend the money on, they cost a lot because insured folks don't care what care costs, and doctors lose money on uninsured, medicare and medicaid patients.

Uhh, really???? You should have seen Inglewood, CA (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a few weeks ago!!!

And the fact that this is news shows that it is the exception, not the rule.

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 11:21 AM

Thanks for making my case. Regardless of what they spend the money on, they cost a lot because insured folks don't care what care costs, and doctors lose money on uninsured, medicare and medicaid patients.

Wow, I did not make your case by any stretch of the imagination. Doctors do not lose money on uninsured, they make profit, just like they make profit when you pay your $20 copay/$180 insurance payment...because I pay them directly without interference of Insurance companies I am a preferred customer that reduced overhead costs of billing. You are right that Insured people pay more for the same coverage frankly, because they are paying thousands of dollars a year to pay $20 dollars of a $200 service. The service is always $200 because that is what the insurance industry has deemed it will pay. And if a doctor has a fancy office it is a marketing strategy to bring volume so they can make more $200 cha-chings. Everyone loves bling in this country....have you noticed your super-markets going "fancy"? same principle.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 11:22 AM

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 11:26 AM

Wow, I did not make your case by any stretch of the imagination. Doctors do not lose money on uninsured, they make profit, just like they make profit when you pay your $20 copay/$180 insurance payment...because I pay them directly without interference of Insurance companies I am a preferred customer that reduced overhead costs of billing. You are right that Insured people pay more for the same coverage frankly, because they are paying thousands of dollars a year to pay $20 dollars of a $200 service. The service is always $200 because that is what the insurance industry has deemed it will pay. And if a doctor has a fancy office it is a marketing strategy to bring volume so they can make more $200 cha-chings. Everyone loves bling in this country....have you noticed your super-markets going "fancy"? same principle.

But there are also supermarkets who still sell on low prices. See Walmart.

That's what's missing from the health care industry. There may well always be a doctor who charges $200 for the conveniences and ambiance. But without the third party tax avoidance system, there will be a viable option for a doctor to charge $50 (or some cost less, whatever it is) for an office visit because everyone will again have to consider what they want to spend to go to the doctor. Some will chose $50, some will choose $200. The key is that some will choose $50 because it is cheaper. That won't happen among insured folks today because they pay the same amount for both.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 11:29 AM

But there are also supermarkets who still sell on low prices. See Walmart.

speaking of Walmart, there are some locations around here that offer health services as well. we provide a home for a student friend of ours who has no insurance (by choice) and he has gone to Walmart many times for treatment. i was surprised to find out that often he pays less than i do for my copay for the same care.

Alex

08-28-2009, 11:31 AM

Doctors charge non-insured actually less because they know they'll be getting their money upfront (or at least in a more timely fashion than insurance will pay it out). If you have the overhead cost of having to hire a completely separate staff just to file insurance and deal with claims, that's MORE cost tacked onto the price of a procedure. I think it's because everyone uses insurance for EVERYTHING that things cost so much now.

I've been hearing and reading a LOT about cash-only practises lately, and from what I hear, they aren't doing too badly. They can charge a decent amount and get their money upfront, without having to battle it out with insurance companies. Which, I won't deny, HAVE been allowed to get away with shady practises. I'm sorry, but it's little more than a bait and switch when you're a paying customer who finally uses his coverage, and what and how much they'll cover changes at the zero hour, IF they'll cover anything at all, regardless of the doctor's recommendation. I've seen this well-documented in the media as well as had plenty of friends and relatives complain about such bastardry. I understand insurance companies exist to mitigate risk, but I find it unacceptable to pay for a service, yet not receive the service outlined in the terms.

I do agree, however, that these HMO's only exist and enjoy the position they do because of government intervention. Insurance should be for exactly what insurance was MEANT - in that, you don't get your car insurance to pay for a routine oil change. You don't get your homeowner's insurance to buy you new living room furniture. You use it when disaster strikes, when something very expensive and catastrophic happens. We were never meant to have comprehensive insurance that gets filed every time we have a sneeze or cough.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 11:32 AM

So, you don't care about them, you just want them to give you their money...

Wrong again. I don't want their money for myself. What I want is to reduce their destruction and make them pay for whatever damages they create.

LOL... Are you really buying into that conspiracy theory? Is it Zionists or Jewish bankers??

It's definitely the bankers, I don't know if they are all jewish though. Conspiracy? Fact. The bankers run the US government.

Oh, and a global warming cultist, too.. Wonderful.

So you believe climate change is a myth? You think all those scientists are wrong? Nobel prize winners and elite wealthy people who claim climate change is real? I guess we see which wealthy faction you are from.

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 11:33 AM

speaking of Walmart, there are some locations around here that offer health services as well. we provide a home for a student friend of ours who has no insurance (by choice) and he has gone to Walmart many times for treatment. i was surprised to find out that often he pays less than i do for my copay for the same care.

I think it has been surprising to some that Walmart has made progress in reducing the costs of health care when government has failed. When they introduced $4 for many common prescriptions, people were shocked. it certainly took the air out of the "people are running to Canada for prescriptions" crowd.

TO be honest, I'm not surprised. Walmart has remained committed to providing people with quality low priced goods and services, and has (in its own way) stepped up to provide help to those who need it by providing a low cost option. Basic health care is only the latest in a long line. Sam's Club provides low costs eye care.

I think Walmart is providing a perfect counter-example to Obamacare. It costs less because Walmart chooses to compete on price with insurance companies. Were we to get rid of the third party tax avoidance system, we'd see more of this.

themuzicman added to this post, 3 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Wrong again. I don't want their money for myself. What I want is to reduce their destruction and make them pay for whatever damages they create.

And you have no regard for the economic prosperity and revenue that creates beauty and preserves nature. How sad that you are so blind.

It's definitely the bankers, I don't know if they are all jewish though. Conspiracy? Fact. The bankers run the US government.

Wow... just wow.

So you believe climate change is a myth? You think all those scientists are wrong? Nobel prize winners and elite wealthy people who claim climate change is real? I guess we see which wealthy faction you are from.

The climate changes. The whole "global warming" theory is just about finished. The fact that we're calling it "climate change" only exposes the bankruptcy of the idea that man is causing the planet to warm unnaturally.

"Global warming" was nothing more than an attempt by environmentalists to push their communist agenda on the rest of us by trying to make us feel guilty about something that is a natural happening.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 11:37 AM

Nobel prize winners and elite wealthy people who claim climate change is real?

well hell they give those things to anyone nowadays. al gore got one and not even for his most famous technological invention.

daydreamer added to this post, 5 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Doctors charge non-insured actually less because they know they'll be getting their money upfront (or at least in a more timely fashion than insurance will pay it out).

they also charge the insured more because they set their prices high enough to make sure they receive the full benefit an insurance company is willing to pay. in california a dentist will charge me over $100 for a checkup - not counting the cleaning - because my insurance will pay that amount once a year. if i get a second checkup that year, i will pay $100 for it. same dentist will charge my uninsured friend nothing for a checkup, and $40 for a cleaning. in california a dentist must perform a checkup before cleaning new patients, and continue checkups on a yearly basis.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 11:46 AM

I think Walmart is providing a perfect counter-example to Obamacare. It costs less because Walmart chooses to compete on price with insurance companies. Were we to get rid of the third party tax avoidance system, we'd see more of this.

You are recommending Walmart to become our healthcare supplier? What next, Mc Donalds to become our pharmacy? Yeah along with the coke they can sell us obesity pills. And why not let Coke or Pepsi buy the water company and replace tap water with Coke.

And you have no regard for the economic prosperity and revenue that creates beauty and preserves nature. How sad that you are so blind.

What are you talking about? What beauty? How does economic prosperity "preserve" nature? By building factories which pollute the atmosphere? By giving our children asthma? By cutting down the trees all around the world?

The climate changes. The whole "global warming" theory is just about finished. The fact that we're calling it "climate change" only exposes the bankruptcy of the idea that man is causing the planet to warm unnaturally.

So who is causing this? God? Aliens? If not man, what is the cause of climate change? Or do you truly believe that the climate will never change and we can drill for oil essentially forever? If you think like this, it's your style of thinking that encourages the damage I'm talking about.

"Global warming" was nothing more than an attempt by environmentalists to push their communist agenda on the rest of us by trying to make us feel guilty about something that is a natural happening.

So anyone who disagrees with you and who does not love the wealthy as a group, is a communist? Wow... just wow.

timetraveler added to this post, 2 minutes and 3 seconds later...

well hell they give those things to anyone nowadays. al gore got one and not even for his most famous technological invention.

Okay you try and win a nobel prize. And while you are at it, go win a gold medal at the Olympics.

Alex

08-28-2009, 11:57 AM

they also charge the insured more because they set their prices high enough to make sure they receive the full benefit an insurance company is willing to pay. in california a dentist will charge me over $100 for a checkup - not counting the cleaning - because my insurance will pay that amount once a year. if i get a second checkup that year, i will pay $100 for it. same dentist will charge my uninsured friend nothing for a checkup, and $40 for a cleaning. in california a dentist must perform a checkup before cleaning new patients, and continue checkups on a yearly basis.

Precisely. Some people have the inverted idea that the uninsured "cost" the insured more, and thus inflate the cost of healthcare. I don't believe that's true. Sure, a doctor will charge what an insurance company will pay - not just because they'll charge uninsured people less (even IF their visit doesn't require the usage of their insurance filing staff, they're still there and need to be paid consistently), but because they'll have to make up for other insurance plans that won't pay or won't pay enough. And this is aside from the PPO action, where certain companies' customers are given discounts because of a deal with the provider network. All of this simply fails to give us any way to properly put a dollar value on certain procedures (I mean, shouldn't we KNOW the rough cost of a routine checkup? Does anyone really know? We know what they charge to insurance, but what is the actual value?)

I'm fairly convinced that the issue is that we're overinsured for everything BUT expensive chronic conditions and catastrophic diseases and accidents. We shouldn't be filing insurance for our yearly pap smears, yearly check-ups, basic routine preventative maintenance. But, we have no choice by now, because most people don't have $150-200 lying around.

Tristan

08-28-2009, 12:01 PM

Ultimately Hobbes was right. We have an authoritarian government, and while I don't agree with the authoritarian style of government either, both the far left and far right are authoritarian. The middle are the ones complaining about loss of civil liberties. The problem is that the far left and far right are both inspired more by their passions than by reason. They far left I'm sorry to say, is often inspired by a hatred of the rich. In that respect people like Alex are right that many of the extreme left do hate the rich and want an authoritarian government as a form of robin hood economics. The far right on the other hand hates the poor and is also inspired by their passion to try and build prison a prison industrial complex not wanting to pay taxes, the extreme right hates the poor. The rest of us are caught in the middle between the hatred on both sides.

I think you are picking out wrong groups and oversimplifying. The government isn't authoritarian. The far left and far right don't exist in any clear sense. In the United States, and anywhere, we have a lot of people who hate their opponents, those whose views contravene their own, and these people are nebulously, meaninglessly grouped into far left and far right. Many rich people count themselves among the left, and many poor people consider themselves right wing. It makes sense to envy the rich and shut yourself out from the poor, and conceal these emotions in both reason and vitriol. I don't really see the hate.

This recent discourse has been interesting but hardly relevant to The Constitution of the United States of America. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke did not write The Constitution (they were both long gone at this time, in fact). Certainly their philosophy had some effect on our founding fathers. I am under the impression, however, that Hobbes did not have nearly as much influence on our founding fathers as Locke, Montesquieu, and Hume. But one needn't look any further than the document itself (and maybe the Federalist Papers) to understand and interpret The Constitution. I ask only that you back up your claims concerning 'the point' of the Constitution or rescind them.

I agree on Hobbes, though unlike you I guess I don't speak with any knowledge of Hume or Montesquieu. Hobbes has the rather unfortunate distinction of writing a very insightful, commonsensical work where everything fits together well and seems to describe nature accurately, but is never borne out by reality. At least not the reality beyond petri dishes.

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 12:04 PM

You are recommending Walmart to become our healthcare supplier? What next, Mc Donalds to become our pharmacy? Yeah along with the coke they can sell us obesity pills. And why not let Coke or Pepsi buy the water company and replace tap water with Coke.

Do you not believe that Walmart can provide common prescriptions for $4? Do you not believe that Walmart can provide a doctor visit for less than co-pays? Is the idea that the government NOT run your health care, but someone finds a way to provide inexpensive care for the poor as a free market solution so incomprehensible to you that it sounds outrageous?

Who cares who the provider is?

Or do you just hate Walmart that much?

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 12:06 PM

I'm fairly convinced that the issue is that we're overinsured for everything BUT expensive chronic conditions and catastrophic diseases and accidents. We shouldn't be filing insurance for our yearly pap smears, yearly check-ups, basic routine preventative maintenance. But, we have no choice by now, because most people don't have $150-200 lying around.

an interesting way to think about it. seems reasonable. if we paid for insurance to cover non routine checkups and maintenance, and only paid for full coverage on big ticket items... that is insurance i'd feel good about having. i don't feel in anyway safer because i have insurance now, i try to have money in the bank should something happen. i use insurance because i feel a fool not to. i clip coupons too lol.

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 12:10 PM

People find $300-$600 lying around to fix the car. Isn't our health more important than the care?

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 12:11 PM

These kinds of wealthy people want to reap all the benefits of being American, while giving themselves taxcuts, and then making poor families from the ghettos go to Iraq and kill to protect their empire. If they just want to act like we need them here in the USA, while they don't want to pay taxes or do anything to contribute to society, then yes they are wrong if not evil.

No offense, but did you stop to think that maybe all these rich people behave that way because poor people behave a certain way? If poor people are constantly forcing better treatment while the wealthy are resisting, don't you think that's going to make the wealthy look down upon the poor and NOT want to help them? I'm not saying it's the poor people's fault, but many of the rich might just be reacting to what they believe is unfair too.

BTW, I am not rich.

What can I tell you, the world is complicated. If the rich give more and the poor keep taking don't you think at some point the rich will be like, why am I constantly giving a free meal? If the rich give too much, and everyone gets an equal share, society actually stays the same because if everyone gets an extra dollar in actuality, no one got a dollar as prices raise by that one dollar. Meanwhile all this giving enriches all the politicians who are "distributing" this wealth and maybe the rich don't want the politicians to have that money.

More complications: If you give the poor healthcare that is too good, then who wants to work to receive healthcare? Poor people will have more children that will continue to drain healthcare even more so than it is now if they have a 'safety net' that is always there. That will lead to more poverty and more demands, more resistance from the wealthy etc...

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 12:13 PM

Do you not believe that Walmart can provide common prescriptions for $4? Do you not believe that Walmart can provide a doctor visit for less than co-pays? Is the idea that the government NOT run your health care, but someone finds a way to provide inexpensive care for the poor as a free market solution so incomprehensible to you that it sounds outrageous?

Who cares who the provider is?

Or do you just hate Walmart that much?

Walmart succeeds on the exact principle that is being prescribed by the government.

Cut profit out from the supply system (insurance) so that the retailers (doctors) can provide low cost products to the consumer (patient).

Same fucking model. Jesus H. Christ.

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 12:15 PM

Walmart succeeds on the exact principle that is being prescribed by the government.

Cut profit out from the supply system (insurance) so that the retailers (doctors) can provide low cost health care to the consumer (patient).

Same fucking model. Jesus H. Christ.

Walmart does it for free, because they make money on the sales.

The Government wants TRILLIONS of dollars to do it, and we'll still be paying more for services.

Which is more efficient? (Hint: It's the one that costs less)

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 12:17 PM

I think you are picking out wrong groups and oversimplifying. The government isn't authoritarian. The far left and far right don't exist in any clear sense. In the United States, and anywhere, we have a lot of people who hate their opponents, those whose views contravene their own, and these people are nebulously, meaninglessly grouped into far left and far right. Many rich people count themselves among the left, and many poor people consider themselves right wing. It makes sense to envy the rich and shut yourself out from the poor, and conceal these emotions in both reason and vitriol. I don't really see the hate.

I've seen hatred. I'll give you some examples, you have some groups of rich people who go out of their way to not just claim to not want to pay taxes, but they actively promote racism, xenophobia, and many of the sorts of thinking patterns that keep poor people poor. A lot of rich people promote these stereotypes that poor people are poor because they are lazy, by claiming that hard work makes people rich. Many rich people are aggressively anti union, and don't think workers should have any rights at all. Many rich people treat their workers bad, and want to basically work them for more and more hours with lower and lower pay. They will argue against the concept of a minimum wage, and they will argue that the workday should be extended rather than shortened.

There are rich people who wont say "I hate the poor" or "the poor should die", but they will instead promote the policies which would lead to that conclusion. The best way to understand the perspective is that they view the poor as an inferior race, and they the rich are the master race. What would be the purpose of building for a for profit prison industry? What would be the purpose of these cultural trends?

Yes there are extremists who hate the poor, you have some kids who have gone so far as to set homeless people on fire. You have some people, not all of them rich but the belief system includes the rich, who believe that the weak must die, as an ethical and political philosophy to cull the human population of weakness.

On the other end of the spectrum, yes there really are communists out there who want to turn the USA into the Soviet Union. They don't believe anyone should own any property or have any wealth. The government should cap everyones salary, or decide where everyone works and how much everyone gets paid. In fact some people wont be satisfied until everybody works for the government. Communists, Anarchists, and Fascists exist in every class, and these are the extremes. They might claim to be Democrat or Republican, but you have to read between the lines of the policies they support and what they say.

Like that guy who posted "eat the rich", that is the kind of extreme philosophy I'm talking about. Yes you do have people who hate, yes hate the rich, they watch Alex Jones and Glen Beck, they are blaming the jewish bankers for all the worlds problems. They are basically blaming the jews just as the jews were blamed for the last economic crash. Or in some cases they are jews, and they hate the rich, and so they want to redistribute the wealth. Believe me there are groups out there on both sides who hate, I know of some individuals who are wealthy who hate my guts and they never even met me. They simply hate anyone poor, and they admit to it behind closed doors and of course it leaks out. Hatred is everywhere and in my experience it's more common than love.

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 12:20 PM

Walmart does it for free, because they make money on the sales.

The Government wants TRILLIONS of dollars to do it, and we'll still be paying more for services.

Which is more efficient? (Hint: It's the one that costs less)

Wal-mart doesn't subsidize consumers who cannot afford the product. If they did they would be sacrificing profits which only the government can do. Efficiency is not the debate....access is.

Tristan

08-28-2009, 12:21 PM

an interesting way to think about it. seems reasonable. if we paid for insurance to cover non routine checkups and maintenance, and only paid for full coverage on big ticket items... that is insurance i'd feel good about having. i don't feel in anyway safer because i have insurance now, i try to have money in the bank should something happen. i use insurance because i feel a fool not to. i clip coupons too lol.

Absolutely! I even posted a short defense of this idea in the health care thread, because I think that the current extent of insurance is the main reason health care is expensive in the US. Maybe instead of linking the post, I'll arrogantly quote myself. I hope that's not considered too self-absorbed.

Personally I would like to see health insurance available that behaves more like the car, life, and home insurance. Car insurance, for example, does not cover the purchase of a car; nor its gasoline, oil changes, state inspections, plates, or registration. They leave the routine to us. And still, they make a tidy profit quoting different rates for different types of drivers (and different cars). They have highly imperfect information where the drivers are concerned, but they manage. Drivers have survival incentives to not get into accidents, and financial incentives to not draw their insurer's attention with reckless driving, lest their premiums rise. In fact (and this is the best part) most drivers simply cover small repair jobs on their own in order to stay below the radar. This works perfectly. The mechanic has to negotiate directly with the owner of the car, and there is haggling, giving, and taking on the site; he doesn't get the opportunity to fill out an insurance company's blank check. This keeps car insurance cheap, and negates an entire industry of ripoff jobs, overtesting, overwork, and overpaying... in short, EXACTLY what is driving health insurance through the roof.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 12:25 PM

Wal-mart doesn't subsidize consumers who cannot afford the product. Efficiency is not the debate....access is.

your argument exists in a rational vacuum.

walmart provides walk-in service for routine medical care. who in america doesnt have $20 for a checkup? how did they get to walmart in the first place?

if you're living on the street that is a choice. no one here on this forum is that poor. how do you pay for internet? computer? cell phone?

if you are living on the street, or not, ANYone can get emergency medical treatment at county hospitals. they cannot refuse treatment. anyone !! in this country - the poor here are WEALTHY !

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 12:27 PM

I've seen hatred. I'll give you some examples, you have some groups of rich people who go out of their way to not just claim to not want to pay taxes, but they actively promote racism, xenophobia, and many of the sorts of thinking patterns that keep poor people poor. A lot of rich people promote these stereotypes that poor people are poor because they are lazy, by claiming that hard work makes people rich. Many rich people are aggressively anti union, and don't think workers should have any rights at all. Many rich people treat their workers bad, and want to basically work them for more and more hours with lower and lower pay. They will argue against the concept of a minimum wage, and they will argue that the workday should be extended rather than shortened.

There are rich people who wont say "I hate the poor" or "the poor should die", but they will instead promote the policies which would lead to that conclusion. The best way to understand the perspective is that they view the poor as an inferior race, and they the rich are the master race. What would be the purpose of building for a for profit prison industry? What would be the purpose of these cultural trends?

Yes there are extremists who hate the poor, you have some kids who have gone so far as to set homeless people on fire. You have some people, not all of them rich but the belief system includes the rich, who believe that the weak must die, as an ethical and political philosophy to cull the human population of weakness.

On the other end of the spectrum, yes there really are communists out there who want to turn the USA into the Soviet Union. They don't believe anyone should own any property or have any wealth. The government should cap everyones salary, or decide where everyone works and how much everyone gets paid. In fact some people wont be satisfied until everybody works for the government. Communists, Anarchists, and Fascists exist in every class, and these are the extremes. They might claim to be Democrat or Republican, but you have to read between the lines of the policies they support and what they say.

Like that guy who posted "eat the rich", that is the kind of extreme philosophy I'm talking about. Yes you do have people who hate, yes hate the rich, they watch Alex Jones and Glen Beck, they are blaming the jewish bankers for all the worlds problems. They are basically blaming the jews just as the jews were blamed for the last economic crash. Or in some cases they are jews, and they hate the rich, and so they want to redistribute the wealth. Believe me there are groups out there on both sides who hate, I know of some individuals who are wealthy who hate my guts and they never even met me. They simply hate anyone poor, and they admit to it behind closed doors and of course it leaks out. Hatred is everywhere and in my experience it's more common than love.

Well if that's the case then it's stupid people who are the problem and less stupid people in positions of power is the solution. You should post on my "Does everyone deserve a vote" thread.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 12:32 PM

if you are living on the street, or not, ANYone can get emergency medical treatment at county hospitals. they cannot refuse treatment. anyone !! in this country - the poor here are WEALTHY !

In this country the poor often are in prison. Yes they get a bed, food, and healthcare, and they also get a prison cell which is built to house them and a million or so of their friends.

timetraveler added to this post, 5 minutes and 22 seconds later...

Well if that's the case then it's stupid people who are the problem and less stupid people in positions of power is the solution. You should post on my "Does everyone deserve a vote" thread.

That's what I've been saying all this time. I don't hate the poor, or the rich. Yes you will say that stupid people should be kept from gaining power, but most people aren't rational, or smart and even when they are they often aren't good. It's a situation where if you want to change the power structure of this country, you have to change who gets wealthy and who doesn't.

But there is no easy way to do that because the wealthy have their turf and so poor "smart" people aren't allowed to start a business in their industry without being eaten. You are correct if we had more smart billionaires we wouldn't have so many problem, but how do you create a society where the smart become billionaires? And even if they don't become billionaires, what kinda sources of power do smart people actually have anyway? Smart people typically get worked the hardest because the rich person will think: "Well if she's so smart, I can give her the work of 5 people and save some money."

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 12:38 PM

Wal-mart doesn't subsidize consumers who cannot afford the product. If they did they would be sacrificing profits which only the government can do. Efficiency is not the debate....access is.

Um... Tell me.. who can't afford $4?

Or, for that matter, a doctor visit that is cheaper than the copay?

your government program won't be able to beat that.

firebee

08-28-2009, 12:40 PM

People find $300-$600 lying around to fix the car. Isn't our health more important than the care?

Funny thing, I was just talking with a person I know whose cash flow had been seriously disrupted by an unexpected expense that was less than the figure named, and who will for quite some time be paying off a major repair for his car (which costs slightly more than a minor repair to a human). Not everyone can find this sort of money in the couch.

And mind, this is not a fellow with a menial, skill-free job that any MBA off the street could replace in a heartbeat -- his work requires significant training, dedication, and no small portion of talent.

I'm sure that there are oligarchs and welfare scum out there, but I have met few of them -- what I have met, on the other hand, are people who do something that at the end of the day needs doing, yet a reasonable degree of financial security is at minimum a struggle and possibly entirely out of their grasp. I'm not averse to the middle-class careerist "work hard and get ahead" meme, but it does strike me as reasonable that the non-career types should be able to find a place where they can make a stable living for their families.

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 12:47 PM

But there is no easy way to do that because the wealthy have their turf and so poor "smart" people aren't allowed to start a business in their industry without being eaten. You are correct if we had more smart billionaires we wouldn't have so many problem, but how do you create a society where the smart become billionaires? And even if they don't become billionaires, what kinda sources of power do smart people actually have anyway? Smart people typically get worked the hardest because the rich person will think: "Well if she's so smart, I can give her the work of 5 people and save some money."

Well my opinion is that it's not so much of an intellectual change as it is a cultural one. Bad behavior breeds ill will not necessarily stupidity.

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 12:48 PM

in this country - the poor here are WEALTHY !

you are talking about homeless-non wage earners....I am talking about the working poor. I am assuming you have never lived amongst or known people like this. It is easy to sit in an ivory tower and look down on the working poor eating swanson microwave meals and driving late 80's early 90's sedans, living in one bedroom apartments (if they are lucky, otherwise their cars) and think how could anyone "Choose" to live like this. But the fact is that it is not a choice, and often the working poor have several jobs plus financial aid from the state just to get by....you can by no stretch of the imagination consider these people wealthy....They are however certainly surviving...How can we justify having the top 6% of our society controlling more than 50% of the wealth is all I am asking.

If you put this disparity in the form of a pyramid you would have the current system looking like an obtuse triangle with the wealthy taking up a large portion and the poor rounding out the wide ended bottom. Why can't we make a more acute triangle where there is less of a bottom? The key is equitable, not equal.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
LINK (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1&ei=ZSWYSpjeJoLKswOHrMmXAg)
THIS IS NOT EQUITABLE

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 12:54 PM

you are talking about homeless-non wage earners....I am talking about the working poor. I am assuming you have never lived amongst or known people like this. It is easy to sit in an ivory tower and look down on the working poor eating swanson microwave meals and driving late 80's early 90's sedans, living in one bedroom apartments (if they are lucky, otherwise their cars) and think how could anyone "Choose" to live like this. But the fact is that it is not a choice, and often the working poor have several jobs plus financial aid from the state just to get by....you can by no stretch of the imagination consider these people wealthy....They are however certainly surviving...How can we justify having the top 6% of our society controlling more than 50% of the wealth is all I am asking.

If you put this disparity in the form of a pyramid you would have the current system looking like an obtuse triangle with the wealthy taking up a large portion and the poor rounding out the wide ended bottom. Why can't we make a more acute triangle where there is less of a bottom? The key is equitable, not equal.

i have been the working poor. i have lived with the working poor. all of my extended family is the working poor. so, am i supposed to have a realization from this that has eluded me otherwise?

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 12:58 PM

Honestly, I can't imagine why almost anyone in this country is poor. Have you seen the prices of homes in this country? In some areas you can buy a home for 20K which works out to be like 100 bucks a month. How can you NOT afford that?

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 01:01 PM

you are talking about homeless-non wage earners....I am talking about the working poor. I am assuming you have never lived amongst or known people like this. It is easy to sit in an ivory tower and look down on the working poor eating swanson microwave meals and driving late 80's early 90's sedans, living in one bedroom apartments (if they are lucky, otherwise their cars) and think how could anyone "Choose" to live like this.

How can we justify living in a society where ANYONE has to work 2 jobs to survive? How can we justify the fact that today it takes two incomes when in the 1950s it took one income? So tomorrow it's going to take Dad working 2 jobs and Mom working two jobs? What is the point of this?

timetraveler added to this post, 1 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Honestly, I can't imagine why almost anyone in this country is poor. Have you seen the prices of homes in this country? In some areas you can buy a home for 20K which works out to be like 100 bucks a month. How can you NOT afford that?

People are poor because of personal debt. And this is why everyone is mad at the bankers. I myself will have to pay back college loans, education itself isn't free. As far as buying a house, I don't plan on ever buying a house, I'm expecting to always be poor and I don't want the burden of having to pay for a house.

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 01:05 PM

Yes but personal debt who's fault is it? I'm a banker...LOL.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 01:07 PM

Yes but personal debt who's fault is it? I'm a banker...LOL.

Oh so it's okay for everyone to pay off your banks debt, but the banks wont forgive our debts.
And Republicans changed the bankruptcy laws so now it's harder to start small businesses.

How much is the government spending on small business? If these rich/wealthy care about the poor so much how much are they investing in small businesses started by the poor? The banks don't even lend money to the poor because the poor have bad credit.

thod

08-28-2009, 01:17 PM

I don't hate the rich. I consider them greedy but just as stupid as the poor. They are an elite without merit able to remain so due to the system we have.

I was born without land, yet someone owns every piece of land around me. They have placed an obligation on me to stay off it, yet they have given me nothing in return. Perhaps they cut a deal with someone in the far past, but not with me. In exerting their sole right to farm that land they are suppressing my right to farm it. Sure, I can farm it, providing I pay them half my produce each year. But what do they do for this? All they do is exert a claim, one I, nor anyone alive, was around to object to. They offer violence if I farm without their say so.

Are Walmarts low prices a good thing? I say not. A generation of would be shopkeepers no longer have a place other than employees. No different to the farm hand working the lords land. Although they may build a store they cannot compete with the economy of scale, despite being more skilful shopkeepers. The small producer could go to the small shopkeepers and sell his produce. Now he must go to Walmart who will not buy unless he produces a million units. Thus the small producer too goes out of business and becomes an employee in a mega corporation.

The land of opportunity does not exist. There are no opportunities, everything is owned, it is the land of the corporation and the employee. The owners of the corporations are the lord and the employees the peasants. This is what the libertarians do not understand. There is no Galts Gulch only corporations. They are known as the petit bourgeoisie in Marxist theory. They were typically shop keepers and small tradesmen. A group ever declining in numbers, the vanishing middle class. The world of Franklin and Jefferson is no more. There are no more rugged frontiersmen taming a wild land. There are owners and workers, lords and peasants.

The lords do not give the worker a job unless they can sell his labour for more, as soon as they cannot do so they fire him leaving him with no means to obtain his needs. The workers of the US are fooled by lies that they too will be rich one day. They will not, they will work and they will die as workers. The truth of this is kept from them by bombardment of right wing TV, anti organised labour, fear of the bogeyman (communism), patriotism and numerous other mechanisms.

Yet the fact remains that they would be better off under socialism. Western Europe has equal living standards and the poor live better. There is health care for all, education instead of child care, working public transport, and the people are happier on every measure. It is time the US people woke up and realised they are conned by an elite. They have a rich land, full of resources, the Japanese have no land or resources but manage the same levels. The conclusion is that the US system is inferior, it produces the same with more resources. I know some will shout patriotism just now, how dare you point this out. These men are fools, they imagine themselves part of an elite group whilst that group does not acknowledge them.

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 01:20 PM

I didn't say it was fair. The only reason we forgave the bank debts was to prevent everyone else from losing even MORE money. Is it right? No and yes stupidity played a part.

Well that's exactly why banks can't lend to people who have bad credit, it's to prevent losses.

All I'm saying is that if you got to certain places in this country where houses are cheap, you don't have to live poor. I think a lot of people choose to live poor.

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 01:31 PM

pray-tell where these $20k homes are...I would imagine they are more than a hundred miles from a city core (depending on the opportunities available in that core).- More likely than not they are mobile/modular homes which lose value, and cannot easily be financed by banks

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 01:35 PM

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 01:40 PM

Honestly I don't know where these 20K homes are, I just know they exist outside of NY somewhere. I do know however that homes in Buffalo NY are 50K, you have plenty of land as well as stores nearby and that amounts to be about 300/month for a 30 year mortgage. Tons of people in NYC have 50K, they just choose not to go to Buffalo NY. Even the poor here pay about 500/month on rent for a tiny apartment in the Bronx.

how many sq. feet/what's the prop. tax/insurance fees/age of home & associated maintenance costs/how much land is plenty/what's the crime rate in buffalo/etc?

people who can afford to pay $500/rent probably cannot afford to save 10months of rent for a down payment. Just saying....

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 01:44 PM

Well here's an example, I just did a quick search:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

or

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I feel like if you're motivated enough, you'd come up with the money somehow. It doesn't take long to accumulate 10K. You know this same size house in Bronx, NY would cost about 300K. But there's a bunch of these little towns. A lot of people stay in the city to either be with loved ones or they just fear being away or they feel like the city owes them something.

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 02:29 PM

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 02:31 PM

My 3 bedroom townhouse is $840/mo.
My 4+ bedroom home that I'm trying to sell is $720/mo mortgage (about $100K)

Both are within 20 miles of a city >200,000 in population

Not everything is like New York City.

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 02:43 PM

Not sure where you would find homes that inexpensive, but in my area, the average house price is probably close to $300K. A one bedroom apartment can run $700/month easily.
For many people, it does take a long time to accumulate $10K. When you're living paycheck to paycheck like many Americans, $10K is a lot of money.
Also, you need to be close to your job, so don't want to buy a house out in the boonies somehwere and have to drive 3 hours to work. We can't all retreat to the woods to find a cheap home, only to have no family or employer nearby. And many working poor NEED their families nearby, to watch their children while they work 40 plus hours a week.

Yes but who's fault is that they're living paycheck to paycheck? We have programs in this country to help veterans buy homes, we even have programs to help people in subsidized homes and if you STILL can't accumulate that money then what do you expect us to do? Subsidize you for life?

Well sometimes you'll need to make sacrifices, not everything can be convenient. You realize when you buy a home you can take your whole family with you right? You also realize Buffalo NY isn't in the middle of nowhere? There are tons of towns across the US like that. Especially in this climate, I've seen foreclosed homes selling for 10k! You're telling me you can't accumulate 1K for a mortgage? I'm sorry then you're fresh out of luck!

Profit

08-28-2009, 02:54 PM

I think it has been surprising to some that Walmart has made progress in reducing the costs of health care when government has failed. When they introduced $4 for many common prescriptions, people were shocked. it certainly took the air out of the "people are running to Canada for prescriptions" crowd.

TO be honest, I'm not surprised. Walmart has remained committed to providing people with quality low priced goods and services, and has (in its own way) stepped up to provide help to those who need it by providing a low cost option. Basic health care is only the latest in a long line. Sam's Club provides low costs eye care.

I think Walmart is providing a perfect counter-example to Obamacare. It costs less because Walmart chooses to compete on price with insurance companies. Were we to get rid of the third party tax avoidance system, we'd see more of this.

Did you ever stop and think how it is that Walmart was able to pull off the $4 prescription drugs? It is because they control such a large percentage of the market that they can essentially go to the drug companies (as well as producers of food/toys/clothing/etc) and tell them what price they are going to sell their product to Walmart. The sheer size of Walmart allows it to set prices, if producers do not agree to Walmart’s price Walmart doesn’t buy from them, doesn’t sell their product, and the company sees its sales drop significantly.
This is why in most other developed countries the government negotiates directly with drug companies to buy their products. The size of the government, its control over the distribution of drugs, allows it to drive costs down for medication. This is one of the reasons US citizens pay a much higher cost for prescription drugs compared to citizens of other developed countries.

themuzicman

08-28-2009, 03:07 PM

Did you ever stop and think how it is that Walmart was able to pull off the $4 prescription drugs? It is because they control such a large percentage of the market that they can essentially go to the drug companies (as well as producers of food/toys/clothing/etc) and tell them what price they are going to sell their product to Walmart. The sheer size of Walmart allows it to set prices, if producers do not agree to Walmart’s price Walmart doesn’t buy from them, doesn’t sell their product, and the company sees its sales drop significantly.
This is why in most other developed countries the government negotiates directly with drug companies to buy their products. The size of the government, its control over the distribution of drugs, allows it to drive costs down for medication. This is one of the reasons US citizens pay a much higher cost for prescription drugs compared to citizens of other developed countries.

And do you know what the difference is?

Walmart doesn't tax the heck out of me for doing it. Think about it. Walmart is offering cheaper doctor visits than health insurance company co-pays. And I don't pay a dime to Walmart for them to offer it.

OTOH, Obamacare wants trillions of dollars and can't beat Walmart.

Which sounds like the better solution?

annaelizabeth

08-28-2009, 03:25 PM

Yes but who's fault is that they're living paycheck to paycheck? We have programs in this country to help veterans buy homes, we even have programs to help people in subsidized homes and if you STILL can't accumulate that money then what do you expect us to do? Subsidize you for life?

Well sometimes you'll need to make sacrifices, not everything can be convenient. You realize when you buy a home you can take your whole family with you right? You also realize Buffalo NY isn't in the middle of nowhere? There are tons of towns across the US like that. Especially in this climate, I've seen foreclosed homes selling for 10k! You're telling me you can't accumulate 1K for a mortgage? I'm sorry then you're fresh out of luck!

umm, actually I saved 20% for a down payment, so I'm not talking about myself. And it took me a long time to do it. When I bought, there was almost nothing available for affordable housing. A few towns had some affordable housing units, and there was a lottery to see if you could get one. The first time homebuyer programs did absolutely nothing for me. I ended up going through a local bank. Affordable housing is a joke. It's just not available to the average, working lower-middle class person.

You're saying the fact that they live paycheck to paycheck is their fault? Did you read my previous post on the insurance? If I was going to get family insurance through my employer, I'm looking at close to $200 PER WEEK. The managers get a special discounted rate because they are special and they make the rules, thus making it a "benefit" to themselves. How is the average worker supposed to get ahead in that scenario? It's a total joke. I would always be behind the ball, not only because I earn less, but because I am contributing more towards my insurance. I'm not asking for a subsidy, I'm asking to be treated equally with those above me. A working person shouldn't have to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to have health coverage, when that person's managers are getting it for dirt cheap. The rich make the rules which we all live by. That is but one example.

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 03:39 PM

And do you know what the difference is?

Walmart doesn't tax the heck out of me for doing it. Think about it. Walmart is offering cheaper doctor visits than health insurance company co-pays. And I don't pay a dime to Walmart for them to offer it.

OTOH, Obamacare wants trillions of dollars and can't beat Walmart.

Which sounds like the better solution?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Please read this...you really have no idea what you are talking about. And quite frankly it is becoming less than appealing to continue this discussion with you.

Alex

08-28-2009, 03:43 PM

People find $300-$600 lying around to fix the car. Isn't our health more important than the care?

This is arguable. Many people are in denial about their health. If I feel fine, but actually have hypertension and don't know it, while my car isn't running and I can't get to work to continue to earn a paycheck, I'm going to think the car takes precedence. That doesn't mean it SHOULD, but the car becomes the more emergent need, especially if you ARE of the income bracket where you have to do one or the other within a given time period. Then again, I recognize the need for people to stop utilizing so much interest-bearing credit and impulse spending, and actually SAVE their money (for instance, in an HSA).

I think the idea of dropping all this comprehensive coverage, so that at least primary care practices can drop their claims staff and not have to charge so much JUST on the hope of getting paid a percentage of that (or at all), and could lower an office visit to somewhere closer to $30-50 upfront and in cash (about the average co-pay), would be a good one. Since truly catastrophic events are far less common than the need for constant, routine checkups and labs, and because you'd feel better about taking a higher deductible, catastrophic coverage becomes cheaper.

I really wish there was a way to examine this, like a survey of cash-only practices around the country and what their charges are for an office visit vs. what insurance is billed + co-pay, and compare that to monthly premiums for comprehensive vs. catastrophic insurance.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 03:59 PM

The rich make the rules which we all live by.

too easy. we all make the rules we live by. this is my main argument and why i tire of listening to complaints. some complaints and observations are valid; but many feel it is justification enough to show that the rich - whoever that is, because it is all relative - have the ability to make some rules. this shows it is not about money at all, it is about power.

not everyone is powerful, seeks power, but some do. they get off on it. if it doesn't come into play in my life, it makes no nevermind to me. do i care that my neighbor has spent his life angling for more powerful (managerial) jobs and flitted from one fortune 500 company to another? that's his right. it's my right to choose differently. i may be capable of the same, but i choose a different path. i do however seek to have as much power over my own life as i can.

most people don't want to see people starving. most individuals don't want to be surrounded by a majority of unhappy people. there are few, to be sure, but not most people. i'm not saying that i want that either. what i am saying is i don't enjoy seeing lack of personal responsibility for the choices one makes, and for one's own existence.

mistakes happen and people get into a jam. there are many avenues someone can take at that point... but it is not usually a permanent condition in this country. some people think it is, and that is my main frustration. but the issue isn't as simple as the haves, and the have nots. it can be explained for most able-bodied adults as an issue of choice.

yes choice. i have chosen not to have kids yet because i didn't feel i could afford them. not everyone makes that choice. i don't begrudge them and i am happy to help them in their choice - but they should respect my choice as well ! while i'm working and saving for the past 20 years and just now thinking of having a kid because i think i'm finally where i am comfortable with it - should i be accused of having been selfish all that time? should part of my non-taxed income have gone to someone else whose need was immediate?

most of my relatives are living in homes that were valued at around $40 grand about 2-3 years ago. i do not know what the housing market there is now. terre haute, a city in the rust belt. their cost of living is much lower than mine in california. my house is worth half a million. do i have more freedom than they do? in some regards yes, in some regards no. all of my cousins have had kids before they could afford them. i consider that a liberty that they just took. i chose education, and a long-range plan to achieve a higher standard of living before having kids. it's called personal responsibility. i don't expect applause, but i don't appreciate being thought of as mean-spirited towards poorer people. i'm just taking care of myself.

currently i am free from many of the day to day immediate needs my cousins have. but it came at a price: hard work, sacrifice, and risk. my cousins eat out more than me (and yes they do eat less healthy than me) they go to more in-theater movies, they have had cable/satellite service and cell phones for much longer periods of time than i have, they take more vacations than i do. they have had a lot of health issues related to diet that they've had to pay for (type 2 diabetes, obesity management.) oh and they volunteer less than i do. they live a different lifestyle. they would say it wasn't by choice but that is too easy.

working poor - not all wage jobs are capable of sustaining the needs of one person, let alone a family. that doesn't mean it's not hard work, or that the employee isn't doing a good job or deserving (or appreciated,) but it could mean that it's the wrong choice.

people need to be made aware of the choices they have before them. education is the answer. give a man a fish, he will still need something to eat the next day. teach a man to fish, and he can take care of himself. there's nothing mean-spirited about that. i'm happy to teach, and happy to give when necessary, and when i can.

--i would add, i'm not the only one who feel this way.

someone whose opinion i respect pm'd me to say if i live in half a million dollar house i am not the working poor. that's true. i don't claim to be. have i been in the past? yes. how long have i lived in this house? less than one year. i lived in a 1967 960 sq ft house for 15 years previous to that, for which i paid 130,000. i was able to sell it for 430,000 through no doing of my own - that's the way the market worked. i took advantage of that and moved and bought this house with the money, and pay a mortgage of around $700 a month. risk, hard work, sacrifice over a long time. i usually say good luck too, but as my husband says, in the absence of bad luck, we make our own good luck.

and btw, where i live in california, this half a million dollar house is still only a twenty year old two bedroom.

Hamburglar

08-28-2009, 04:57 PM

people need to be made aware of the choices they have before them. education is the answer. give a man a fish, he will still need something to eat the next day. teach a man to fish, and he can take care of himself. there's nothing mean-spirited about that. i'm happy to teach, and happy to give when necessary, and when i can.

--i would add, i'm not the only one who feel this way.

someone whose opinion i respect pm'd me to say if i live in half a million dollar house i am not the working poor. that's true. i don't claim to be. have i been in the past? yes. how long have i lived in this house? less than one year. i lived in a 1967 960 sq ft house for 15 years previous to that, for which i paid 130,000. i was able to sell it for 430,000 through no doing of my own - that's the way the market worked. i took advantage of that and moved and bought this house with the money, and pay a mortgage of around $700 a month. risk, hard work, sacrifice over a long time. i usually say good luck too, but as my husband says, in the absence of bad luck, we make our own good luck.

With regards to the earlier portion of your post. Money really does buy power. This has been proven in numerous studies of the CA ballot initiative process where corporations bypass the legislature (the peoples house) to pass laws in their favor. Most recent case was the Church of LDS purchase of prop 8 to ban gay marriage. I know many will say that this was the peoples will...but the people really are as sheepish as so many condemn them to be...you tell them a Value meal is a good deal and they buy it with little regard for their personal health, etc...

In reference to teach a man to fish...well that is all well and good unless there is a commercial fish farm up the river that hordes all the fish and wants to sell it to him for a mark up....see my point? We truly are enslaved...You cannot even move off the grid anymore because someone, or the government owns it and will forcefully evict you if they find you on their property.

Your home sale is awesome to be sure...But now because you sold your house at an inflated price someone is upside down in it. You could have sold it for 260,000 made a nice profit and allowed them to get into the home for a reasonable price...But you figured (consciously/unconsciously) that hey, if it's not you who gets the profit...someone else will...right? I mean you could have done a shit load of good for someone who otherwise could not have afforded your 40+ year old home as the person who sold it to you probably could have charged a lot less...but greed got the best of you...and you cannot be blamed because surely someone would have bought it up and made the profit on your good will... But this is the "problem" with our society...we are not concerned with others, just ourselves and our success. Maybe it is human nature, but it is certainly something we could consciously alter if we can recognize it as a problem. It should also be noted that I live in an apartment that costs me virtually double your monthly mortgage. If people were looking out for each other this would not necessarily be the case. My parents bought their home in the san fernando valley in the early 80's for less than a hundred thousand, they sold it after the 94 earthquake for slightly more than a hundred thousand, and now it is likely worth 500k solely because more and more people want to live in the Los Angeles area....The state profits on this through higher property taxes so they are incentivized to keep housing supplies low and drive up the costs.

So who profits....?
The lucky who can afford to buy at the dips in the market (marginally)
The State
The Bankers
The Realtors
The Investors who buy up property and "improve" it and resale it for a markup.

I don't know that we should really be doing this...maybe its a good thing, but I do not see the value.

Great profit though...I hope you aren't upside down on your current home!

LaoTzu

08-28-2009, 05:48 PM

It's the means of production that is the problem... it's been centralized in the hands of the few, and laws formulated to keep it that way.

Home ownership is a huge issue, and if you don't think so; look at the circumstances between blacks and whites in the USA.
After WWII there were government programs in place to help GI's returning to buy homes. Blacks were kept out of the program based on race alone. Whites bought, and eventually paid for their homes, which gave them opportunity to sell and upgrade, or to leave something to their family on death. Blacks had no such opportunity. Whites now, make up (relatively speaking) the middle class, and Blacks unfortunately are living in substandard conditions and being told that it's "their fault for not playing properly within the system". Blacks were systematically Ghetto'ized through economic 'sanction'.

When I see a person from the Ghetto, I don't automatically assume that person is lazy or unable to work through their own missteps in life. There are triggers and traps in place to keep certain people in a certain little box.

This is partially what Government is required to function to work on.... education for starters. Conservatives have been trying to destroy education in the USA for years now, and have been doing a very good job of it.
And the price of higher education automatically puts a large portion of people on the outside looking in.

these are all other matters, but I've been on both sides of the issue in my life as well... there are always going to be poor people out there. One thing that we do have to be sure of, is that they got there on their own lack of merit. :p
The number one cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical expenses... You can't blame people for that...

On another note, I'd like to see some form of salary cap for all people. Something like, a CEO cannot make more than 10 times what the average floor worker makes (or more, its just an arbitray number to me at the present). Even if the wage goes above it, make it so the CEO has to return it to the company in some way... preferably to subordinates, in regulated fashion.

daydreamer

08-28-2009, 06:00 PM

With regards to the earlier portion of your post. Money really does buy power. This has been proven in numerous studies of the CA ballot initiative process where corporations bypass the legislature (the peoples house) to pass laws in their favor. Most recent case was the Church of LDS purchase of prop 8 to ban gay marriage. I know many will say that this was the peoples will...but the people really are as sheepish as so many condemn them to be...you tell them a Value meal is a good deal and they buy it with little regard for their personal health, etc...

i'm glad you responded hamburglar, because i do value your thoughts.

i'll agree with you, money does buy power. that is why perpetually poor people desire it. but many are unwilling to do what it takes to get it. so they want it handed to them. the thing about power is, you have to take it, you have to exercise it, you have to use it, for it to be power.

money isn't the only source of power. education is too. creative thinking is. and i know it's getting repetitive, but hard work, risk, sacrifice - those can be traded on to get power as well. i know you'll agree that throwing money at a cause does not help a cause in and of itself. somebody has to know what to do with it, take that responsibility, and do it.

i recognize that there are instances where welfare and social programs fail people. there are economically depressed areas that need special attention. hurricane katrina brought to everyone's attention the dismal living conditions those people had been living in for generations. something has to be done. money - yes - but also education. show people how to make their lives better. empower them.

i do take offense to the notion that rich people are to blame for the poor. or richer people... we are all in this together. i keep giving you examples of how hard i've worked, and you seem to ignore it - do you discount my effort? do you think my life has been easier? do you think i'm undeserving? i mean these questions conceptually mind you - i'm not taking personal offense to your opinions, i'd like to hear them.

In reference to teach a man to fish...well that is all well and good unless there is a commercial fish farm up the river that hordes all the fish and wants to sell it to him for a mark up....see my point? We truly are enslaved...You cannot even move off the grid anymore because someone, or the government owns it and will forcefully evict you if they find you on their property.

well if you think the poor are enslaved, then everyone is. nobody gets a free ride. it's a matter of choice to look at it that way. i prefer to look at it as, we are all in this together, we all have struggles to support ourselves. i prefer to look at it that way because it jives with my experience. i can talk about hypothetical people all day, but i'm interested in helping real people, or obtaining the help of real people (in the case of those who have some power to change things.)

but let's look at your literal fish farm. can't learn to fish because you have to pay for the privilege? welcome to college. welcome to getting an entry level job (and i don't mean minimum wage) and working your way up. borrow on what you can to make it better for yourself tomorrow. there are programs that can help, if your family is unwilling or unable.

most people entering the job market have to make that decision: which path? how to learn to fish? and, even though i'm doing ok these days, i still can't live off the grid either. we are in this together.

Your home sale is awesome to be sure...But now because you sold your house at an inflated price someone is upside down in it. You could have sold it for 260,000 made a nice profit and allowed them to get into the home for a reasonable price...But you figured (consciously/unconsciously) that hey, if it's not you who gets the profit...someone else will...right?

lol ok first of all... i did not make any profit. i made an investment. an investment toward a goal: of one day being able to live in a larger home. one day living closer to work. this is how home sales work. most people know this. lol.

but since you brought it up, would it surprise you to know that where i lived starter homes are in such demand that all of my offers were for more than i was asking? the buyer we chose is not upside down as you say.

it was the first time we have sold a house. we're not excited at the thought of wheeler-dealering, we told the real estate agent we wanted to sell fast. our price was so low that we sold it in one day.

but then our bad luck? if you want to call it that, turned out to be the buyer's good fortune as well. the house we were trying to buy fell through. in fact we paid the mortgage payment to her as rent for almost a year while we continued to live there and were looking to buy a house - she was able to take advantage of our situation. before we sold, we had no payment, we'd paid our house off. we didn't have to do it that way, but it was our choice. we could have declined all offers and taken it off the market and waited. we paid for making that choice, and she benefitted. we chose her because she was willing to work with us, it was win-win.

I mean you could have done a shit load of good for someone who otherwise could not have afforded your 40+ year old home as the person who sold it to you probably could have charged a lot less...but greed got the best of you...

i did a shitload of good lol i helped someone who wanted to buy a house in my old town buy a house. i also helped someone who couldn't otherwise afford a house where i live now buy one (me.) these weren't easy tasks as it took me over a year of looking at hundreds of houses 3-4 times a week. my health suffered and i wasn't able to always cook like i like so my husband gained a few pounds too. since we've lived here we have taken in a young friend of ours and he benefits from living here, completely on our dime, too. we're helping him get an education, and we'll continue to help him as he sets up his career and living situation.

and you cannot be blamed because surely someone would have bought it up and made the profit on your good will... But this is the "problem" with our society...we are not concerned with others, just ourselves and our success.

you continue to ignore or refuse to acknowledge how i've demonstrated that i care about people. lol and i am only one of many.

Maybe it is human nature, but it is certainly something we could consciously alter if we can recognize it as a problem. It should also be noted that I live in an apartment that costs me virtually double your monthly mortgage.

i could have easily qualified for a larger loan and bought 3 times more house in terms of cost - and paid one and a half your rent. but i didn't. another choice. an educated choice.

If people were looking out for each other this would not necessarily be the case. My parents bought their home in the san fernando valley in the early 80's for less than a hundred thousand, they sold it after the 94 earthquake for slightly more than a hundred thousand, and now it is likely worth 500k solely because more and more people want to live in the Los Angeles area....The state profits on this through higher property taxes so they are incentivized to keep housing supplies low and drive up the costs.

ok i'm not an economist but i know that what you're saying isn't kosher. how do higher property taxes decrease the supply of houses? enlighten me. i spend a fair amount of time in la... there is no housing shortage btw.

if anything, increased property taxes causes people who are shuffling around in the same area to keep the purchase price low - the higher the purchase price, the higher the appraisal value (usually the same) and people don't want to sell a house in an area where they were paying "n" for property tax and have to pay "n to the x" for the privilege of living in a similar or slightly better house. nobody wants a decrease in property values, but people who are satisfied with the area and want to stay there don't want extreme increases either.

So who profits....?
The lucky who can afford to buy at the dips in the market (marginally)
The State
The Bankers
The Realtors
The Investors who buy up property and "improve" it and resale it for a markup.

the state? perhaps. i wouldnt call it profit. they benefit from the cycle of home ownership. as you've pointed out, a lot of people do. isn't that a good thing? isn't the greatest benefit for the most people what you want? because, if your argument is that we should all be poor - well honestly, i dunno what to do with that.

I don't know that we should really be doing this...maybe its a good thing, but I do not see the value.

Great profit though...I hope you aren't upside down on your current home!

thanks hamburglar. no we're not upside down. and hopefully we can continue to take care of ourselves and those that we have been helping, as they need - and be able to help those we would naturally help in the future.

TemperateSloth

08-28-2009, 07:01 PM

How about we just remove American citizenship from the rich. Make them leave the country, remove their rights to hold any assets in the country, charge anyone that does business with them with 'trading with the enemy'...Apparently, a small number of the rich have already left of their own accord:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As to not allowing them to trade within U.S. borders, that would be more problematic than it might first appear. E.g., those people, both middle-class and rich, who would be verbally "pounding" their representatives and senators in the U.S. Congress because they can no longer take a cruise on the "Carnival" line or purchase Campbell's soup for their dinners and cooking.

Also, when reps and senators pass fundamentally flawed legislation, at times attempting to "soak the rich," in order to stay in office, what responsibilities should said reps and senators have to meet?

E.g., the "Luxury Tax," passed by the Congress however many years ago, which eliminated the jobs of middle-class people who were building boats and yachts.

Personally, I would have preferred to see those who voted "aye" for that bill be, by law, forced to permanently resign from political office and have to start several companies which would then employ those people who lost their jobs due to the antics of the Congress critters.

If the people in Congress were wiling to take responsibility for their errors, then I withdraw my complaint, but I'll be waiting a very long time for that to occur! And btw, the same for the corporate CEOs and taking responsibility too!

RBM

08-28-2009, 07:26 PM

Apparently, a small number of the rich have already left of their own accord:

According to the 'depleting resources' reading circles I frequent, it's been going on for a while. A distinction was made according to 'old money' and 'new money' as each group had slightly different approaches to the issue and were qualitatively different.

The new money expects money to talk for them and all their wants to be met merely by flashing cash. The old money has more appreciation for the limits of money's importance to others, and is more cognizant the social constructs can be a useful tool in their toolkit.

Lucid

08-28-2009, 07:53 PM

What's interesting about this argument is that the same people who say that the problems of the poor will be solved by the voluntary charity of the rich also argue against communism and socialism by saying that it's human nature to take more than one needs and give less than one should. How has this glaring inconsistency escaped your notice?

Additionally, Alex, your argument is exactly the same as what you are arguing against - just with the terms switched around. You want the poor to have responsibilities and the rich to have rights. Hilarious, frankly, since you are no different from that which you are railing against. How does that happen to a person? And you're not the only person posting in this thread who's doing it.

Finally, our society needs the rich and the working class equally. And both segments of our society (as well as the middle class) have rights as well as responsibilities. Currently, the disparity between the rich and the poor is larger than it should be. We, as a society, should work to change this. And there's no reason why we can't give a man a fish and teach him to catch his own. To say otherwise is laziness and selfishness on both sides. There are consequences to being poor such as not being able to feed your children. There are consequences to being rich, such as higher taxes. Both need to take responsibility for their choices.

There, now that I have bestowed upon you this great piece of wisdom and simple logic, you can go and spread it among your various people. Go forth, puny minions, and blindly defend one side of an argument irrationally and hypocritically no more. You have received enlightenment this day.

You're fucking welcome.

Alex

08-28-2009, 08:48 PM

Additionally, Alex, your argument is exactly the same as what you are arguing against - just with the terms switched around. You want the poor to have responsibilities and the rich to have rights. Hilarious, frankly, since you are no different from that which you are railing against. How does that happen to a person? And you're not the only person posting in this thread who's doing it.

Actually, no. I want the rich to have what they earn (the right to keep it, the responsibility to earn it). I want the poor to have what they earn (the right to keep it, the responsibility to earn it). I want the middle to have what they earn (the right to keep it, the responsibility to earn it). Period.

There are consequences to being poor such as not being able to feed your children.

I'm sorry, children? If I believed that MOST instances of this occurring happened because a viable family fell on hard circumstances beyond their control, I wouldn't say this, but I know it's not the case. Census data more than loudly proclaims that those with a high school education or less, and a yearly income of $25K or less, are having as many or MORE children than those with higher levels of educations and incomes, just within the last YEAR. So if you're having children you KNOW you can't afford? This is clearly a poor choice.

As for taxes on the wealthy (since we're talking about responsibilities here) . . . what exactly was their poor choice? Working? Having a good idea no one else had? Inheriting money? What exactly do they need to "take responsibility for" through poor decision-making? You're basically saying, yes, let's punish the rich for supporting themselves. And when the poor have children, when children (however much they may emotionally enrich our lives) are PURE income drains, we . . . give them money. We make them take responsibility by giving them money.

Makes perfect sense, this system.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 08:54 PM

No offense, but did you stop to think that maybe all these rich people behave that way because poor people behave a certain way? If poor people are constantly forcing better treatment while the wealthy are resisting, don't you think that's going to make the wealthy look down upon the poor and NOT want to help them? I'm not saying it's the poor people's fault, but many of the rich might just be reacting to what they believe is unfair too.

No it's the Democrats who created the hate the rich strategy of getting elected. It's politicians who use class warfare to win elections. It's not the "poor" who write articles, books, and have talkshows where the main theme is blame rich people for everything. I agree that it's unfair to punish all rich people or all poor people as a group, I don't believe in tightly knit groups, I judge each individually.

What can I tell you, the world is complicated. If the rich give more and the poor keep taking don't you think at some point the rich will be like, why am I constantly giving a free meal? If the rich give too much, and everyone gets an equal share, society actually stays the same because if everyone gets an extra dollar in actuality, no one got a dollar as prices raise by that one dollar.

It depends on how you give. If you give money to poor people so they can start businesses or you fund non profits which advance human rights, or civil liberties, or that end domestic abuse, this is paying to eliminate a social problem and not merely paying poor people to be poor.

Meanwhile all this giving enriches all the politicians who are "distributing" this wealth and maybe the rich don't want the politicians to have that money.
I don't see what politicians have to do with any of this. If a bunch of rich people want to help me and my friends, they can personally invest in me, my business, and then buy whatever products or services I sell them, and this allows me to hire myself and my friends. I can also start a non profit and rich people can give me the grant money to keep it running and once again this creates jobs for me and my friends. There are many different business plans and strategies but the point is, if you don't want the money to be wasted you have to use that money to either make new money or use that money to solve a social problem. Not every poor person just wants money to buy a car, or some rims, or shoes.

What most poor people want is to have a job, working with people they like, and the ability to be their own boss or just the ability to be in the upper level of a company. It's status not money, it's about achieving goals not just asking for a handout. The Democrats offer handouts because thats how they keep getting elected, they need the poor to stay poor and live hand to mouth so these poor stay pissed off at the rich, so they give them welfare or financial aid which increases their debt, or free healthcare, rather than give these poor people the means to raise their own salaries so they don't need to ask the government in the future. Part of the solution is to have the government help the poor buy stuff like food, shelter, healthcare and education because these are the basics, but beyond the basics I don't want the government helping. The only thing the government can do beyond these basics is give people money to start businesses or non profits in the form of grants and also perhaps give tax breaks to rich people who do it. We need INVESTMENT in the poor, not free beer.

More complications: If you give the poor healthcare that is too good, then who wants to work to receive healthcare? Poor people will have more children that will continue to drain healthcare even more so than it is now if they have a 'safety net' that is always there. That will lead to more poverty and more demands, more resistance from the wealthy etc...

People should not work to live. People should live to work. If you are so busy working just so you can have food, shelter, healthcare and the basics, you cannot advance the culture or solve social problems, or be as inventive as you might be. I want to see my neighbors who aren't rich quit their jobs at whatever big corporation they work for and start a business in their own neighborhood. I want to see the government encourage rich people to invest in small businesses started by the poor, and there should be many incentives from tax credits, to the government matching whatever investment. The fact that there are very little incentives for the good rich to make these sorts of investments is part of the problem.

timetraveler added to this post, 2 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Alex, I don't claim to know your personal wealth but if you were wealthy would you be willing to gather a team of your friends and form an investment club where you look for opportunities to invest in poor people who want to start businesses, or non profits, and create jobs to bring themselves and their neighbors out of poverty?

Alex

08-28-2009, 09:00 PM

I want to see my neighbors who aren't rich quit their jobs at whatever big corporation they work for and start a business in their own neighborhood.

So why don't they? What's stopping them? Is there a LAW saying, "These people, because they're below a certain income bracket or social class, may NOT ever start their own businesses"? Of course there's not.

The issue here is risk, as I said before. What YOU want is for there to be a complete elimination of risk for people below certain income thresholds. And it's just not going to happen.

Lucid

08-28-2009, 09:01 PM

Actually, no. I want the rich to have what they earn. I want the poor to have what they earn. I want the middle to have what they earn. I want all of them to have the unencumbered (meaning, without interference from the government - no laws saying, "Poor people can't work here", things like that) ability to pursue their destinies. Period.

Here's what you're missing: The rich earn higher taxes as well as big houses. The poor earn social help as well as hungry children. By 'earn' I mean 'incur as a result of actions they have taken.' That's also what responsibility means. Just incidentally.

I'm sorry, children? If I believed that MOST instances of this occurring happened because a viable family fell on hard circumstances beyond their control, I wouldn't say this, but I know it's not the case. Census data more than loudly proclaims that those with a high school education or less, and a yearly income of $25K or less, are having as many or MORE children than those with higher levels of educations and incomes, just within the last YEAR. So if you're having children you KNOW you can't afford? This is clearly a poor choice.

No, you are not understanding my argument. You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is saying that starving children is a greater evil than higher taxes.

Funny you should draw that conclusion though. The conclusion that starving children is a greater evil than higher taxes that is. Why do you think you came to that particular idea?

Whether the starving children are the result of financial hardship befalling a 'viable family' or because someone in the lowest income brackets of society can't figure out how condoms work, the result is the same. I'm not concerned with why the family is poor and the children aren't eating. You seem to have this highly subjective value system at work in your ideas about 'responsibility' and 'earn' and 'deserve.'

As for taxes on the wealthy (since we're talking about responsibilities here) . . . what exactly was their poor choice? Working? Having a good idea no one else had? Inheriting money? What exactly do they need to "take responsibility for" through poor decision-making? You're basically saying, yes, let's punish the rich for supporting themselves.

No, I'm saying that actions have consequences. Words like 'punish' and 'poor choice' are your contribution to this conversation. Paying higher taxes is not a punishment. It is the result of having an income which falls in a certain tax bracket. Having your children starve is not a punishment. It is the result of having children which one cannot afford.

And when the poor have children, when children (however much they may emotionally enrich our lives) are PURE income drains, we . . . give them money. We make them take responsibility by giving them money.

Makes perfect sense, this system.

This has nothing to do with the point I am making. Please try again.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 09:08 PM

After WWII there were government programs in place to help GI's returning to buy homes. Blacks were kept out of the program based on race alone. Whites bought, and eventually paid for their homes, which gave them opportunity to sell and upgrade, or to leave something to their family on death. Blacks had no such opportunity. Whites now, make up (relatively speaking) the middle class, and Blacks unfortunately are living in substandard conditions and being told that it's "their fault for not playing properly within the system". Blacks were systematically Ghetto'ized through economic 'sanction'.

That is not the only reason that blacks live in ghettos. There were Jim Crow laws and segregation which made it illegal for non whites to live anywhere but in ghettos. If you were black and tried to move out of the ghetto back then, you could find yourself lynched by the KKK, or beat up, or you'd just be told that you aren't wanted and no matter how much money you will pay for the house, they wont sell it to you. This segregation only changed in 1980s, so that is why ghettos and segregation of races still exist. Today it's different because if you are poor and black you can move up and move out.

When I see a person from the Ghetto, I don't automatically assume that person is lazy or unable to work through their own missteps in life. There are triggers and traps in place to keep certain people in a certain little box.

This is true. The drug laws are a perfect example of a trap which keeps poor people from ever moving up. If you get convicted of a drug crime then when you try to go to college financial aid will ask you if you were ever convicted of a drug crime. It doesn't ask about any other kind of crime, it does not ask about white collar crime or domestic violence, just drugs.

This is partially what Government is required to function to work on.... education for starters. Conservatives have been trying to destroy education in the USA for years now, and have been doing a very good job of it. And the price of higher education automatically puts a large portion of people on the outside looking in.

And until recently there were many people who would say that a college degree is not for everyone. Well if you don't have a college degree and you live in the ghetto and are poor, you will probably die poor homeless or in prison at the rate our economy is going.

On another note, I'd like to see some form of salary cap for all people. Something like, a CEO cannot make more than 10 times what the average floor worker makes (or more, its just an arbitray number to me at the present). Even if the wage goes above it, make it so the CEO has to return it to the company in some way... preferably to subordinates, in regulated fashion.

No Mr. Communist, I do not support a salary cap. I think shareholders should have more rights and power to set salaries. CEO's should lose power and it should be given to shareholders. The problem is that shareholders often put their CEO in place and deliberately give him a high salary because they are all relatives, like the CEO is your cousin. Nepotism is one of the reasons why certain underperforming CEOs have inflated salaries.

The issue here is risk, as I said before. What YOU want is for there to be a complete elimination of risk for people below certain income thresholds. And it's just not going to happen.

Alex what I've been saying all along that certain groups of rich and wealthy individuals are deliberately exporting risk to poor neighborhoods we call ghettos. They are literally exporting the risk there in some cases and then in other cases they are trying to contain the risk there, but think about the child who has to grow up in that environment. It wont matter how smart that child is, or how talented, that child is going to have to face risks and challenges that rich children never have to face. How is it the childs fault for being born?

Alex

08-28-2009, 09:21 PM

Paying higher taxes is not a punishment. It is the result of having an income which falls in a certain tax bracket.

You speak as if this happened in a vacuum or is a force of nature, like the moment someone earns over $10, the wind naturally comes along and blows away at least $3 of it. The attitude behind the artificial construct of higher tax brackets for the wealthy (and really, MOST taxation at ANY bracket, to which I'm also firmly opposed) is one of "You have more money, you can afford it."

This argument isn't rooted in "what is"; "what is" is currently entitlement programs and the kicking about of the idea of giving all the poor uninsured health insurance. The argument is more about "what should be". And my idea of "what should be" is a situation where the "consequence" of making more money isn't to have that money taken from him, and given to someone with less. Yes, that is currently a consequence of the action of making more money than someone. My argument is that it shouldn't be, and what's more, it's immoral for it TO be.

It's a defeatist, unnecessary consequence - it's a leap in logic. Like saying that being hit by a red foam bat by elves is a consequence of a man leaving his house. Anyone can set up such a scenario, you can put the red foam bat-wielding elves in front of his house - anyone can make that so. For instance, a majority of people can say, "We're going to put this group of red foam bat-wielding elves in front of your house to hit you every time you leave. That is now YOUR consequence of the action of leaving your house." However, is it moral? Does a person have a right NOT to be hit by red foam bat-wielding elves every time he leaves his house? I'd say yes. The idea of his leaving the house is entirely independent of the random decision for people to station red foam bat-wielding elves outside his house.

That principle, in my eyes, does not apply to someone who 1) makes the conscious decision to have sex, 2) makes the conscious decision not to get an abortion or give the resultant child up for adoption, and 3) as a result of that person's limited financial status and refusal to act in the best interests of the child (in either not having it in the first place, or not giving it to someone who CAN provide for it), the child is endangered by starvation. None of those are independent of one another. This particular decision has NOTHING to do with the rich person whose money is being eaten away in high taxes, but the government makes it so - "You are responsible for helping to support this person and her child."

Telling a mother she's responsible for caring for a child she brought into the world? God, I HOPE that's still a logical connection to make.

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 09:21 PM

Your home sale is awesome to be sure...But now because you sold your house at an inflated price someone is upside down in it. You could have sold it for 260,000 made a nice profit and allowed them to get into the home for a reasonable price...But you figured (consciously/unconsciously) that hey, if it's not you who gets the profit...someone else will...right? I mean you could have done a shit load of good for someone who otherwise could not have afforded your 40+ year old home as the person who sold it to you probably could have charged a lot less...but greed got the best of you...and you cannot be blamed because surely someone would have bought it up and made the profit on your good will... But this is the "problem" with our society...we are not concerned with others, just ourselves and our success. Maybe it is human nature, but it is certainly something we could consciously alter if we can recognize it as a problem. It should also be noted that I live in an apartment that costs me virtually double your monthly mortgage. If people were looking out for each other this would not necessarily be the case. My parents bought their home in the san fernando valley in the early 80's for less than a hundred thousand, they sold it after the 94 earthquake for slightly more than a hundred thousand, and now it is likely worth 500k solely because more and more people want to live in the Los Angeles area....The state profits on this through higher property taxes so they are incentivized to keep housing supplies low and drive up the costs.

So who profits....?
The lucky who can afford to buy at the dips in the market (marginally)
The State
The Bankers
The Realtors
The Investors who buy up property and "improve" it and resale it for a markup.

I don't know that we should really be doing this...maybe its a good thing, but I do not see the value.

Great profit though...I hope you aren't upside down on your current home!

People can't look out for each other constantly because as soon as one cheats, everyone will cheat; it just wouldn't work. I do agree with you that this culture is too profit based but what are you going to do about that? You can only work with what you have available.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 09:24 PM

So why don't they? What's stopping them? Is there a LAW saying, "These people, because they're below a certain income bracket or social class, may NOT ever start their own businesses"? Of course there's not.

The issue here is risk, as I said before. What YOU want is for there to be a complete elimination of risk for people below certain income thresholds. And it's just not going to happen.

If you want to help poor people, start investing in them. I understand you don't want to give handouts, but nobody is asking for handouts. Poor people would love to be their own boss and get rich doing something they enjoy, just like you love to be your own boss and get rich. The problem is nobody gets rich on their own, someone has to invest in you for you to get anywhere with anything you are doing. Somebody has to give you money to cover your startup costs and operating costs, and then after you have your business or your non profit running, someone has to help you get customers.

You are saying rich capitalist people can't help poor people start businesses? Why not?

timetraveler added to this post, 1 minutes and 15 seconds later...

People can't look out for each other constantly because as soon as one cheats, everyone will cheat; it just wouldn't work. I do agree with you that this culture is too profit based but what are you going to do about that? You can only work with what you have available.

This is not true either. I'm not saying you should help out people who you don't know and can't trust. You can run a backround check and see how much of a cheat they are before you help them. There are honest people, why shouldn't honest rich people help honest poor people?

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 09:29 PM

umm, actually I saved 20% for a down payment, so I'm not talking about myself. And it took me a long time to do it. When I bought, there was almost nothing available for affordable housing. A few towns had some affordable housing units, and there was a lottery to see if you could get one. The first time homebuyer programs did absolutely nothing for me. I ended up going through a local bank. Affordable housing is a joke. It's just not available to the average, working lower-middle class person.

You're saying the fact that they live paycheck to paycheck is their fault? Did you read my previous post on the insurance? If I was going to get family insurance through my employer, I'm looking at close to $200 PER WEEK. The managers get a special discounted rate because they are special and they make the rules, thus making it a "benefit" to themselves. How is the average worker supposed to get ahead in that scenario? It's a total joke. I would always be behind the ball, not only because I earn less, but because I am contributing more towards my insurance. I'm not asking for a subsidy, I'm asking to be treated equally with those above me. A working person shouldn't have to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to have health coverage, when that person's managers are getting it for dirt cheap. The rich make the rules which we all live by. That is but one example.

I find it hard to believe that a person can't find affordable housing. I live in NY and I know a few towns where the homes are under 100K. Is it inconvenient? Yes but that's the price you pay for living so close to work. I know someone who travels 5 hours from Delaware and back home each way just b/c he can take advantage of a high salary and low home price of each respective state. Sacrifice? Yes, but he chose to have that life.

You're right, the rich are getting more advantages than everyone else and it does seem strange since they can afford to do without it. I personally think they should pay the same fees as everyone else just to make it equitable but it doesn't work like that. It's human nature to want more than the next person and being in a higher position means you get to have more for less and that's what makes them feel special. Do I think it's dumb? Of course, but all you can say is that I hate humans and that's that. All I'm saying is if you know that is true in society, you have to find some way around that in which YOU can control. Kicking and screaming isn't going to get you anywhere and it just wastes cognitive resources.

Lucid

08-28-2009, 09:30 PM

You speak as if this happened in a vacuum or is a force of nature, like the moment someone earns over $10, the wind naturally comes along and blows away at least $3 of it. The attitude behind the artificial construct of higher tax brackets for the wealthy (and really, MOST taxation at ANY bracket, to which I'm also firmly opposed) is one of "You have more money, you can afford it."

This argument isn't rooted in "what is"; "what is" is currently entitlement programs and the kicking about of the idea of giving all the poor uninsured health insurance. The argument is more about "what should be". And my idea of "what should be" is a situation where the "consequence" of making more money isn't to have that money taken from him, and given to someone with less. Yes, that is currently a consequence of the action of making more money than someone. My argument is that it shouldn't be, and what's more, it's immoral for it TO be.

And how is that any different from the argument that starving children should not be a consequence of poverty?

It's a defeatist, unnecessary consequence - it's a leap in logic. Like saying that being hit by a red foam bat by elves is a consequence of a man leaving his house. Anyone can set up such a scenario, you can put the red foam bat-wielding elves in front of his house - anyone can make that so. For instance, a majority of people can say, "We're going to put this group of red foam bat-wielding elves in front of your house to hit you every time you leave. That is now the consequence." However, is it moral? Does a person have a right NOT to be hit by red foam bat-wielding elves every time he leaves his house? I'd say yes. The idea of his leaving the house in entirely independent of the random decision for people to station red foam bat-wielding elves outside his house.

No, red foam bat-wielding elves would be an unexpected consequence of leaving one's house. If, however, we lived in a society in which that sort of thing happened to people who left their houses with some regularity and if being attacked by red foam bat-wielding elves was something that everyone knows happens upon leaving their house then such a comparison could be made.

That principle, in my eyes, does not apply to someone who 1) makes the conscious decision to have sex, 2) makes the conscious decision not to get an abortion or give the resultant child up for adoption, and 3) as a result of that person's limited financial status and refusal to act in the best interests of the child (in either not having it in the first place, or not giving it to someone who CAN provide for it), the child is endangered by starvation. None of those are independent of one another. This particular decision has NOTHING to do with the rich person whose money is being eaten away in high taxes, but the government makes it so - "You are responsible for helping to support this person and her child."

Yes, a person makes the conscious decision to have sex in an irresponsible way and who makes the conscious decision not to use any of the methods in place for correcting such a decision. They make these decisions knowing that they have limited financial resources and knowing the possible outcomes of that decision. The same is true of rich people. If you don't want to pay higher taxes, give the money you inherit or receive for your brilliant and innovative idea to charity and live on a middle class salary instead. Being rich is a conscious decision and it is undertaken with full knowledge of the tax system we employ as a society. To say, "but this tax system is unfair" is one thing, but to say that the tax system is unfair to the rich and the class system is fair to the poor is cognitive dissonance. You're telling me that the rich don't understand the consequences of their actions but that the poor do? Or that they shouldn't have to? I'm saying fine, if you want people to be held accountable for their choices you have to apply that principle to all people and to all choices and to all foreseeable consequences of those choices, both positive and negative. You appear to be operating under a rich/poor double standard. If, by your logic, the poor have no one but themselves to blame for being poor and thus must accept the consequences of that state then the same must be true for the rich.

Telling a mother she's responsible for caring for a child she brought into the world? God, I HOPE that's still a logical connection to make.

This is a red herring. Nobody is making the point which you are addressing here.

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 09:34 PM

Alex

08-28-2009, 09:35 PM

If you want to help poor people, start investing in them. I understand you don't want to give handouts, but nobody is asking for handouts. Poor people would love to be their own boss and get rich doing something they enjoy, just like you love to be your own boss and get rich.

Hey, if they've got the knowhow, a degree, or a reasonable amount of experience in how business even works - were I rich (I'm not; my annual is just under $40K), I'd do that. I'd probably be accused of "profiting off the poor", but I'd do that.

Now, just point me in the direction of a poor person with business sense, hopefully some kind of degree, and a viable idea.

ETA: But on the subject of investment, there are SEVERAL charities where the middle-class and rich donate money to invest in the future of lower income students. Those students have to show promise first; they're not going to hand out a five-figure scholarship to someone who slacked off and had a D average all through school. Investment by the wealthy in the impoverished DOES happen, and there are some people who seize that opportunity. There are others who don't.

Basically, I don't mind giving a hitchhiker a ride to a job interview. I DO mind being asked to drive someone everywhere for the rest of his or my life.

Alex added to this post, 5 minutes and 22 seconds later...

If, however, we lived in a society in which that sort of thing happened to people who left their houses with some regularity and if being attacked by red foam bat-wielding elves was something that everyone knows happens upon leaving their house then such a comparison could be made.

So you're basically saying that it's sheerly by state benevolence - strictly by PRIVILEGE alone - that we're allowed to keep what we earn. Wa-how. Seriously. Wow.

I do understand you now. Property rights don't exist. Gotcha.

And how is that any different from the argument that starving children should not be a consequence of poverty?

The state does not say "if you're poor, your children MUST starve." Plenty of poor people feed their children (there are varying rates of poverty). Starving children is a consequence of parents who birth children INTO poverty. However, I don't believe it SHOULD even be a consequence of that; I think people should freely give to prevent starvation because of the idiot decisions of that child's parent. I'd also support that child being given a better parent than one who would deliberately bring them into poverty, but I don't agree with the government seizing what isn't theirs, at least if there was no mitigating circumstance (such as child abuse - although, really, the charge of neglect isn't really too far removed from willfully bringing a child into poverty).

So, while I'm all for some voluntary charity, I'm not for the state having carte blanche to say, "Yoink. That's ours." Property isn't a privilege, it's a right. I don't take anything from the poor; I'd appreciate if they didn't take from me.

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 09:45 PM

One thing I would like to add: my family were poor Chinese immigrants when they came to this country in the 70s. Though there were social benefits at the time, my family refused to take any and insisted they make it out themselves. Some sold stuff on the streets, some worked in sweatshops, some walked home at night in dangerous neighborhoods, fought off gang members but in one generation they were all able to make it to the middle class. I'm not trying to brag, I know many families who went through something similar. The attitude has changed now, a majority of the Chinese who come here come because they hear about all the "free stuff" we give away and play the system. My family won't even associate with these new Chinese. America is a great country in which you can be given a chance to break out of poverty. I think it's a damn shame when everyone is bankrupting this place demanding to be given a chance and taking it away from future generations; if this country runs out of money, no one is given a chance.

Alex

08-28-2009, 09:48 PM

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 09:55 PM

Easy because they don't want competition. Besides, if you help them all that's just a waste of money as they all have the same resources to fight each other and it would go more towards fighting than to making a functional business assuming these poor folk have the same or similar intellectual capacity.

Yes you could do that but the way this system is set up isn't to evaluate if someone cheats. It's only to see if they can repay whatever loan they take out.

But it makes the country more honest if honest families help other honest families. It does not have to be a social darwinist nightmare society where every family and individual competes with each other for every resource. You can have a society where honest families agree to help other honest families for the good of their country.

And I'm not saying you should evaluate the people through the system. Develop your own system for evaluating people and then help those people you select. The only point I'm making is that if you've made it and you are an honest family, you owe it to the next honest family to help them do the same thing. That is what makes the country great, and at the same time it builds valuable ties and relationships between different families which can last for generations and benefit both families. There are bigger dishonest families that you both must compete with, so why not join forces?

You are from asia and I know a thing or two about asian culture. Family is everything to you, and I understand this, but just because you are of a certain clan it does not mean that your clan cannot join forces with another clan for the purposes of business or just to ensure the survival of your clan. Why have this attitude that every honest family you encounter cannot be reasoned with, or you cannot do business with them, or you cannot join forces? Where does this attitude come from?

timetraveler added to this post, 8 minutes and 30 seconds later...

And I think it's families like yours that actually dignify the working class - the ones who aren't bitter and hateful and expectant, but who rise to challenges and do what they have to to not only survive, but flourish.

I never said anything is wrong with asian culture. What I have a problem with is the attitude that if you help another honest family, that it's somehow creating competition. It's assuming that every family is in an eternal competition with every family and thats not how it's supposed to be. That is not how I will run my family, I'm not saying there wont be rival families that my family competes with, I'm just saying that while there are rivals there should also be allies. You cannot survive on your own without alliances with other families. It's the attitudes like that which keep poor families in constant competition for crumbs.

Cooperation is how you survive, not competition. You compete only when you have to compete, if you can cooperate and make a backroom deal so that you and the other families don't have to compete, then you should. Competition is for corporations, not families, its not good for the country.

curiousgeorge01

08-28-2009, 10:06 PM

Honestly I just think the problem is that this country is so polarized with everything; it's either you're on one side or you're not and it creates a host of issues. I generally find people are happier when there is overall consistency; generally a place they can feel safe in and where many things are out in the open.

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 10:11 PM

Honestly I just think the problem is that this country is so polarized with everything; it's either you're on one side or you're not and it creates a host of issues. There just doesn't seem to be a middle ground.

My perspective is, if I know you are from a good family, and I'm running a business that puts you out of business, then I owe it to you to hire you and your family members to work for me. I don't think it's right for good families to destroy each other while dishonest families work together. This is the main source of the problem, dishonest families in the criminal world form alliances all the time to sell their drugs or conduct their business, yet honest families can't do this because of political concerns, or because perhaps they just aren't as rational.

The goal of running a business is not to win the competition with other businesses, the goal of running a business is to create enough profits so that you can hire your friends and family, and this includes hiring certain people who worked for an honest competitor that you put out of business. It's business its not personal, so why act like its personal? We can get rich together and that is logical, or we can make it personal and compete for survival.

firebee

08-28-2009, 10:11 PM

The attitude behind the artificial construct of higher tax brackets for the wealthy (and really, MOST taxation at ANY bracket, to which I'm also firmly opposed) is one of "You have more money, you can afford it."

It has the inconvenient point of being true. At present we have a government that needs to be financed somehow -- if not welfare, then law enforcement, killing off of swarthy foreigners, et cetera. We need money. Who has money? Rich people. Funny thing.

That said, I don't subscribe to "eat the rich". They should be sustainably harvested.

And my idea of "what should be" is a situation where the "consequence" of making more money isn't to have that money taken from him, and given to someone with less. Yes, that is currently a consequence of the action of making more money than someone. My argument is that it shouldn't be, and what's more, it's immoral for it TO be.

Why?

Anyone can set up such a scenario, you can put the red foam bat-wielding elves in front of his house - anyone can make that so.

I... don't have any elves wielding red foam bats lurking in front of my door. I am bereft. If anyone can do this thing, why does nobody care enough to do it for me?

/me is heartbroken.

You talk as if taxation is arbitrary or undertaken out of malice -- that, essentially, money is taken from the rich and given to the poor for no particular reason merely in order to penalize the former. Why attach so much emotion to the thing? The legal structure in which your wealth exists mean that earnings of a certain sort incur a tax of a certain sort. This is merely a fact that has consequences for your planning.

Now, one can argue (potentially) that the particular facts of life (or some hypothetical proposition) re: taxation influence one's planning in ways that are ultimately undesirable, or that some particular set of facts do not produce a stable means of putting personal power to useful purposes (which is currently true for certain segments of the population), but I fail to see why it is necessary to frame aspects of this as a "penalty" or as some sort of random cruelty involving elves.

Telling a mother she's responsible for caring for a child she brought into the world? God, I HOPE that's still a logical connection to make.

What good does such lip-flapping do? You can't argue with crazy. It's fairly difficult to argue with "uneducated and economically fucked". The ship has sailed; the kid is born, the mother is who she is. We can certainly talk all day about what a no-good lout the mother is, and how she has completely failed to act like a proper middle-class person, and heap sackcloth and ashes on her head. We can expend a substantial amount of energy on such activities. Yay.

Does this feed anyone? Does this produce any effect regarding making this person other than what she is? Does this, in short, do anything to solve the actual problem at hand, or does it just make us feel happy in our pants that we are so much better than at least one other person?

*crickets*

Alex

08-28-2009, 10:12 PM

Cooperation is how you survive, not competition.

I agree. I will cooperate with the man who has a good or service I want to buy, and I will buy it from him. We have just helped each other. That's a perfectly fair transaction.

I will not go up to him and say, "Give me this! I deserve it because I can't pay for it!" I will not have a hired goon to walk up to him and demand that good or service on my behalf, either. I don't have a thing against cooperation, and I'm certainly not "competing" with the poor.

I simply want to right to allocate my resources. That's all. No more, no less.

firebee

08-28-2009, 10:14 PM

And I think it's families like yours that actually dignify the working class - the ones who aren't bitter and hateful and expectant, but who rise to challenges and do what they have to to not only survive, but flourish.

Why are you so bloody concerned that working class people (some of whom live in your head, incidentally) express the sentiments of gratitude or whatever that you deem proper? Are the wealthy going to wither and die for lack of love or something?

Alex

08-28-2009, 10:27 PM

You talk as if taxation is arbitrary or undertaken out of malice -- that, essentially, money is taken from the rich and given to the poor for no particular reason merely in order to penalize the former.

No, I'm saying that the "reason" - whether it's for malice or for the "greater good" - is irrelevant. To me, the government reapportioning my money for whatever they've deemed "good" is no different than the thief who steals my wallet. Both believe that there is someone else more deserving of my capital or my property than I am. I don't believe either should be allowed to decide that. Why? Because I believe that whoever EARNS the capital or property in question has the right to distribute or retain it as he sees fit - who better TO have that decision?

What good does such lip-flapping do? You can't argue with crazy. It's fairly difficult to argue with "uneducated and economically fucked". The ship has sailed; the kid is born, the mother is who she is. We can certainly talk all day about what a no-good lout the mother is, and how she has completely failed to act like a proper middle-class person, and heap sackcloth and ashes on her head. We can expend a substantial amount of energy on such activities. Yay.

Does this feed anyone? Does this produce any effect regarding making this person other than what she is? Does this, in short, do anything to solve the actual problem at hand, or does it just make us feel happy in our pants that we are so much better than at least one other person?

I'll say one thing - if she's the same kind of poor who actively direct unwarranted hatred towards the rich just for having more money than her? It certainly DOES make me feel happy. If one can attribute the negative to someone out of nothing but resentment, then that sentiment can certainly be returned - but instead, let's pick out some ACTUAL character flaws to hammer on in that event.

Not all poor are meek, timid, and trodden-upon, who walk around with a constant quartet of violins playing a sad song behind them. And people seem to LOVE firing their righteous indignation while building upon that idea.

However - does it get anyone fed? No. Does it get me my taxes back? No. I think private charity solves both of those problems.

Alex added to this post, 2 minutes and 54 seconds later...

Why are you so bloody concerned that working class people (some of whom live in your head, incidentally) express the sentiments of gratitude or whatever that you deem proper?

I don't believe in wealth redistribution. I wouldn't believe in it whether people were demanding charity or politely begging for it.

However, and call it a personal pet peeve, I hate an entitlement complex. I hate snotty people who feel they're owed a damned thing. Hell, I hate people without basic manners. And basic manners involves, in my sphere anyhow, saying "Thank you" when someone does you a favor, and being genuinely appreciative.

Tyrant Soup

08-28-2009, 10:55 PM

So you're basically saying that it's sheerly by state benevolence - strictly by PRIVILEGE alone - that we're allowed to keep what we earn. Wa-how. Seriously. Wow.

I do understand you now. Property rights don't exist. Gotcha.

Property rights don't exist unless they are defended. There is no logical reason for the commoners to do this for the rich without compensation. That is why redistribution is equitable.

firebee

08-28-2009, 11:17 PM

I'll say one thing - if she's the same kind of poor who actively direct unwarranted hatred towards the rich just for having more money than her? It certainly DOES make me feel happy. If one can attribute the negative to someone out of nothing but resentment, then that sentiment can certainly be returned - but instead, let's pick out some ACTUAL character flaws to hammer on in that event.

Isn't this person actually doing you a favor, then? By being so conveniently unredeemable, they have provided you with a significant source of satisfaction in your life -- the opportunity to pick on their character flaws. Considering the trouble they have no doubt gone to in order to cultivate that resource, shouldn't you be grateful?

Not all poor are meek, timid, and trodden-upon, who walk around with a constant quartet of violins playing a sad song behind them. And people seem to LOVE firing their righteous indignation while building upon that idea.

Whereas other people seem to love firing their righteous indignation while building on a slightly different set of ideas.

Meanwhile, there are some people who do not particularly care whether the poor are odious or innocent, or whether the self-righteous are self-righteous about the virtues or the vices of the poor -- but rather want to know what is to be done with the units of human meat who are affected by certain problematic circumstances.

Hi.

I'm thinking that we should feed the homeless to the hungry, and use the resulting savings to buy each member of the remaining population a round of cognitive-behavioral therapy.

However - does it get anyone fed? No. Does it get me my taxes back? No. I think private charity solves both of those problems.

If it neither feeds the hungry nor returns your taxes, then what good does all the moralizing do? And frankly -- your preoccupation with being an arbiter of right, wrong, and proper forms of gratitude does not exactly fill me with hope regards the prospect of private charity.

However, and call it a personal pet peeve, I hate an entitlement complex. I hate snotty people who feel they're owed a damned thing.

And how does this belief benefit you? Does it make your life better to hate arbitrary people who you have not met and may not actually exist?

Hell, I hate people without basic manners. And basic manners involves, in my sphere anyhow, saying "Thank you" when someone does you a favor, and being genuinely appreciative.

Is it considered polite in your sphere to keep a careful accounting of what appreciation you are owed, and to demand payment on a regular basis?

timetraveler

08-28-2009, 11:48 PM

I agree. I will cooperate with the man who has a good or service I want to buy, and I will buy it from him. We have just helped each other. That's a perfectly fair transaction.

I will not go up to him and say, "Give me this! I deserve it because I can't pay for it!" I will not have a hired goon to walk up to him and demand that good or service on my behalf, either. I don't have a thing against cooperation, and I'm certainly not "competing" with the poor.

I simply want to right to allocate my resources. That's all. No more, no less.

When you choose to buy a good or a service do you support the businesses run by people you know? do you make people you know rich by buying from them instead of buying from those who are already rich enough? Do you see any value in shopping at the local shop keeper to get designer shoes which are handmade instead of buying shoes from Nike made in a sweatshop?

Do you understand the social value of this behavior that I'm asking you to adopt? You are rich, you don't have to shop at walmart buying name brand products from rich families you don't know and have no strategic alliance with. It would be much better if you would go and buy from the poor family who makes the exact same product, even if it costs a few dollars more, you are rich so you can afford to give back even if its by changing your buying habits.

The problem I have is rich people who choose to buy name brand products from other rich people who don't need the business. What is the point of a rich person buying Nikes from walmart? Can we at least agree that this is wrong? What about rich people who have enough money to buy an American made car but they choose to buy a foreign car, can we agree this is wrong?

I'm not trying to take power away from you. I don't want you to "donate" to charity or pay taxes, I want you to give back to the country that made you rich. Buy American made products, pay a little extra and buy products from local business owners, and when you sell products, chip in and give special deals to people you know don't have a lot of money.

There are many ways to give back, it can be as simple as buying the product that poor people you know are selling. The problem I have is that many rich people wont even do that.

Lucid

08-29-2009, 12:07 AM

So you're basically saying that it's sheerly by state benevolence - strictly by PRIVILEGE alone - that we're allowed to keep what we earn. Wa-how. Seriously. Wow.

I do understand you now. Property rights don't exist. Gotcha.

No. Please keep trying. I'm not saying anything about property rights. I'm talking about understanding the consequences of one's actions and taking responsibility for one's choices. The rich are responsible for negative consequences of their choices as the poor. You're all over the map here.

The state does not say "if you're poor, your children MUST starve." Plenty of poor people feed their children (there are varying rates of poverty). Starving children is a consequence of parents who birth children INTO poverty. However, I don't believe it SHOULD even be a consequence of that; I think people should freely give to prevent starvation because of the idiot decisions of that child's parent. I'd also support that child being given a better parent than one who would deliberately bring them into poverty, but I don't agree with the government seizing what isn't theirs, at least if there was no mitigating circumstance (such as child abuse - although, really, the charge of neglect isn't really too far removed from willfully bringing a child into poverty).

I'm not talking about the state. I'm talking about understanding the system under which we live and making choices based on that system. You think the state should not interfere on behalf of the rich at the expense of the poor. But how is that different from the statement that it should refrain from interfering at the expense of the poor and to benefit the rich. By your own argument, being poor is a choice and poor people should have to live with the consequences of that choice. Same goes for the rich.

So, while I'm all for some voluntary charity, I'm not for the state having carte blanche to say, "Yoink. That's ours." Property isn't a privilege, it's a right.

Ok, since you bring it up, I'll address your point.
No, it's something you have at the pleasure the rest of society. Society can revoke your property pretty easily since without state intervention it would be a matter of might makes right. If it weren't for the state interfering on your behalf to prevent, say, me and 30 of my friends from walking into your house and taking your property you would have none. So. You want state interference when it comes to protecting your property. You don't want state interference when it comes to starving children. 6 of one, half dozen of the other I suppose. The state prevents me and my 30 friends from the positive liberty of taking your shit because you have it and we can. It limits your positive liberty to keep all the money you earn. It protects your negative liberty from getting the shit you buy jacked by an unruly mob. It protects my positive liberty of having enough food to feed my family. See how everyone compromises and everyone benefits? It's not the poor taking from the rich and it's not the rich taking from the poor. It's a system that works both ways.

I don't take anything from the poor; I'd appreciate if they didn't take from me.

And you have the state to thank for preventing that. If you want to see the poor taking from you, remove the state.
Also, you do take from the poor. If you live in a society, we all take from each other. That's what societies are.

You got any other wriggling in the face of logic you want to do? Want to throw up any more "Oh, you mean property rights... oh you mean the state... oh you mean poor people not taking responsibility for their kids!" crap or are you ready to actually address my point? Hold yourself to the same standards you hold everyone else. You made choices in your life and you are responsible for the consequences. One of the consequences of the choice you have made is higher taxes. You have decided that higher taxes are an acceptable price to pay for your nice stuff and the privileges that go along with money. But you're going to whine about the high taxes regardless of the fact that you entered into a system, made choices with full knowledge and understanding of that system and have still found a way to benefit from it greatly. This is no different from the poor who get pregnant and expect a hand out. Both of you want to have your cake and eat it too. Or, more accurately, both of you want special treatment from the state and both of you are going to complain about how unfair it all is. Accept responsibility for your choices Alex. You expect others to do so.

However - does it get anyone fed? No. Does it get me my taxes back? No. I think private charity solves both of those problems.

Really? Then why wouldn't you invest in businesses or ideas from the poor? Wouldn't that be teaching a man to fish? You're telling me that NO poor people have good business plans or models that you could invest in? How much do you give to charity, Alex? Practice what you preach. If you don't, you are likely to be called on it.

Why do you resist the enlightenment of the holy logic bomb we are dropping on your ass? Come and warm yourself in its radiance. Your argument starts with the conclusion that rich=good and should be entitled to things like rights. Negative liberties. Positive liberties. Yachts. And poor=bad and they should be starved like the lice ridden drains on society that they are. (Incidentally, it makes me wonder if you actually know a significant number of either of these groups) Then you work your way back from that conclusion, bridging the gaps in reasoning with backpedaling justification and leaps of logic. Let the scales of irrational justification fall from your eyes so that the light of reason and objectivity may touch your retinas with its perfect clarity and purify your cognition with its cleansing light. Bathe in the glory that is logic Alex, and leave these false arguments for the philistines who are without reason and rationality.

Because at the end of the day you're just whining about how oppressed you and and how it's not fair and it's not your fault and someone should do something about it. And that's exactly what you complain about the poor doing.

BostonIan

08-29-2009, 01:48 AM

No. Please keep trying. I'm not saying anything about property rights. I'm talking about understanding the consequences of one's actions and taking responsibility for one's choices. I'm not sure what you're not getting here. Is it really such a foreign concept to you that the rich are responsible for negative consequences of their choices as the poor? You're all over the map here.

Somewhat, but you're lawyering with words. Acquiring money is not a value equivalent of acquiring an untimely gamete or practicing whatever form of self-destructive behavior. Let's pause to acknowledge that fact.

I'm not talking about the state. I'm talking about understanding the system under which we live and making choices based on that system. You think the state should not interfere on behalf of the poor at the expense of the rich. But how is that different from the statement that it should refrain from interfering at the expense of the poor and to benefit the rich. Do you understand the difference now? By your own argument, being poor is a choice and poor people should have to live with the consequences of that choice. Same goes for the rich.

The system, ever-immutable, fall in line and behave. Even giving The System proper text formatting, our system isn't a static one, it can be changed, voted on, tax laws can be influenced, heresies are allowed.

No, it's something you have at the pleasure the rest of society. Society can revoke your property pretty easily since without state intervention it would be a matter of might makes right. If it weren't for the state interfering on your behalf to prevent, say, me and 30 of my friends from walking into your house and taking your property you would have none. So. You want state interference when it comes to protecting your property. You don't want state interference when it comes to starving children. 6 of one, half dozen of the other I suppose. The state prevents me and my 30 friends from the positive liberty of taking your shit because you have it and we can. It limits your positive liberty to keep all the money you earn. It protects your negative liberty from getting the shit you buy jacked by an unruly mob. It protects my positive liberty of having enough food to feed my family. See how everyone compromises and everyone benefits? It's not the poor taking from the rich and it's not the rich taking from the poor. It's a system that works both ways.

The compromise your poor are making is the same compromise that a mugger makes in an alley. By the same line of thinking, the poor would be content not to "jack up" the rich so long as the rich could muster an army to "jack 'em" better. All I guess legalistically true, but wouldn't it be easier just to develop valuable skills and beneficial behaviors?

And you have the state to thank for preventing that. If you want to see the poor taking from you, remove the state. Also, you do take from the poor. If you live in a society, we all take from each other. That's what societies are.

We give to eachother and provide compensation for what we take. Sometimes it's a "no-jack", but usually that compensation is money. Those who give more than they take, receive more money in return and become rich in cash, even though they've lost out on all the products they've produced.

Really? Then why wouldn't you invest in businesses or ideas from the poor? Wouldn't that be teaching a man to fish? You're telling me that NO poor people have good business plans or models that you could invest in? How much do you give to charity, Alex? Practice what you preach. If you don't, you are likely to be called on it.

Why do you resist the enlightenment of the holy logic bomb we are dropping on your ass? Come and warm yourself in its radiance. Your argument starts with the conclusion that rich=good and should be entitled to things like rights. Negative liberties. Positive liberties. Yachts. And poor=bad and they should be starved like the lice ridden drains on society that they are. (Incidentally, it makes me wonder if you actually know a significant number of either of these groups) Then you work your way back from that conclusion, bridging the gaps in reasoning with backpedaling justification and leaps of logic. Let the scales of irrational justification fall from your eyes so that the light of reason and objectivity may touch your retinas with its perfect clarity and purify your cognition with its cleansing light. Bathe in the glory that is logic Alex, and leave these false arguments for the philistines who are without reason and rationality.

Because at the end of the day you're just whining about how oppressed you and and how it's not fair and it's not your fault and someone should do something about it. And that's exactly what you complain about the poor doing.

The rest is ad hominem. The thread is about politics, not Alex.

timetraveler

08-29-2009, 02:02 AM

"We're going to put this group of red foam bat-wielding elves in front of your house to hit you every time you leave. That is now YOUR consequence of the action of leaving your house."

Society put in place the capitalist system which made you rich. And when people fail to succeed in that system you are like "You are poor due to the consequences of your own actions.", how is this any different than society setting a bunch of elves in front of everyones house and beating on everyone when they leave? I guess the people who are at the right place at the right time will take less of a beating, and those people then can claim "You get beat up every day by the elves as a consequence of leaving your house." It's the exact same logic. Don't you see that your own logic is being used to disprove your argument?

If you got rich because society made you rich, no you did not do it all by yourself. Nobody gets rich all by themselves unless they rob a bank.

Boston Ian This system of capitalism is designed to benefit and promote a certain breed of human above others. Homoeconomicus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is the breed of man which evolved as a result of the creation of capitalism. The economic system is the primary driver and main influence of human evolution, it is the main environmental factor. Capitalism is not natural, it was invented so that individuals could earn the PRIVILEGE of being rich. Now that people are rich they want to change all the laws around because now they feel like being rich is a right and not a privilege.

The disconnection is that specific rich or wealthy individuals forget where they came from. They act as if society exists primarily to serve them and keep them rich. We are supposed to risk our lives fighting communism so they can stay rich. We are supposed to set up law enforcement and a federal government to allow them to keep their property and they can't pay for healthcare or the expense of fighting the wars? Even under feudalism it's wrong for a the Lords to not pay the people below them. This way of thinking did not work in the middle ages.

Alex can be a Lord, but as a Lord Alex, she must be responsible for her Vassals. A vassal[1] in the terminology that both preceded and accompanied the feudalism of medieval Europe, is one who enters into mutual obligations with a monarch, usually of military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain guarantees, which came to include the terrain held as a fief.[2] By analogy it is applied to similar systems in other feudal societies. It was always distinct from fidelitas, sworn loyalty of subject to king,[3] and the honor, the respect and consideration that accrued to the vassal, unlike the delegated power of a comes or count, was not expressed in expectations of related public
duty.[4] Read more at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What Alex wants now is a society that has never existed throughout human history. There has never in human history been a time where the rich existed as a separate society without responsibility or accountability. And the reason this never existed is because of the laws of natural which trump the laws of man. Property rights are man made laws, and man made laws are broken all the time.

As the system developed in the seventh century, the vassals were gangs of freemen who voluntarily subjected themselves, in some varying degree of formality, to the authority of a leader, from whose distribution of loot they could expect to be fed, clothed and armed. The quality of a vassal was only in his fighting ability and the strength of his loyalty. Read more at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Boston Ian
The compromise your poor are making is the same compromise that a mugger makes in an alley. By the same line of thinking, the poor would be content not to "jack up" the rich so long as the rich could muster an army to "jack 'em" better. All I guess legalistically true, but wouldn't it be easier just to develop valuable skills and beneficial behaviors?

Do you understand that rich people have evolved certain traits which are making them a different species completely? They are good at surviving in this environment, you put them in another different environment and they wont last a week. This environment we live in is completely man made, designed by the richest few for the richest few, so people who happen to have the same traits they have will be more likely to thrive. The problem is their traits are extremely specialized traits which have nothing to do with survival of a species.

Knowing how to make money is a very specialized social skill. It's not a survival skill, it's not going to make you more likely to survive in a harsh environment. It's not going to make you more evolved, it's not necessary to the benefit of society to have a system which promotes a particular breed of human while other breeds of humans go extinct. This means a lot of talents, skills, and abilities which the market and capitalism does not recognize will go to waste. This actually has a negative effect on the long term survival ability of a species, just as a bird which evolves flashy feathers and wings to help it mate, to the point where it's not longer a bird anymore because now it can't fly, so now it's less able to evade predators.

It's a bit more complicated than this but there are biological and evolutionary issues involved in this wealth worship which we call society. If the wealthy can do no wrong, we aren't going to survive very long as a species because those wealthy despite what Alex might say, are not able to save the world or the fate of humanity. They are competitive by nature and the very traits which made them rich in other contexts lead to world wars and destruction.

annaelizabeth

08-29-2009, 07:06 AM

This argument isn't rooted in "what is"; "what is" is currently entitlement programs and the kicking about of the idea of giving all the poor uninsured health insurance. The argument is more about "what should be". And my idea of "what should be" is a situation where the "consequence" of making more money isn't to have that money taken from him, and given to someone with less. Yes, that is currently a consequence of the action of making more money than someone. My argument is that it shouldn't be, and what's more, it's immoral for it TO be.

I think it's immoral for it NOT TO BE.

Come on, Alex. Are you telling me the person making $30K should pay the same percentage of their salary than someone making $500K? The person making $30K needs as much as their paycheck to survive, pay the bills, many of them probably go without health care altogether because they can't afford it, and they make too much to qualify for state run healthcare. I've been in that boat, and it's not fun shelling out most of your paycheck to pay for healthcare. It makes perfect sense why so many go into bankruptcy for medical bills. It's the way the system is set up.

The person making $500K on the other hand does not have to worry about such things, as they obviously have more disposable income, income for entertainment, charity (hopefully), luxury purchases, large homes, autos, etc....I believe it is absolutely IMMORAL for you to expect that person to pay the same percentage towards taxes as the person who makes $30K. I know you'll argue this until the end of time, it's your money, why should you give it up, etc..........Bottom line is you don't give a crap about the poor, or anyone for that matter who needs help. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is the impression I get from you and others on this board. It's quite disturbing, actually, but nothing new. You agreed to live in this country, the system is set up so that the rich are taxed at a higher rate (although the Republicans would love this reversed), so since you are so successful under the current system of wealth production, accept the higher taxes as a small price to pay for the wealth you and the wealthy have created. Oh, I know, voluntary charity, etc....as I've said before, it's not enough.

Again, I have nothing against rich people. Shit, I'd love to be rich myself, but not if it means I lack values and morals, and stop caring about anyone else. I'd rather be a hard working middle class person than a rich elitist, asshole who hoards his money and considers all poor people poor by their own fault. To have absolutely no compassion for those less fortunate, to just plain not care about people. I'd never want wealth if that is what it would lead to. I value myself too much. For those wealthy people who have earned their wealth through hard work, give to charity, and have compassion towards the poor, I highly admire them.

timetraveler

08-29-2009, 08:48 AM

Again, I have nothing against rich people. Shit, I'd love to be rich myself, but not if it means I lack values and morals, and stop caring about anyone else. I'd rather be a hard working middle class person than a rich elitist, asshole who hoards his money and considers all poor people poor by their own fault. To have absolutely no compassion for those less fortunate, to just plain not care about people. I'd never want wealth if that is what it would lead to. I value myself too much. For those wealthy people who have earned their wealth through hard work, give to charity, and have compassion towards the poor, I highly admire them.

I don't expect the rich to care or have compassion. I expect the rich to be smart. Morality isn't based on what people feel towards others, so the fact that people don't feel compassion toward those less fortunate should not be the deciding factor as to whether they help those less fortunate. A rational individual whether they are compassionate or not will ask themselves: "whats in it for me?", and if they don't believe they have anything to gain by helping those less fortunate they wont.

The reason Alex's position is wrong is that rich people actually have more to gain than to lose by helping those less fortunate. Those poor people will be protecting their offspring for generations into the future, those poor people put out fires and fight crime, and from a strict consequentialist perspective it's smart to use your money to reward loyalty as a security mechanism. Some of the most cunning criminals and thieves give something back, even if its just to bribe the police, and keep the community from targeting them, or keep the IRS off their back. More often than not, self preservation plays more of a role in peoples decision making than compassion ever will.

So to decide whether something is OBJECTIVELY immoral, as in equally immoral for Alex as it is for you, and not merely subjectively immoral such as not giving to the poor out of compassion, you have to show Alex that Alex has more to gain by giving some money than by not giving some money. Right and wrong is ultimately based on the consequences as applied to the subject/rational actor (Alex).

Alex believes that not giving money away is right, because in the short term Alex knows that costs are decreased. The problem with this thinking is just like the problem you have with banks, if you only think about short term profits then when a crash happens or something bad happens, you don't have a plan B because you didn't hedge your bets. If something happens and we end up with changes to the environment so that where the socialists and communists, or whoever is anti rich gains political or social control, Alex would have no way whatsoever to survive in this environment because everyone would know that Alex didn't care about the poor. Other examples would be if this country ever gets into a world war, or civil war, or if terrorists and mafias somehow gain control, once again Alex will have to essentially pay for mercenaries and private armies, who wont be loyal to her.

So why give money to the poor? Thats how you buy loyalty from the poor. It's the price of loyalty, and if you don't have compassion at all you still might value loyalty because in a world where the state doesn't protect you then you'll need that loyalty to keep you safe. In my opinion with the economy and the debt, without the law enforcement and people of integrity, there Alex would have no way to protect her wealth. The criminals of the world would simply hack into her back account and rob her. At least with taxes it pays both for an IRS which will harass her but it also pays for an FBI and Secret Service which will harass any potential criminals. It's the nature of the beast that you have to pay to be safe, and of course if you are rich and donate to charity and help the poor, you'll be a lot more safe than the rich people who dont. It's as simple as that.

Alex

08-29-2009, 10:03 AM

Come on, Alex. Are you telling me the person making $30K should pay the same percentage of their salary than someone making $500K?

Yes, I'm telling you that. They should both pay 0%.

I'm staunchly against MOST forms of taxation unless for purposes of infrastructure. All special-interest taxation is utter theft to me - whether it's money going to Medicaid, or money used for bank bail-outs.

In my opinion with the economy and the debt, without the law enforcement and people of integrity, there Alex would have no way to protect her wealth. The criminals of the world would simply hack into her back account and rob her. At least with taxes it pays both for an IRS which will harass her but it also pays for an FBI and Secret Service which will harass any potential criminals. It's the nature of the beast that you have to pay to be safe, and of course if you are rich and donate to charity and help the poor, you'll be a lot more safe than the rich people who dont. It's as simple as that.

So you're presenting taxation for entitlement programs as a form of extortion; pay them off, and we'll buy their protection? That CERTAINLY doesn't make the case for me, even less than the simple notion that it's moral to help those less fortunate.

And again, I never said there was no merit or benefit to helping those less fortunate. My beef is all with the execution. Charity should not be extracted by threat of arrest or penalty.

What Alex wants now is a society that has never existed throughout human history.

You're totally right - never once has it existed. And therein, to me, lies its merit, aside from what I feel is the inherent morality of absolute property rights. We've tried every other system and have continuously witnessed the breakdown of the line between governance and tyranny. We have people who whine about equal and fair treatment, gay rights, drug legalization - we want all of these rights, while still begging for the government's interference in wealth regulation. It's no different from a child who insists her parents stay out of her social life and allow her to go out and do as she pleases, yet approaches them daily with her hands outstretched for money, over and above the roof they put over her head and the food they put on her plate.

As long as it's the state that gets to say what wealth we can have and keep, and how it must be divided, they will continue to wield the kind of power that gets us nowhere in terms of allowing people to live as they choose. Government is no longer about PROTECTING rights and recognizing rights; government has now assumed the role of granting rights. And they're not even seen as rights, really; they're more like privileges. If a gay couple is to marry and have the same rights as a straight couple (at least legally)? That's that state's privilege. And while I'm far more in favor of a decentralized, state-oriented government, the problems still apply to them too (but because they're smaller, they're easier to fix than a giant, hulking federal government).

The issue is that people have grown accustomed to taking whatever scraps the government will throw them, and have given in to the idea that questions of individual liberty should be the prerogative of the tyrannical majority (for instance, the infamous Prop 8 decision in California).

So yes, I want something that has never existed. I want the government, for once, to fear its people. I want it to be the guard dog of individual rights, not granting but RECOGNIZING rights inherent - you could almost look at them as a referee. It's not his job to take points from one team to give the other team an advantage. Enforce the rules, and otherwise stay out of the way.

Why would I want something that's already been tried and, in my view, has failed?

Hamburglar

08-29-2009, 10:19 AM

And again, I never said there was no merit or benefit to helping those less fortunate. My beef is all with the execution. Charity should not be extracted by threat of arrest or penalty.

What you keep failing to understand is that without that extracted charity, the poor will come-a-knocking and take what it is they want. This was the very apt predictions of Marx/Lenin that scared the bejesus out of FDR....Capitalism's SAVIOR was communism, in that it taught Americans this utterly important principle of spreading the wealth around to promote stability, law, and order. If this philosophy had not come to exist in American politics it is likely this great union would have completely collapsed into civil unrest and war amongst the classes. I understand this may sound controversial, but please consider it.

Alex

08-29-2009, 10:36 AM

No, it's something you have at the pleasure the rest of society. Society can revoke your property pretty easily since without state intervention it would be a matter of might makes right. If it weren't for the state interfering on your behalf to prevent, say, me and 30 of my friends from walking into your house and taking your property you would have none.

Ah, this is where we get to the question of gun rights and why I support them. Bring thirty people into my house to take my stuff, watch thirty people leave on stretchers, or in body bags. Alarm systems are great, too. And the police (who I'm more than happy to pay for, specifically for those instances).

The threat of "If you don't give it, we're just going to take it anyway" only further entrenches my opinion of SOME of the poor (not all) being overly entitled. Rather than say, "Jeez, man, we don't have anything - perhaps we should start doing something differently", your argument is that, essentially, the poor will revolt. Revolt against what? My KEEPING what I earned? The evil!

I do not acknowledge revolt as a point of contention - where some people say, "Gee, I guess I'm beat; I need to be taxed to keep the poor from becoming violent", my views are more firmly embedded. Should such become a reality, I'd support full-on assault until those who feel they've a right to what isn't theirs subsequently back down and figure out another way to meet their needs. It'd really be unfortunate that they couldn't take such fervent passion and use it to actually EARN what they need, rather than get pissed off and simply take it. They're charging headfirst into a brick wall to knock it down when they COULD simply search for a key, unlock the door, and walk right through it.

You got any other wriggling in the face of logic you want to do? Want to throw up any more "Oh, you mean property rights... oh you mean the state... oh you mean poor people not taking responsibility for their kids!" crap or are you ready to actually address my point? Hold yourself to the same standards you hold everyone else. You made choices in your life and you are responsible for the consequences. One of the consequences of the choice you have made is higher taxes. You have decided that higher taxes are an acceptable price to pay for your nice stuff and the privileges that go along with money. But you're going to whine about the high taxes regardless of the fact that you entered into a system, made choices with full knowledge and understanding of that system and have still found a way to benefit from it greatly. This is no different from the poor who get pregnant and expect a hand out. Both of you want to have your cake and eat it too. Or, more accurately, both of you want special treatment from the state and both of you are going to complain about how unfair it all is. Accept responsibility for your choices Alex. You expect others to do so.

Yeah, until you actually formulate a logical pattern of 'action-consequence' as it applies to personal choices vs. political constructs (because, as Ian pointed out, this is a POLITICAL discussion involving a highly mutable political system), I can tell it's pointless arguing with you. This is beside all the posturing and hubris about your "holy logic bombs", which has become tiresome. The matter is evidently quite an emotionally charged one for you and, as I see it, you're incapable of reasoned, calm debate in favor of foot-stamping and bullying.

Thanks anyway.

Alex added to this post, 0 minutes and 57 seconds later...

If this philosophy had not come to exist in American politics it is likely this great union would have completely collapsed into civil unrest and war amongst the classes.

If it takes war to drive home the point that extortion and theft will not be tolerated, so be it.

I love how everyone who has come at me with the contention that "No, no, taxes aren't theft, they're necessary!" has eventually reduced their arguments to, "If you don't, the poor will simply steal." Basically making a direct comparison of special-interest taxation to . . . theft!

Lucid

08-29-2009, 10:49 AM

Somewhat, but you're lawyering with words. Acquiring money is not a value equivalent of acquiring an untimely gamete or practicing whatever form of self-destructive behavior. Let's pause to acknowledge that fact.

No, it's making a conscious choice. Please go back and start at the beginning, ok? I've already covered this ground. You're operating under a very definite set of subjective values and because of this you are tied up with this idea of punishment and reward. You're saying that making money is positive and there should be no negative consequences to such an action, while not making money is negative and people who don't make money should have no positive consequences for their action. This is crap. Their are positive and negative consequences for any action. You can argue about what said consequences SHOULD be, but to argue that the rich shouldn't have to pay higher taxes is no different than to argue that the poor shouldn't have to starve. There's no lawyering here. Though it's possible you have failed to understand my point.

The system, ever-immutable, fall in line and behave. Even giving The System proper text formatting, our system isn't a static one, it can be changed, voted on, tax laws can be influenced, heresies are allowed.

The same applies to the poor and I've covered this ground as well. The fact that it's possible to change the system doesn't change one's responsibilioty to make decisions based on how the system is.

The compromise your poor are making is the same compromise that a mugger makes in an alley. By the same line of thinking, the poor would be content not to "jack up" the rich so long as the rich could muster an army to "jack 'em" better. All I guess legalistically true, but wouldn't it be easier just to develop valuable skills and beneficial behaviors?

You're still not understanding my argument or the logical fallacy inherent in double standards. It's not rocket science. Please go back and reread the previous posts carefully. I'm not siding with the poor over the rich or the rich over the poor. I'm pointing out the epic logic fail you and Alex don't seem to see.

We give to eachother and provide compensation for what we take. Sometimes it's a "no-jack", but usually that compensation is money. Those who give more than they take, receive more money in return and become rich in cash, even though they've lost out on all the products they've produced.

This has nothing to do with anything anyone is talking about. What is it with you guys and wandering far afield with your responses to very simple principles?

The rest is ad hominem. The thread is about politics, not Alex.

Actually, my responses to Alex are about Alex. If she speaks inconsistently and shows flawed reasoning I'm going to point it out. However, I'm addressing the flaws in her argument and cognitive process alone, since I know nothing of her to take issue with.

Would you like to try again, this time actually addressing my points or my argument? To make an overly simplistic analogy, the conversation we're having is something like:
Me: "Peanut butter was invented by george Washington Carver."
You: "But global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!"

All I'm saying is that if you hold one group to standard A you must hold the other group to the same standard. It's not that one is responsible for their actions and the other is victimized, which is what Alex seems to be saying. It's possible that you're saying the same thing, but I think it's more likely that you're off in left field with regard to this conversation.
Saying that the rich are victimized by the poor is no different from the argument that the poor are victimized by the rich. Both statements fail to account for personal responsibility on the side of the group said to be victimized while placing the burden of accountability on the shoulders of the the group said to be doing the victimizing. If you'd like to argue with someone about why the poor are not victims that's fine. But to try to make that argument to me when I'm not saying that they are is just a waste of both our time.

Ah, this is where we get to the question of gun rights and why I support them. Bring thirty people into my house to take my stuff, watch thirty people leave on stretchers, or in body bags. Alarm systems are great, too. And the police (who I'm more than happy to pay for, specifically for those instances).

This conversational off shoot is completely separate from my point. However, I think 30 guns will beat one.

The threat of "If you don't give it, we're just going to take it anyway" only further entrenches my opinion of SOME of the poor (not all) being overly entitled. Rather than say, "Jeez, man, we don't have anything - perhaps we should start doing something differently", your argument is that, essentially, the poor will revolt. Revolt against what? My KEEPING what I earned? The evil!

You're still tied up in the idea that I'm arguing in favor of the poor. My argument is not that the poor will revolt. My argument is that you benefit from the system just as they do. Please, for once, take the time to actually respond to what I'm saying instead of responding to the opposite argument from the one you're making. You have yet to say anything actually relevant in response to my argument.

I do not acknowledge revolt as a point of contention - where some people say, "Gee, I guess I'm beat; I need to be taxed to keep the poor from becoming violent", my views are more firmly embedded.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Are you a bot? :suspicious:

Should such become a reality, I'd support full-on assault until those who feel they've a right to what isn't theirs subsequently back down and figure out another way to meet their needs. It'd really be unfortunate that they couldn't take such fervent passion and use it to actually EARN what they need, rather than get pissed off and simply take it. They're charging headfirst into a brick wall to knock it down when they COULD simply search for a key, unlock the door, and walk right through it.

Again, not a response to my argument. It's not a particularly complicated one. It might help you to read my response to BostonIan, or to read my initial post in this thread. I'm telling you that you're operating under a double standard. You are responding by talking about revolt and entitlement and the lazy poor. While that's very interesting, it's not actually a response.

Yeah, until you actually formulate a logical pattern of 'action-consequence' as it applies to personal choices vs. political constructs (because, as Ian pointed out, this is a POLITICAL discussion involving a highly mutable political system)...

Please see above. The fact that the system can change does not absolve one from responsibility.

I can tell it's pointless arguing with you. This is beside all the posturing and hubris about your "holy logic bombs", which has become tiresome.

Yeah, I have to do something to amuse myself while making the same point repeatedly and still not getting a response to it. Take a joke.

The matter is evidently quite an emotionally charged one for you and, as I see it, you're incapable of reasoned, calm debate in favor of foot-stamping and bullying.

No. Again. You're not understanding my argument. You're assigning to me a position which I am not advocating. Either because you are incapable of responding to my actual point (in which case it's a straw man and you should be ashamed) or because you do not know, after all these posts, what my point is. Just to reiterate: I am not arguing against the rich and in favor of the poor. I am not arguing against the poor in favor of the rich. I am pointing out the double standard under which your position operates.

I apologize if my posts have cone off as bullying or if I have hurt your feelings in any way. It does get frustrating to have to repeat oneself this many times and still meet with either willful or genuine lack of understanding. This is frustrating, to say the least, but it was not my intention to hurt your feelings or to offend you.

Please keep in mind, however, that saying that you are wrong is not, be default, saying that the other position is right.

I'm sorry that we were unable to effectively communicate with one another. Your resignation from the debate is accepted in the spirit in which it was given.

timetraveler

08-29-2009, 10:56 AM

So you're presenting taxation for entitlement programs as a form of extortion; pay them off, and we'll buy their protection? That CERTAINLY doesn't make the case for me, even less than the simple notion that it's moral to help those less fortunate.

All taxes are extortion. That is the truth, but the choice we make is whether we want to pay the government to protect us, or the mafia. You don't get a choice to not pay anyone and expect to be kept safe. The Mafia has been running these sorts of protection rackets for centuries and governments run the same exact racket.

A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a powerful entity or individual coerces other less powerful entities or individuals to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase protection services against various external threats, usually violence or property damage.Those who do not buy into the protection plan are often targeted by criminals, often the racketeers themselves. Assuming the racketeers do actually protect paying "clients" from other criminals, when a person or group refuses to pay for protection, word is put out that they are outside of the racketeers' protection and that criminals can target them with impunity.

Read More here To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For anyone who is an intellectual, there is more information on this topic here titled Payment, Protection and Punishment: The Role of Information and Reputation in the Mafia

Rationality and Society, 2001, 13(3), 349–393.

Alistair Smith and Federico VareseTo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes it absolute is extortion. I'm calling it extortion because I'm honest about how the world works. You either pay the government or the government will attack you and its exactly the same situation you face if you don't pay the mafia.

And again, I never said there was no merit or benefit to helping those less fortunate. My beef is all with the execution. Charity should not be extracted by threat of arrest or penalty. Why not? It's just like with the banks, if they refuse to lend money then what did we give them all that money for? I'm not asking for "charity", I'm asking for investment. Build schools instead of prisons. Build roads, invest in small businesses, and buy products made in America from local owners who you know are struggling. I'm asking you to be a good citizen, I'm not exactly in favor of income taxes because I don't think the government does a very good job helping people, or at least not as good of a job as you could do if you help someone personally. The problem is rich people refuse to help others, so I'm not against using force if it's the only way, because the USA as a country cannot function if we don't tax rich people. There is no way to pay for the essential programs, and even if you were to get rid of all the entitlement programs, if you did that then you'd only raise the costs elsewhere.

What is currently cheap, such as law enforcement, would become much more expensive because the cost of a good cop with integrity would rise as those with integrity become more rare. And yes if you get rid of the entitlement programs it will lower the integrity level of the entire country, and that cop will be bribed in some cases and in other cases that cop will be loyal to different factions of rich elites that don't like you. You see the cop, is like the pawn in a big chess game and the reason we pay for cops publicly is to allow the cop to maintain his integrity and honor.

You're totally right - never once has it existed. And therein, to me, lies its merit, aside from what I feel is the inherent morality of absolute property rights. We've tried every other system and have continuously witnessed the breakdown of the line between governance and tyranny. We have people who whine about equal and fair treatment, gay rights, drug legalization - we want all of these rights, while still begging for the government's interference in wealth regulation.

Thats because there is a huge difference. Gay people don't harm anyone by being gay or by getting married. Drug users (depending on the drug), don't harm others by using drugs. Irresponsible wealthy people harm everyone in society indirectly.

It's no different from a child who insists her parents stay out of her social life and allow her to go out and do as she pleases, yet approaches them daily with her hands outstretched for money, over and above the roof they put over her head and the food they put on her plate.

Having a lot of money is like having a lot of guns. When you have crazy individuals who have a lot of guns, there tends to be problems associated with this, right? The same can be said when you have crazy people with a lot of money, money can be used as a weapon to destroy entire societies, industries, etc.

As long as it's the state that gets to say what wealth we can have and keep, and how it must be divided, they will continue to wield the kind of power that gets us nowhere in terms of allowing people to live as they choose. Government is no longer about PROTECTING rights and recognizing rights; government has now assumed the role of granting rights. And they're not even seen as rights, really; they're more like privileges.

The defense of capitalism is not specifically written in the constitution. Life, liberty and happiness is. If your wealth gets in the way of that then it can be taken away.

If a gay couple is to marry and have the same rights as a straight couple (at least legally)? That's that state's privilege. And while I'm far more in favor of a decentralized, state-oriented government, the problems still apply to them too (but because they're smaller, they're easier to fix than a giant, hulking federal government).

I agree with you but what does this have to do with our debate?

The issue is that people have grown accustomed to taking whatever scraps the government will throw them, and have given in to the idea that questions of individual liberty should be the prerogative of the tyrannical majority (for instance, the infamous Prop 8 decision in California).

What does this have to do with anything?

So yes, I want something that has never existed. I want the government, for once, to fear its people. I want it to be the guard dog of individual rights, not granting but RECOGNIZING rights inherent - you could almost look at them as a referee. It's not his job to take points from one team to give the other team an advantage. Enforce the rules, and otherwise stay out of the way.

You don't get those options. If you want a government that is a Republic then you have to accept the special interests. There are groups in this country who want to protect their sphere of influence just as you want to protect yours. The government acts to balance the power between different factions, it's a delicate balance of power between these factions maintained by the government which prevents civil war. When you say enforce the rules, nothing stops other special interest groups from changing the rules in such a way that they can take your wealth in ways you cannot imagine. They can for example legalize price fixing so that entire industries can charge rich people like you the same price for an item across the board. Small business could meet in secret and decide that they want to make it legal to raise the price for an item you buy to thousands of dollars when it used to be $100, just as the price of oil is controlled by cartels, the price of bread could also be controlled by cartels. Do you see what an unregulated free market would mean for you?

Also you'd have to worry about being scammed, conned and tricked out of your wealth. If the government should stay out of the way, then you'll have to worry about being scammed by the Bernie Madoffs of the world. You will have no one you can trust do conduct any business whatsoever because there will be no protection agencies to prevent pyramid schemes and other tricks. You wouldn't be able to trust the other rich people, or the poor.

Why would I want something that's already been tried and, in my view, has failed?

What you want is an Ayn Rand utopia which could never exist in the real world. Just like the communist utopia that leftists want will never exist in the real world. At some point you just have to start being realistic, you aren't going to get a capitalist utopia.

Alex

08-29-2009, 11:07 AM

You're saying that making money is positive and there should be no negative consequences to such an action, while not making money is negative and people who don't make money should have no positive consequences for their action. This is crap.

I never said "making money is positive" and "not making money is negative". Plenty of people don't "make" money - the retired, for instance. They actively do not MAKE money; but because they've saved and/or invested money they ONCE made, they can live independently of anyone else's intervention. Babies and children don't make money; I don't hold them in moral contempt for not being earners.

I have stated explicitly, several times, that if you make money, it's yours. I didn't say making money "is good". YOU assigned that value to it because you're emotionally approaching the situation as my being some rich-sympathizer who hates the poor, so that all of my answers are skewed towards the rich's actions being "good" and the poor's actions being "negative". Not what I said, never what I said; if you're impugning my reading comprehension skills, I suggest you go have a look at your own.

Whatever money the poor make, it's theirs. I expect them to have the same level of responsibility for having to pay for anyone less fortunate than even THEM - NONE. I don't see special interest taxation as a reasonable consequence of earning money. THAT is what I'm arguing.

If the poor, for whatever reason, don't make money? Fine! Curiousgeorge was in this thread earlier and flat-out stated that his family didn't have much money and didn't MAKE much money at first. But then, through positive ACTION to the contrary, they SAVED what money they had. They spent wisely. And they eventually rose out of the ranks of the poor.

Besides, what you're arguing isn't even equitable. The rich's action (positive) deserves no negative consequence, yet the poor's action (negative) deserves no positive consequence was never my argument, never. It would be impossible to enact such a fabricated system; if my actions are a net positive, there MUST be a negative consequence (nevermind the question of "Why?" that one must certainly beg there). If someone's actions are a net negative, there must be a positive consequence. Where did you even come up with that?

My stance is that whatever someone earns is devoid of any positive or negative inherent value. Earning money is not like kicking a puppy, or helping an old lady across the street. It has no inherent moral value. Nor does NOT earning money (having children when you know you can't feed them? Sure, that's immoral. But simply the act of not earning money is completely neutral). However, the state's ANSWER to either one of those morally neutral actions (to give one person money, to take money away from someone else) are disproportionate. One benefits from a neutral action, the other is penalized for a neutral action.

daydreamer

08-29-2009, 11:10 AM

That is not the only reason that blacks live in ghettos. There were Jim Crow laws and segregation which made it illegal for non whites to live anywhere but in ghettos. If you were black and tried to move out of the ghetto back then, you could find yourself lynched by the KKK, or beat up, or you'd just be told that you aren't wanted and no matter how much money you will pay for the house, they wont sell it to you. This segregation only changed in 1980s, so that is why ghettos and segregation of races still exist. Today it's different because if you are poor and black you can move up and move out.

wayy oversimplified. it's not simply a matter of moving, even today. continue to give civil rights its due. the movement is succeeding, but hasn't succeeded yet. yes we have a black president, but he never lived in an American inner city ghetto. there are so many factors to living in a true ghetto that make it hard to get out. i made the treacherous error of living in one in order to save money and go to college - and by virtue of the fact that i was from there, no one would rent to me from the outside if they knew that my former address was the ghetto, not even as a college graduate with a job. my former address was the only thing i had against me, lots of people in the ghetto have other obstacles. and i was the cutest sweetest little blonde white girl you ever did see.

there are areas of the country that need special attention, special programs, like affirmative action and other creative solutions. the changes wont be instantaneous (as in giving someone in the ghetto some money or a pair of shoes), they need dedication and they need to be lasting.

Lucid

08-29-2009, 11:29 AM

I never said "making money is positive" and "not making money is negative". Plenty of people don't "make" money - the retired, for instance. They actively do not MAKE money; but because they've saved and/or invested money they ONCE made, they can live independently of anyone else's intervention. Babies and children don't make money; I don't hold them in moral contempt for not being earners.

I have stated explicitly, several times, that if you make money, it's yours. I didn't say making money "is good". YOU assigned that value to it because you're emotionally approaching the situation as my being some rich-sympathizer who hates the poor, so that all of my answers are skewed towards the rich's actions being "good" and the poor's actions being "negative". Not what I said, never what I said; if you're impugning my reading comprehension skills, I suggest you go have a look at your own.

That was a response to BostonIan's comment about self destructive behavior vs constructive money making. It should be apparent that it was a response to him and not you because I quoted what he said right above the response.

Whatever money the poor make, it's theirs. I expect them to have the same level of responsibility for having to pay for anyone less fortunate than even THEM - NONE. I don't see special interest taxation as a reasonable consequence of earning money. THAT is what I'm arguing.

I understand. What I'm telling you is that that there are positive and negative consequences for making money and positive and negative consequences for not making money. Not that one is less fortunate, not that one is owed anything by the other.

If the poor, for whatever reason, don't make money? Fine! Curiousgeorge was in this thread earlier and flat-out stated that his family didn't have much money and didn't MAKE much money at first. But then, through positive ACTION to the contrary, they SAVED what money they had. They spent wisely. And they eventually rose out of the ranks of the poor.

Yes, this interesting. However, again, it does not address my point. I'm not arguing against the rich. I'm not arguing for the poor. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Besides, what you're arguing isn't even equitable. The rich's action (positive) deserves no negative consequence, yet the poor's action (negative) deserves no positive consequence was never my argument, never.

No, it was BostonIan's.

It would be impossible to enact such a fabricated system; if my actions are a net positive, there MUST be a negative consequence (nevermind the question of "Why?" that one must certainly beg there). If someone's actions are a net negative, there must be a positive consequence. Where did you even come up with that?

I'm not talking about net positives or net negatives. I'm speaking in neutral terms. Or at lest I'm trying to. I think what you're saying here is also regarding something I said to BostonIan, not to you.

My stance is that whatever someone earns is devoid of any positive or negative inherent value. Earning money is not like kicking a puppy, or helping an old lady across the street. It has no inherent moral value.

I agree. This is also what I am saying.

Nor does NOT earning money (having children when you know you can't feed them? Sure, that's immoral. But simply the act of not earning money is completely neutral). However, the state's ANSWER to either one of those morally neutral actions (to give one person money, to take money away from someone else) are disproportionate. One benefits from a neutral action, the other is penalized for a neutral action.

And my point is that both actions carry with them positive and negative consequences. It's not a matter of one benefiting and one being penalized. The rich have, as consequences for their actions, results X and Y. Result X, say, is living in a big comfortable house. Result Y is paying higher taxes. Some of these results are seen as desirable by most people. Some are seen as undesirable. All results are the consequences of actions taken by the person in question.

Being poor is no different. Say that being poor has the result A, which we will say is getting money for doing nothing but sitting around the house watching Jerry Springer. Result B is not having enough money to eat healthy food. Some of these consequences are desirable, some are not, but both are the consequences of actions taken by the person in question.

The system is such that it allows the rich to have big comfortable homes and requires that they pay more taxes. It also allows the poor to subsist from doing nothing and requires that they have an extremely low quality of life.

Both are rewarded. Both are penalized. Both are responsible for these rewards and these penalties.

These are just examples and I'm using some very limited, over simplified and cartoonish versions here for the sake of making my point understood. The majority of the poor don't sit on their asses and watch Jerry Springer and the majority of the rich give to charities to help the poor etc etc. I am distilling my point to its most basic elements because the second half of your post makes me think that we might actually be getting somewhere and this is a conversation I think will be interesting to have once we get our positions straight.

curiousgeorge01

08-29-2009, 11:32 AM

I think the point a lot of you is missing is that when you demand the rich to pay more taxes, you do realize it's not them who gets taxed right? The majority of it ends up being paid by you and I, the middle class! So the more you force them to pay taxes, the more WE pay taxes! The rich actually only make up a very small percentage of the population, you really think they themselves can fund the lower class?

timetraveler

08-29-2009, 11:32 AM

wayy oversimplified. it's not simply a matter of moving, even today. continue to give civil rights its due. the movement is succeeding, but hasn't succeeded yet. yes we have a black president, but he never lived in an American inner city ghetto. there are so many factors to living in a true ghetto that make it hard to get out. i made the treacherous error of living in one in order to save money and go to college - and by virtue of the fact that i was from there, no one would rent to me from the outside if they knew that my former address was the ghetto, not even as a college graduate with a job. my former address was the only thing i had against me, lots of people in the ghetto have other obstacles. and i was the cutest sweetest little blonde white girl you ever did see.

there are areas of the country that need special attention, special programs, like affirmative action and other creative solutions. the changes wont be instantaneous (as in giving someone in the ghetto some money or a pair of shoes), they need dedication and they need to be lasting.

Don't you think I know this? I thought you were the one who is rich?

Alex I also want to describe something else which you should be far more concerned about than the protection rackets and the mafia. When you say you don't want the government to regulate wealth, and stay out of the way, are you aware of the fact that there have been times in history where the government did not regulate wealth and stayed out of the way?

During the 1800s and early 1900s you had snake oil salesmen everywhere and these were the people with integrity. In a world without entitlement programs you will have no way to preserve integrity in society. I will explain my logic by describing what is known as a tontine.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dear Cecil:

My friend Dave is trying to organize a tontine. He says it's very simple. We each put an equal sum of money into an investment pool. Whoever outlives everybody else gets the money plus the accumulated earnings. What a strange concept! Put up your money, then hope for the ultimate misfortune to visit the other members of the group. I'm fascinated by the idea of it. What other chance do you have to gain from the deaths of your friends and acquaintances? It's the ultimate lottery. Who came up with this idea? Was it the forerunner of our current life insurance system? Have there been any famous tontines? Has anybody really raked in big bucks by winning a tontine? Should I join?

— Barry Gardner, Washington, D.C. Taken from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Unregulated wealth, a world without entitlement programs, also means that government cannot regulate gambling establishments. Currently the stock market bets on corporations, buying and selling futures, buying bonds and stocks, but what you don't understand is the very greedy nature, the very drive which helps to make people rich is also what would lead to self destruction if the government were to completely get out of the way. The only thing protecting you from the other rich people who are "evil" and who would speculate and gamble with tontines and death bonds is the fact that the government is protecting you from predators not just poor predators but rich predators. I fail to understand why you don't see the logic I'm presenting.

Yes with a tontine you can get rich off the death of your neighbor, and many people would agree to this system of capitalism. It's ultimately social darwinism at it's finest, and unless this is what you want, then you will recognize that some level of entitlement programs are necessary to prevent a complete collapse of this kind. The utopia world that Ayn Rand describes could never exist because humans are not that noble. The humans who have integrity but who are poor must be protected, because if they are allowed to die there will be no one to protect you from the predators that seek to prey on you and your wealth.

timetraveler added to this post, 4 minutes and 4 seconds later...

I think the point a lot of you is missing is that when you demand the rich to pay more taxes, you do realize it's not them who gets taxed right? The majority of it ends up being paid by you and I, the middle class! So the more you force them to pay taxes, the more WE pay taxes! The rich actually only make up a very small percentage of the population, you really think they themselves can fund the lower class?

That is why I'm not in favor of income taxes. Sales/carbon/luxury taxes make more sense. Either way the main problem I see with the philosophy of certain rich individuals is they aren't being logical about the end results. It's almost as if they are making emotional pleas, based on some emotional concept of fairness rather than based on what is, and how human nature operates. If we were to listen to Alex and stop having the government influence who gets wealthy and who doesn't, then we will end up with casinos everywhere, gambling and extortion everywhere, and people will be buying and trading death bonds, tontines, and betting on when their neighbor will die. That is the environment which results from economic social darwinism, and that is the unregulated free market.

aku chi

08-29-2009, 11:37 AM

There is nothing in the constitution which says you have a right to be rich, which means the government can go socialist or even communist if it wants to and it would still not violate the constitution.
The defense of capitalism is not specifically written in the constitution. Life, liberty and happiness is. If your wealth gets in the way of that then it can be taken away.

You'll find that you are mistaken on both of these counts. Happiness is not mentioned at all in The Constitution (you may be thinking of "the pursuit of happiness" mentioned in the far less relevant document, The Declaration of Independence). Liberty is mentioned prominently in The Constitution (including the preamble) but life is only mentioned (in this context) in one place, The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Interestingly, we see that a person's property is protected by the supreme law of the land (in two ways). This is hardly a proclaiment that capitalism is the only economic system allowed in the US but it certainly rules out systems like communism that don't include notions of private property. Only if the Fifth Amendment (and possibly more) is repealed could the US constitutionally become economically communist.

Alex

08-29-2009, 11:49 AM

That is the environment which results from economic social darwinism, and that is the unregulated free market.

Which is never what I argued for.

I never said capitalism should be completely unrestricted. I never suggested business owners don't have a responsibility to provide a certain level of institutional quality, or that they shouldn't have rules. If I believe that there are certain rights and responsibilities one man has with respect to another, then the same holds true of a corporation which, in legal terms, is the equivalent of a single person.

I would believe more in your social darwinist theory if poverty was a terminal condition with a life sentence and no possibility of mobility. I believe in the rights and mechanisms in place that provide for mobility (which includes charity, personal investment, availability of education, suitable workplace conditions, etc). But there are poor who have done better for themselves, and have proven that poverty CAN be a choice and, really, most of the time IS (my husband is one of them). The means are there; some capitalize and some don't.

What I believe in is finite compassion and a cut-off point. Where, if you fail to accept SOME modicum of accountability, the charitable hand will withdraw. Such as: "Here is a trade center here, and a college, and the means for you to attend either of them. If you do not take this offer, don't expect us to provide you with a check each month or an EBT card."

At what point do we recognize when a person is obviously not concerned with his own best interests?

daydreamer

08-29-2009, 11:50 AM

You'l find that you are mistaken on both of these counts. Happiness is not mentioned at all in The Constitution (you may be thinking of "the pursuit of hapiness" mentioned in the far less relevant document, The Declaration of Independence).

aku chi, i usually enjoy your points but i have to take issue with this. the pursuit of happiness is a concept defended in the 9th and 10th amendments, bill of rights, by virtue of restraining the federal and state governments. understanding the history of the time is key to getting this point.

many states themselves - california is one - incorporate the pursuit of happiness as a right more explicitly in their own bill of rights.

curiousgeorge01

08-29-2009, 12:02 PM

That is why I'm not in favor of income taxes. Sales/carbon/luxury taxes make more sense. Either way the main problem I see with the philosophy of certain rich individuals is they aren't being logical about the end results. It's almost as if they are making emotional pleas, based on some emotional concept of fairness rather than based on what is, and how human nature operates. If we were to listen to Alex and stop having the government influence who gets wealthy and who doesn't, then we will end up with casinos everywhere, gambling and extortion everywhere, and people will be buying and trading death bonds, tontines, and betting on when their neighbor will die. That is the environment which results from economic social darwinism, and that is the unregulated free market.

The problem with that is that it puts an unfair tax on the producers of those goods, plus the revenue generated wouldn't be enough. The biggest source of income for the government will always be income taxes, either that or they just print the damn money and steal it without us knowing!

I don't think there's anything wrong with out market. If anything I think there's too much regulation. There are certain things I can see regulating, like monopolies, but things will never be equitable. My opinion is that we move beyond that and work with what we have as opposed to forcing equity. Do I think liberals have made some good changes? Yes on the social front, but not economically. Liberal economics will end up putting us in the poor house!

timetraveler

08-29-2009, 12:06 PM

To Alex I would believe more in your social darwinist theory if poverty was a terminal condition with a life sentence and no possibility of mobility. I believe in the rights and mechanisms in place that provide for mobility (which includes charity, personal investment, availability of education, suitable workplace conditions, etc). But there are poor who have done better for themselves, and have proven that poverty CAN be a choice and, really, most of the time IS (my husband is one of them). The means are there; some capitalize and some don't.

Okay and lets consider what Dreamer said, (In response to Alex)
wayy oversimplified. it's not simply a matter of moving, even today. continue to give civil rights its due. the movement is succeeding, but hasn't succeeded yet. yes we have a black president, but he never lived in an American inner city ghetto. there are so many factors to living in a true ghetto that make it hard to get out. i made the treacherous error of living in one in order to save money and go to college - and by virtue of the fact that i was from there, no one would rent to me from the outside if they knew that my former address was the ghetto, not even as a college graduate with a job. my former address was the only thing i had against me, lots of people in the ghetto have other obstacles. and i was the cutest sweetest little blonde white girl you ever did see.

there are areas of the country that need special attention, special programs, like affirmative action and other creative solutions. the changes wont be instantaneous (as in giving someone in the ghetto some money or a pair of shoes), they need dedication and they need to be lasting.

The fact is that most people who are born into the ghetto will die in the ghetto. It takes a genius to rise up out of that environment and most humans aren't geniuses. The world isn't as socially mobile as you think it is. The rules aren't as fair as you think they are, and yes some families manage to get out in a generation or two, and other families die off before they ever make it out, and it has nothing to do with intelligence or hard work.

What I believe in is finite compassion and a cut-off point. Where, if you fail to accept SOME modicum of accountability, the charitable hand will withdraw. Such as: "Here is a trade center here, and a college, and the means for you to attend either of them. If you do not take this offer, don't expect us to provide you with a check each month or an EBT card."

Nobody said you shouldn't promote college with your wealth. Don't you think if every poor person who was smart could go to college for free that a majority of them would do so? Some would go on to get Phds and teach. It's not an issue of going to college or not, it's a matter of will they survive to the age of 21 in order to go to college. There are many traps that can land a poor person in prison or get a poor person killed. All the risk in the USA is exported into the ghettos where the poorest kids grow up, and many of them just aren't going to make it no matter how hard they work or how smart they are.

At what point do we recognize when a person is obviously not concerned with his own best interests?

You are assuming all poor people are irrational and thats not the case at all. If you believe compassion is important, and integrity is important, you have to use your money to preserve it or it will not continue to exist.

daydreamer

08-29-2009, 12:09 PM

Okay and lets consider what Dreamer said,

The world isn't as socially mobile as you think it is. The rules aren't as fair as you think they are, and yes some families manage to get out in a generation or two, and other families die off before they ever make it out, and it has nothing to do with intelligence or hard work.

it's clear to me you didn't read or understand what i said. i never claimed the rules were fair, if anything i claimed the opposite. i think they need changed.

if you're not even going to read what i said then i'm done responding to you - and reading you too.

timetraveler

08-29-2009, 12:11 PM

The problem with that is that it puts an unfair tax on the producers of those goods, plus the revenue generated wouldn't be enough. The biggest source of income for the government will always be income taxes, either that or they just print the damn money and steal it without us knowing!

I don't think there's anything wrong with out market. If anything I think there's too much regulation. There are certain things I can see regulating, like monopolies, but things will never be equitable. My opinion is that we move beyond that and work with what we have as opposed to forcing equity. Do I think liberals have made some good changes? Yes on the social front, but not economically. Liberal economics will end up putting us in the poor house!

If there were less damages caused it wouldn't cost as much to fix the damages. Carbon taxes would generate plenty of money for the federal government considering that US corporations pollute like its no tomorrow. If they stop the pollution then healthcare costs would go down and their taxes should be associated with the damage they cause to society, not income.

Smokers pay higher insurance because they smoke. Smokers pay higher taxes because they smoke. It should be that you are taxed based on what kinds of items you buy, what kinds of behaviors you adopt, and in my opinion it should be highly individualized. Humans and corporations are not all equally destructive. It should be a calculation based on the amount of destruction the entity is causing to society along with their ability to pay.

timetraveler added to this post, 1 minutes and 17 seconds later...

it's clear to me you didn't read or understand what i said. i never claimed the rules were fair, if anything i claimed the opposite. i think they need changed.

if you're not even going to read what i said then i'm done responding to you - and reading you too.

I was AGREEING with what you said. That is why I used your quote to comment on what Alex was saying. I guess I should have made that a bit more clear in my post.

aku chi

08-29-2009, 12:16 PM

aku chi, i usually enjoy your points but i have to take issue with this. the pursuit of happiness is a concept defended in the 9th and 10th amendments, bill of rights, by virtue of restraining the federal and state governments. understanding the history of the time is key to getting this point.

many states themselves - california is one - incorporate the pursuit of happiness as a right more explicitly in their own bill of rights.

Indeed, it could be argued that the concept of the "pursuit of happiness" is consistent with The Constitution of the United States of America. Certainly, many of the signers of The Declaration of Independence were also signatories of The Constitution, and this lends support to that argument. And I do not doubt that many state constitutions incorporate "the pursuit of hapiness" more directly into their text (and they have every right to do so). Nevertheless, the word "happiness" is never once mentioned in the entirety of The Constitution. That was my principle point. I suppose my objection was a bit literal but this is my preferred method for interpretting The Constitution. I thought it was interesting that timetraveler brought up "life, liberty, and ..." when the only use of that phrase in The Constitution ends with "property", seeing as this directly refutes his other claim (that communism is consistent with The Constitution).

curiousgeorge01

08-29-2009, 12:18 PM

If there were less damages caused it wouldn't cost as much to fix the damages. Carbon taxes would generate plenty of money for the federal government considering that US corporations pollute like its no tomorrow. If they stop the pollution then healthcare costs would go down and their taxes should be associated with the damage they cause to society, not income.

Smokers pay higher insurance because they smoke. Smokers pay higher taxes because they smoke. It should be that you are taxed based on what kinds of items you buy, what kinds of behaviors you adopt, and in my opinion it should be highly individualized. Humans and corporations are not all equally destructive. It should be a calculation based on the amount of destruction the entity is causing to society along with their ability to pay.

Personally I think that with pollution, lawsuits fix that problem. To fix healthcare costs I think the government should either a)cut back on insurance benefits b) enforce some strict diet and exercise conformity through propaganda so people BELIEVE being healthy is the norm.

timetraveler

08-29-2009, 12:31 PM

That was not my claim. I never said "Communism is consistent with The Constitution."

I said "There is nothing in the constitution which says you have a right to be rich, which means the government can go socialist or even communist if it wants to and it would still not violate the constitution."

Which may be incorrect, but not far from the truth. Just as drug laws were once unConstitutional and we now have them, an amendment to The Constitution or reinterpretation of The Constitution could lead to Communism.

daydreamer

08-29-2009, 12:33 PM

I was AGREEING with what you said. That is why I used your quote to comment on what Alex was saying. I guess I should have made that a bit more clear in my post.

Indeed, it could be argued that the concept of the "pursuit of happiness" is consistent with The Constitution of the United States of America. Certainly, many of the signers of The Declaration of Independence were also signatories of The Constitution, and this lends support to that argument. And I do not doubt that many state constitutions incorporate "the pursuit of hapiness" more directly into their text (and they have every right to do so). Nevertheless, the word "happiness" is never once mentioned in the entirety of The Constitution. That was my principle point. I suppose my objection was a bit literal but this is my preferred method for interpretting The Constitution. I thought it was interesting that timetraveler brought up "life, liberty, and ..." when the only use of that phrase in The Constitution ends with "property", seeing as this directly refutes his other claim (that communism is consistent with The Constitution).

thanks for the clarifications. i understand now.

BostonIan

08-29-2009, 01:06 PM

Boston Ian This system of capitalism is designed to benefit and promote a certain breed of human above others. Homoeconomicus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is the breed of man which evolved as a result of the creation of capitalism. The economic system is the primary driver and main influence of human evolution, it is the main environmental factor. Capitalism is not natural, it was invented so that individuals could earn the PRIVILEGE of being rich. Now that people are rich they want to change all the laws around because now they feel like being rich is a right and not a privilege.

Again, the system of capitalism wasn't designed or invented, it's the natural system of owning property and doing what you'd like with it. If you grow a tomato and trade it for a cup of water without being mugged, you're practicing what Marx labeled capitalism.

The disconnection is that specific rich or wealthy individuals forget where they came from. They act as if society exists primarily to serve them and keep them rich. We are supposed to risk our lives fighting communism so they can stay rich. We are supposed to set up law enforcement and a federal government to allow them to keep their property and they can't pay for healthcare or the expense of fighting the wars? Even under feudalism it's wrong for a the Lords to not pay the people below them. This way of thinking did not work in the middle ages.

The people below them are paid, for goods and services more valuable than the talents of breathing and eating. Those who have done anything valuable in service to anyone who owns anything receive compensation, they obtain property and enjoy having that property protected. The designation of "rich" status is arbitrary, comparative to the rest of the society.

Do you understand that rich people have evolved certain traits which are making them a different species completely?

If I gain wealth tomorrow, it won't be by process of manipulating my genetic legacy, I will not be a new species.

They are good at surviving in this environment, you put them in another different environment and they wont last a week. This environment we live in is completely man made, designed by the richest few for the richest few, so people who happen to have the same traits they have will be more likely to thrive. The problem is their traits are extremely specialized traits which have nothing to do with survival of a species.

Self-control, cooperation (actual, not the euphemism for grasping at someone else's property), intelligence, the ability to develop and implement technology, organization, some of the specialized skills that are useful to the survival of the species that rich people seem to have. Other skills, the abilities to perform medical surgery, music, physical labor, food prep, also move people out of the impoverished classes.

It's not going to make you more evolved, it's not necessary to the benefit of society to have a system which promotes a particular breed of human while other breeds of humans go extinct. This means a lot of talents, skills, and abilities which the market and capitalism does not recognize will go to waste. This actually has a negative effect on the long term survival ability of a species, just as a bird which evolves flashy feathers and wings to help it mate, to the point where it's not longer a bird anymore because now it can't fly, so now it's less able to evade predators.

I'd been avoiding the natural selection argument, but that's partly what colors my opinion. (Judgmental photos deleted) In a meritocracy, even a partial one, those who fall behind are those who have the least merit. The city "poor" I've known tend to be morally and mentally lacking, especially in the area of deferring immediate wants, a higher-brain function. Welfare moves resources (important for breeding) away from the more functional towards the more dysfunctional, subsidizing what nature would reject.

The reason Alex's position is wrong is that rich people actually have more to gain than to lose by helping those less fortunate. Those poor people will be protecting their offspring for generations into the future, those poor people put out fires and fight crime, and from a strict consequentialist perspective it's smart to use your money to reward loyalty as a security mechanism. Some of the most cunning criminals and thieves give something back, even if its just to bribe the police, and keep the community from targeting them, or keep the IRS off their back. More often than not, self preservation plays more of a role in peoples decision making than compassion ever will.

I didn't correct it the first time, but, since fire-fighting and law-enforcing are valuable skills, neither are poor, making in the neighborhood of $50k per year for their services. The Catch-22 is that, once you provide a valuable skill, you're rewarded for it and are no longer poor.

So why give money to the poor? Thats how you buy loyalty from the poor. It's the price of loyalty, and if you don't have compassion at all you still might value loyalty because in a world where the state doesn't protect you then you'll need that loyalty to keep you safe. In my opinion with the economy and the debt, without the law enforcement and people of integrity, there Alex would have no way to protect her wealth. The criminals of the world would simply hack into her back account and rob her. At least with taxes it pays both for an IRS which will harass her but it also pays for an FBI and Secret Service which will harass any potential criminals. It's the nature of the beast that you have to pay to be safe, and of course if you are rich and donate to charity and help the poor, you'll be a lot more safe than the rich people who dont. It's as simple as that.

For this, you'd have to prove that an increased welfare state lowers property crime rates. With the implementation of the welfare state in the middle of the last century, did property crime rise or fall? While it may make intuitive sense that crime might fall, human-nature is often counter-intuitive. What's given becomes equilibrium, the gratitude wears off in search of the next reward. Since the implementation of the welfare state, have the poor become more loyal and affectionate towards the wealthy?

thod

08-29-2009, 01:28 PM

BostonIan

08-29-2009, 01:44 PM

More productive? Offering Service? Here is something I have just read that is a more accurate picture. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PD: Our guys in D.C. have been speaking with Timmy G. about their position in Citi. As you know Treasury owns 7.7 billion shares of common. Their cost basis is $3.25 and it closed Friday at 5.23. Apparently the FDIC is just about broke and needs more cash so they are looking to raise $14- 15 billion to plug what is being called the ‘Sheila Gap’. We are in discussion with them about a secondary for 4 billion shares. It would be the biggest deal ever.

Keep in mind that Timmy G is Timothy Geithner, the former head of the New York Fed and the man in charge of the organization I assume you intend to filter tax revenue through, the Treasury. In my tomato scenario, government would play the role of mugger, interrupting the exchange through exercise of power. What it does, it does by fiat and is required to provide no valuable service or exchange.

timetraveler

08-29-2009, 02:15 PM

BostonIan;667030 Again, the system of capitalism wasn't designed or invented, it's the natural system of owning property and doing what you'd like with it. If you grow a tomato and trade it for a cup of water without being mugged, you're practicing what Marx labeled capitalism.

Trade is not the same as capitalism. Trade does not involve "money" of any sort. Trade is barter and barter is a much more natural system but it too is a man made social system.

The people below them are paid, for goods and services more valuable than the talents of breathing and eating. Those who have done anything valuable in service to anyone who owns anything receive compensation, they obtain property and enjoy having that property protected. The designation of "rich" status is arbitrary, comparative to the rest of the society.

You fail to understand that the capitalism we have is nothing close to a natural system. It's natural to gamble, it's natural to barter, it's not natural to work a 9-5 job and be employed and have a boss.

If I gain wealth tomorrow, it won't be by process of manipulating my genetic legacy, I will not be a new species.

Unless you marry someone rich, then you do alter your genetic legacy.

Self-control, cooperation (actual, not the euphemism for grasping at someone else's property), intelligence, the ability to develop and implement technology, organization, some of the specialized skills that are useful to the survival of the species that rich people seem to have.

Many rich people don't cooperate at all, I don't know where you came up with that. And rich people don't organize the world, they pay people to do it for them. Rich people don't develop technology, they buy and implement it. Intelligence? Rich people are no more intelligent than poor people. Self control? Rich people waste a lot of money on junk they are addicted to.

Other skills, the abilities to perform medical surgery, music, physical labor, food prep, also move people out of the impoverished classes.

Physical labor? Food Prep? How many people like this do you personally know who are rich? Let's include music, how many rich musicians do you personally know? The only skill I'll agree with you on is medical surgery. Most surgeons I know are rich.

I'd been avoiding the natural selection argument, but that's partly what colors my opinion. An ink-blot test. I'm actually looking for answers to the following questions, rhetorical questions tend to be brushed aside:

"Natural" Selection does not exist. Selection does exist, and it's not natural. Capitalism is not natural, neither is this society. As a result, selection is not "natural", it's controlled by many factors including economics.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
1. What is the socioeconomic status of this woman?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
2. What is the socioeconomic status of this man?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
3. This woman?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
4. This man?
In a meritocracy, even a partial one, those who fall behind are those who have the least merit.

The city "poor" I've known tend to be morally and mentally lacking, especially in the area of deferring immediate wants, a higher-brain function. Welfare moves resources (important for breeding) away from the more functional towards the more dysfunctional, subsidizing what nature would reject.

The majority of people I've known rich or poor tend to be morally and mentally lacking. What is your point? The majority of all people lack higher brain function, and ability to defer immediate wants, that is why the majority of all people don't go to college and graduate. The fact that you only want to act like the poorest are dumb, is ignoring that the richest are also dumb and shows bias on your part.

I didn't correct it the first time, but, since fire-fighting and law-enforcing are valuable skills, neither are poor, making in the neighborhood of $50k per year for their services. The Catch-22 is that, once you provide a valuable skill, you're rewarded for it and are no longer poor.

$50,000 a year? But what is the cost of living, and how many years of service did it take to reach that milestone? You act like a rookie cop will make $50,000 a year, if that were the case I'd become a cop myself. Also $50,000 is middle class at best, it's not rich, it's not upper middle class, it's just enough money so you wont have to live in the ghetto anymore and can move to the suburbs.

For this, you'd have to prove that an increased welfare state lowers property crime rates.

If people have food, shelter and the basics they will have less incentive to break the law in the first place. If you don't give any entitlements at all then they will have nothing to lose by breaking the law and you can expect them to do so when it's profitable. If you want proof just look at the fact that whenever Republicans gain control and cut social programs the crime rates seem to rise. Just look at the fact that countries who have more welfare seem to also have less prisoners.

With the implementation of the welfare state in the middle of the last century, did property crime rise or fall? While it may make intuitive sense that crime might fall, human-nature is often counter-intuitive. What's given becomes equilibrium, the gratitude wears off in search of the next reward. Since the implementation of the welfare state, have the poor become more loyal and affectionate towards the wealthy?

How many people do you personally know who are on welfare or who have been to prison? Have you ever asked the person who went to prison why they ended up in prison? Did you ever ask the person on welfare why they are on welfare? Most people who go to prison are in prison because they ran a business which was considered illegal, they got caught, and they now live in prison as a consequence. Most people on welfare have kids so they don't want to risk going to prison. If you make life harder outside of prison than inside of prison, people will not be afraid to go to prison. If you get rid of all the entitlements that exist on the outside world and you still have prisons where people can receive those same entitlements, they'll simply use prison as the safetynet instead of social security, or welfare, or whatever.

The point is that prison is not going to be as scary to a person who has nothing to lose. If you are poor, and you run an illegal business and get caught, you go to prison. The only reason we have a million prisoners is because the government has interfered with the market by telling poor people that their kinds of businesses are illegal, while allowing rich people to run their businesses without being arrested, and when rich people do get arrested for white collar crime they get a year in a prison resort, and community service. Tell me how it's right to tell anyone that they can't run a certain business?

Why should the gov have the right to tell a poor person they can't sell drugs, or sex, or any service or product they want, as long as nobody is being hurt by that product or service? But thats not what the government does, the government wants to tell poor people they need a LICENSE to do business, and tell poor people that they cannot run certain kinds of businesses at all, and when these poor people get caught they go to prison, so the smartest of the poor people who don't want to go to prison either go on welfare, or go to college, or enlist in the military, but there is no easy choice. The government will be paying for whatever choice they make, whether it's welfare or college or the military the government pays, and all of these are cheaper and more efficient than prison, because prisoners can't buy anything to stimulate the economy for others.

Profit

08-29-2009, 10:51 PM

Again, the system of capitalism wasn't designed or invented, it's the natural system of owning property and doing what you'd like with it. If you grow a tomato and trade it for a cup of water without being mugged, you're practicing what Marx labeled capitalism.

Just to elaborate on what Timetraveler is trying to point out to you.....
Trade or markets for that matter do not equal capitalism. Trade happens when two people get together and exchange goods. They can exchange goods directly, an apple for and orange, or if the social system they inhabit has an agreed upon medium of exchange, say seashells, one can trade his apple for the others seashell. When these two get together to exchange goods they create a market. Trade and markets have been around since the dawn of human history (perhaps even prehistory), capitalism on the other hand is a rather recent development (it is in no way 'natural'), emerging in Europe around the 16th/17th century.

Capitalism is very specific socioeconomic system. You are correct in saying it was not purposely invented or designed but this this does not mean that it represents the natural behavior of humans. It is a social construct, it emerged, and continues to change for that matter, from the aggregate actions of individuals over the course of several centuries until it came to dominate all aspects of western society and later the entire world. Since you mentioned Marx so casually.....Under a capitalistic socioeconomic system individuals are taught at an early stage by society at large and the actions of those raising them how to 'behave'. Thus they come to correlate material wealth with success, power, and above all happiness (which they can obtain through the continuous acquisition of material goods). In order to obtain happiness (material wealth) they come to view others (seeking the same thing as them) as objects that can be used to advance their own interests (ie happiness through material wealth). Under a capitalist system those that use others as objects for their own material gain need some way of justifying this to themselves so they invent a social construct. The poor are poor because they are lazy/unmotivated (on welfare living off the hard work of others), unable to control their human passions (sex and reproduction, drug abuse), or just plan stupid (social darwinism, survival of the fittest).

The thing about social constructs is that if and when they are excepted by a majority of individuals (and imposed on those remaining) within a society they take on the appearance of being natural or inherit laws of human behavior when in fact they are not. Personally I'm not sure if I can truly believe in any notion of natural right/liberties or inherit laws of human behavior. When you resort to saying that a few people are extremely rich and many others very poor, and those that are poor are that way entirely because of their own failings/inability to control their negative passions (or to not harness the correct passion), or that it is natural for some to profit at the expense of others and chalk it all up to natural human behavior I see it as nothing more than a copout.

If we want to answer the question what is natural human behavior I think the best thing we can do is to look at the entirety of human history and ask in what way have humans interacted with each other over the course of this history. For the vast majority of our existence as a species we lived in small hunter gather groups. Within these small societies the notion of private property did not exist, each individual was responsible for the well being of all others, each had a clearly defined role and responsibility, all contributed to the well being of the group and either the society as a whole thrived or together they perished. This is not to say that power/material hierarchies did not exist, they did, but those in a position of power were only able to remain through their ability to maintain the health and well being of the entire society.

thod

08-29-2009, 11:43 PM

This is because in the tribe all power derives from the consent of the tribe. The currency is not dollars but respect. People do, and are happy to do, what the most respected members tell them is the right thing to do. Bad behaviour or bad decisions lower that respect and hence their power. People just ignore the fool barking orders. The new wealthy do not have this respect. They are absentee landlords, not so different from king George to the colonists.

Let each village select its elder, let those elders select who will represent the county and lets those elders select who will represent the nation. Thus the nation will be ruled on principles of respect and not TV advertising.

BostonIan

08-30-2009, 12:13 PM

Just to elaborate on what Timetraveler is trying to point out to you.....
Trade or markets for that matter do not equal capitalism. Trade happens when two people get together and exchange goods. They can exchange goods directly, an apple for and orange, or if the social system they inhabit has an agreed upon medium of exchange, say seashells, one can trade his apple for the others seashell. When these two get together to exchange goods they create a market. Trade and markets have been around since the dawn of human history (perhaps even prehistory), capitalism on the other hand is a rather recent development (it is in no way 'natural'), emerging in Europe around the 16th/17th century.

We can stop here. Give me your system of ownership, voluntary trade, markets, and I'll take it and call it capitalism.

Capitalism is very specific socioeconomic system. You are correct in saying it was not purposely invented or designed but this this does not mean that it represents the natural behavior of humans. It is a social construct, it emerged, and continues to change for that matter, from the aggregate actions of individuals over the course of several centuries until it came to dominate all aspects of western society and later the entire world. Since you mentioned Marx so casually...

The word "construct" is a tip-off that a deconstruction is about to take place. My own:
Since it's easier to blame than accept blame, the impoverished masses justify their plight with hostility towards the wealthy. They invent paranoid mythologies, seeing the wealthy as controlling the behavior, even the thoughts of the masses. A political class foments class envy and short-circuits earnest democracy with material rewards for voting them in power, putting a political class in control of the larger part of the material wealth of the society. The political class uses its store of wealth to influence the opinions of the electorate, going so far as to put teachers of children on payroll, indoctrinating the citizenry at the earliest ages for the purpose keeping the political class in power.
A social construct seems more mass psychology than something plastic that's able to be invented and implemented. The word seems more constructable than it probably is.

..Under a capitalistic socioeconomic system individuals are taught at an early stage by society at large and the actions of those raising them how to 'behave'. Thus they come to correlate material wealth with success, power, and above all happiness (which they can obtain through the continuous acquisition of material goods). In order to obtain happiness (material wealth) they come to view others (seeking the same thing as them) as objects that can be used to advance their own interests (ie happiness through material wealth).

I tend to think any animal that learned to correlate money with food and breeding status would pursue it with vigor, and the food (land) and breeding would register as pleasurable. The most vigorous would have the most of it, and they'd guard it jealously. Assuming the animal is tribal, smaller shares would be meted out to other members, but at no time would he bring it to other tribes across the river.

Under a capitalist system those that use others as objects for their own material gain need some way of justifying this to themselves so they invent a social construct. The poor are poor because they are lazy/unmotivated (on welfare living off the hard work of others), unable to control their human passions (sex and reproduction, drug abuse), or just plan stupid (social darwinism, survival of the fittest)...

You forgot "mentally unstable" and "unable to defer immediate wants", those are important as well. Otherwise, put yourself in the position of a Martian, documenting the behavior of the species. The set of people rating highest on intelligence, diligence, motivation, mental stability, self-control, family stability, moderation. What is their median income? Now, those ranking lowest, what is their median income?

In command or agricultural societies, the noble poor can exist, but it's much less likely here. A tangent, but a very effective way of degrading a person is to provide the necessities of life for him. In any other circumstance, a person would at least have to work towards and learn how to provide those, or else die. Propped up with food and housing, the negative behaviors are free to multiply and become negative customs across a swath of society, especially when the functional people leave the area.

When you resort to saying that a few people are extremely rich and many others very poor, and those that are poor are that way entirely because of their own failings/inability to control their negative passions (or to not harness the correct passion), or that it is natural for some to profit at the expense of others and chalk it all up to natural human behavior I see it as nothing more than a copout.

Between your extremes, most Americans are neither very rich, nor very poor.

"Profiting at the expense of others" is a debate device. So long as the money flow isn't orchestrated by a power base, all people receive money voluntarily in exchange for some good or service that was also received voluntarily. Gates' software, Rockefeller's oil, Carnegie's steel, Ford's cars.

If we want to answer the question what is natural human behavior I think the best thing we can do is to look at the entirety of human history and ask in what way have humans interacted with each other over the course of this history. For the vast majority of our existence as a species we lived in small hunter gather groups. Within these small societies the notion of private property did not exist, each individual was responsible for the well being of all others, each had a clearly defined role and responsibility, all contributed to the well being of the group and either the society as a whole thrived or together they perished. This is not to say that power/material hierarchies did not exist, they did, but those in a position of power were only able to remain through their ability to maintain the health and well being of the entire society.

It's unlikely that material hierarchies could have existed in communal environments that didn't have notions of private property and ownership.

The mistake is extending the notion of the family or the tribe out to 300,000,000+ humans. While there was and is communal cooperation within narrow bands of humans, (the conservative "focus on the family"), you'll have a hard time proving that families, tribes would sacrifice for themselves and their own children for the welfare of another tribe. My understanding is that these bands were fond of their land/wealth and willing to defend it.

Profit

08-30-2009, 05:09 PM

We can stop here. Give me your system of ownership, voluntary trade, markets, and I'll take it and call it capitalism.

You miss the main point of my post. Capitalism, whether you care to believe it or not, is a specific socioeconomic system. It is not timeless, there is nothing inherent about it, everything that defines capitalism (private property, banking, interest rates, employee, employer, contracts, stock markets, credit, wages etc etc) is a specific social construct, the majority of which emerged within western civilization after the end of the Middle Ages. Thus you cannot claim that human behavior within a capitalistic system is natural or inherent.

I would recommend reading up on the development of capitalism and economic thought. If you like I can provide you with a list of books….and no, very few of them will have any mention of Marx or Marxism.

A social construct seems more mass psychology than something plastic that's able to be invented and implemented. The word seems more constructable than it probably is.

Please see The Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. It is a very short and enjoyable read along with being a classic text of sociology.

I tend to think any animal that learned to correlate money with food and breeding status would pursue it with vigor, and the food (land) and breeding would register as pleasurable. The most vigorous would have the most of it, and they'd guard it jealously. Assuming the animal is tribal, smaller shares would be meted out to other members, but at no time would he bring it to other tribes across the river.

I never mentioned other tribes across the river. I used the word society for a reason. Within most hunter-gatherer societies food gathering (through hunting, gathering, or simple agriculture) is a communal activity. No one individual or family unit hordes food while others starve. As far as bringing other societies into the mix there was limited competition for resources, especially in times of severe weather or natural disasters. But no hunter-gatherer society can live in isolation. For one thing they must enjoy good relations with neighboring groups in order to exchange individual members for reproduction purposes. Also good relations with neighbors are essential when times get tough. It was not uncommon for hunter-gatherer societies to allow other groups in need to inhabit their territory for limited amounts of time.

Please see International Systems in World History by Barry Buzan and Richard Little.

In command or agricultural societies, the noble poor can exist, but it's much less likely here. A tangent, but a very effective way of degrading a person is to provide the necessities of life for him.

And living in poverty without access to medical care, adequate education or job opportunities isn’t degrading?

all people receive money voluntarily in exchange for some good or service that was also received voluntarily. Gates' software, Rockefeller's oil, Carnegie's steel, Ford's cars.

People in a capitalistic society do not have a choice to enter the marketplace in order to procure the resources necessary for survival. Since they have no choice all I and others on this forum are arguing is that they need to have access to jobs and wages sufficient to support themselves and their families. Unfortunately many today do not and they have little resources or services available to help them to achieve this access on their own.

It's unlikely that material hierarchies could have existed in communal environments that didn't have notions of private property and ownership.

What I said was that power/material hierarchies could exist, not simply material. What this means is that you could have an individual or group of individuals playing the role of ‘Big Man’ or council who made decisions for the group as a whole. Thus the tribe was not totally egalitarian in terms of decision-making. Those in a position of power could be recipients of ceremonial items believed to hold or symbolize special power(s) that the ‘Big Man’ or council would need to call on. They could also receive the finer cuts of meat from a kill or organs whose consumption, they believed, could give them special powers. As I said before, the position of these leader(s) would totally depend on their ability to provide for the society as a whole, if they failed they would be replaced by another selected by the society as a whole.

The mistake is extending the notion of the family or the tribe out to 300,000,000+ humans. While there was and is communal cooperation within narrow bands of humans, (the conservative "focus on the family"), you'll have a hard time proving that families, tribes would sacrifice for themselves and their own children for the welfare of another tribe. My understanding is that these bands were fond of their land/wealth and willing to defend it.

Apparently the point I was trying to make about what constitutes natural or inherent human behavior was lost on you yet again. Also you again have brought the idea of another society into the equation, something that I never addressed in my initial post. For some reason you seem intent on finding conflict in human interaction.

Profit added to this post, 8 minutes and 17 seconds later...

I just noticed that you have chosen the Silver Surfer as your avatar. Now I must confess I am not a big comic book reader but I did see the second Fantastic Four movie and at the end of it the Silver Surfer gives his life in order to save the lives of others.

Just thought that was interesting after reading through all of your posts.