[blueback]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I doubt you'll find many rich folks just sitting on their money. Certainly not all of it. Between bank deposits and other investments, the money is out there...

I like how you just referenced the idea that putting money in a bank ensures the bank will lend that money out...given the current economic fiasco that's a particularly silly claim.

Again, investments are only a good idea if there's something to invest in.

The reason we get bubbles is that there is too much investment capital chasing too few opportunities. Unfortunately, the more bubbles we have the better the wealthy get at creating and managing them. This time they managed to convince poor people it was their own fault for being stupid enough to not understand real estate, and got the tax payers to accept the bill. Next time they'll probably figure out how to privatize a state or two.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...and the rich do spend far more than the poor in general, keeping everyone from groundskeepers to boat manufacturers in business. You take income away from the rich, and they stop paying these people, making more poor.

The rich tend to save their money
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What you're arguing is that money is somehow better when it's spent by a rich person than when it's spent by, say, a middle or lower class person. Policies which would make it easier for poor people to become average, and harder for average people to become wealthy, would just move people around; they wouldn't stop people from spending money. The same amount of money would be in circulation it would just be spent by more people in more frequent, but smaller increments, rather than by a few people in large increments.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, the problem is that the poor don't create wealth with that money. In fact, they tend to destroy it by investing in things that decline in value.

I don't think the poor invest in much of anything.
The things poor people buy are necessary, not speculation.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Poor people don't have enough money, time or education to speculate. Money, time and education are things rich people have, thus why rich people speculate.
Just so we're clear, are you considering things like food, clothing, and phones "bad investments?"

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

"•As expected, the highest earners spend much more on necessary household items than the lowest earners ($4,301 versus $1,720 per year).
•But while the highest earners spend just 3.3 percent of household income on these necessities, the lowest earners spend almost six times as much (18.8 percent of income)"

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Um... IF you give money to the poor, and have them spend it to give profits to the rich, the government taxes that money before the rich can use it. So, if you spend $300B, businesses may get $300B in revenue, but only $50B as profit, and $35B of that will turn into actual usable profit. The rest goes out in costs and taxes. It's a complete waste of money.

Wait, wait...
...If we assume that giving poor people money means they immediately spend all of it...
...then all of it becomes revenue for businesses...
...most of it will end up going to employees, other businesses, and taxes...
...which is BAD?

That's the economy! How is that money either immediately being exchanged for goods/services or going back to the government as taxes so it can be turned into public goods a bad thing? Because the people who don't need money (wealthy) don't get all of it? That's exactly one of the black holes I was describing before. There's the economy, and then there's the bank accounts of the wealthy. Not the same thing.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then again, if you give $300B in tax relief to wealth creators, they get that whole $300B to create wealth. That's far more efficient than spending $300B to get $35B

Yeah...you forgot to describe how that happens.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pass a balanced budget amendment, pay off the debt, cut federal spending (outside of servicing the debt) by 40%...and the black hole that is the national treasury will shrink considerably, as well.

I agree with pretty much all of this. The 'shrink taxes accordingly' part was way too vague given the entire context of this discussion.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is a trickle-down argument, isn't it? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

With a laughable sprinkling of Objectivism (let's bow to "wealth creators" and those captains of industry who always have the common man's best interest in mind) thrown in.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then again, if you give $300B in tax relief to wealth creators, they get that whole $300B to create wealth. That's far more efficient than spending $300B to get $35B

No, actually (recent) history tells us that if you give billions to bigwigs, they send all their execs to a "meeting" at a spa, or file bankruptcy, or otherwise abuse the money they're given. The wealthy only have an interest in generating wealth for themselves, and by extension have an interest in denying wealth to others. When they create jobs, it's because they see gain in it for themselves, and by golly they cut jobs just as easily when there's gain (or minimized loss) at stake.

Not to mention that no matter how they spend stimulus money, they're getting taxed on it as well. Whether the money is spent by a corporation or a thousand underlings, Uncle Sam gets his cut regardless. Whether a business exec buys a jet or his entry-level employee spends it on sending little Jimmy to college, taxes are coming out.

-----

Arguments like these are always defeated by the idea that somehow taxing the top 1-10% applies to any of us. The impact on all of us would be somewhere between insignificant and infinitesimal.

If people who make a million a year have to pay an extra 50 thousand in taxes, does anybody think that's going to somehow discourage somebody who makes 50 thousand a year from striving for that million mark? If anything, taxing the super-rich makes it easier for everybody else to rise to the top.

Consider Wallyworld. Let's assume they're #1 in retail. They provide the lowest prices and as a result draw lots of business. Because they draw lots of business, they open lots of stores and provide lots of jobs. At the same time, every place they open a store, other locally owned businesses can't compete because they don't have the same international pool of resources to draw from.

So locally owned businesses and entrepreneurs go under because they can't compete. But Wallyworld is there, offering jobs a-plenty. It's just as easy to go to work for them, even though the money isn't as good. Are they creating jobs? Sure. Are they creating wealth? Yeah, for somebody... perhaps not the thousands who work for them, but somebody at the top of the chain is getting rich(er) every time a new store opens.

If the government intervenes and makes it harder for Wallyworld to continue gathering local monopolies, then it becomes easier for new business owners to enter the market. By taxing the very top and making it more difficult for them to expand their power, the government creates a void that allows others to move up and fill it, rather than being crushed by trying to compete with a mammoth.

The whole "let the rich get richer and they'll save us all" mentality is just incorrect. People throughout history have proven time and time again that the more you give them, the more they'll take. Pure capitalism doesn't work for the same reason pure communism doesn't work. Put all the money in the hands of a few people and they'll do everything they can to ensure nobody can compete with their wealth/power

[themuzicman]

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

No, actually (recent) history tells us that if you give billions to bigwigs, they send all their execs to a "meeting" at a spa, or file bankruptcy, or otherwise abuse the money they're given. The wealthy only have an interest in generating wealth for themselves, and by extension have an interest in denying wealth to others. When they create jobs, it's because they see gain in it for themselves, and by golly they cut jobs just as easily when there's gain (or minimized loss) at stake.

Which is why tax cuts are a far better way to do it. I wouldn't advocate just giving out tax money to anyone.

	Not to mention that no matter how they spend stimulus money, they're getting taxed on it as well. Whether the money is spent by a corporation or a thousand underlings, Uncle Sam gets his cut regardless. Whether a business exec buys a jet or his entry-level employee spends it on sending little Jimmy to college, taxes are coming out.

But with tax cuts, they don't.

	Arguments like these are always defeated by the idea that somehow taxing the top 1-10% applies to any of us. The impact on all of us would be somewhere between insignificant and infinitesimal.

Um.. Businesses make their money. If they get taxed, they pass the cost onto someone else. Every time.

	If people who make a million a year have to pay an extra 50 thousand in taxes, does anybody think that's going to somehow discourage somebody who makes 50 thousand a year from striving for that million mark?

It can make the difference between success and failure. Remember, you're taxing wealth creation, not wealth already earned. So, if the $50K guy is trying to get to that million, he's going to have less to invest along the way to make it.

If anything, taxing the super-rich makes it easier for everybody else to rise to the top. Consider Wallyworld. Let's assume they're #1 in retail. They provide the lowest prices and as a result draw lots of business. Because they draw lots of business, they open lots of stores and provide lots of jobs. At the same time, every place they open a store, other locally owned businesses can't compete because they don't have the same international pool of resources to draw from.

It's called commoditization. Whenever something stops developing in significant ways, it consolidates and becomes real cheap. That's what's happened in the retail space.

	So locally owned businesses and entrepreneurs go under because they can't compete. But Wallyworld is there, offering jobs a-plenty. It's just as easy to go to work for them, even though the money isn't as good. Are they creating jobs? Sure. Are they creating wealth?

They're creating a better standard of living for their shoppers.

	Yeah, for somebody... perhaps not the thousands who work for them, but somebody at the top of the chain is getting rich(er) every time a new store opens.

And the people who shop there get lower prices, giving them more discretionary spending.

	If the government intervenes and makes it harder for Wallyworld to continue gathering local monopolies, then it becomes easier for new business owners to enter the market. By taxing the very top and making it more difficult for them to expand their power, the government creates a void that allows others to move up and fill it, rather than being crushed by trying to compete with a mammoth.

Except that we don't want more inefficient retail stores. That increases the cost of living. What we want is for people to move into space where they are innovating.

The whole "let the rich get richer and they'll save us all" mentality is just incorrect. People throughout history have proven time and time again that the more you give them, the more they'll take. Pure capitalism doesn't work for the same reason pure communism doesn't work. Put all the money in the hands of a few people and they'll do everything they can to ensure nobody can compete with their wealth/power

Obviously there has to be some regulation in capitalism. You are correct in that history bears this out. However, commoditization isn't necessarily one of those areas. Retailers were already employing people at minimum wage, so having Walmart move in just means those same minimum wage people are working for a new company. The only ones impacted are the shop owners. And that's a risk you take when you go into business. You gotta adapt, keep up or die.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Um.. Businesses make their money. If they get taxed, they pass the cost onto someone else. Every time.

In the short-term, yes. Over the long-term though, prices tend to equalize and drop to reflect the lower amounts of money being passed around.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It can make the difference between success and failure. Remember, you're taxing wealth creation, not wealth already earned. So, if the $50K guy is trying to get to that million, he's going to have less to invest along the way to make it.

No, he's going to have less to invest once he reaches that mark, assuming one million is the set breakpoint between "normal taxation" and "super-rich taxation" in this hypothetical example. All it does is slow down growth at the top. The higher one goes, the harder it becomes to go higher, but honestly, after a certain point do you really need more money? If somebody makes a million a year, they can do pretty much anything they want. They can afford to travel, buy cars, buy houses, etc. Looking at money as a utility, there's really no point having more than one needs to provide for one's own needs.

Watching millionaires bitch about taxes when people are having a hard time keeping food on the table nauseates me, to be honest.

As for wealth already earned, it gets spent, doesn't it? Unless people just put money in the bank and sit on it, that money is always moving, always being re-invested, always being used to generate more wealth. That's part of the reason why there's an ever-increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots. If food and shelter are taking up 80% of your income, that leaves 20% for entertainment and wealth generation. If food and shelter are taking up 20% then there's only so much entertainment that can go on before wealth generation makes up the rest. At some point, wealth generation becomes the entertainment, so it's doubly efficient to be rich.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's called commoditization. Whenever something stops developing in significant ways, it consolidates and becomes real cheap. That's what's happened in the retail space. They're creating a better standard of living for their shoppers. And the people who shop there get lower prices, giving them more discretionary spending.

Leaving out the fact that stores like Wal-mart heavily patronize foreign workers at a cost to domestic jobs, there's also the fact that the improved standard of living through cheap goods comes at the cost of improved standard of living through flourishing local economy. It's a self-feeding cycle:

The goods are cheap, so people shop there.
It's hard to compete, so people close shop to work there.
Wages are low when you're a cog in the machine, so you can't afford to shop any place but cheap retail stores like your grand benefactor.

People who hate centralized power in government don't seem to mind centralized power in corporations. It's easy to use retail as an example of this, but call-centers are moved to India, manufacturing centers are moved to China and Mexico, etc. Commoditization can happen in pretty much any industry under the right circumstances. Who knows, perhaps as we speak there is a tribe in central Africa being taught C++ for the cost of a few glass beads per week.

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

Obviously there has to be some regulation in capitalism. You are correct in that history bears this out. However, commoditization isn't necessarily one of those areas. Retailers were already employing people at minimum wage, so having Walmart move in just means those same minimum wage people are working for a new company. The only ones impacted are the shop owners. And that's a risk you take when you go into business. You gotta adapt, keep up or die.

Structurally speaking, it is a little different. If you have 5 local retail stores replaced by one walmart, then the 5 retailers are going to cause a more even wealth distribution. I'm gonna butcher this math/model, but here goes:

Retail store - 1 owner, 3 managers, 20 employees
Walmart - 1 store manager, 10 department managers, 100 employees

5 retail stores = 5 owners, 15 managers, 100 employees

The store manager is conceivably going to make similar to what a store owner would have made - not great money, but well enough to live comfortably. The managers in both scenarios probably make enough to pay the bills without much discretionary left over. The employees can be assumed to make enough to pay the bills if they combine incomes with a partner or roommate, etc.

The idea i'm pressing (somebody correct me if the premise is too much of a stretch) is that the benefit to the community in terms of jobs/commodity supply is roughly the same, but in the walmart situation, there's less money being pumped into the community (via 1 store manager instead of 5 owners) while there's more being piped to walmart's central operations machine. It is more efficient, and it does generate more wealth, but the wealth is all being funneled to the top. I think in the real world, we don't have trickle down-economics, we have trickle-up economics.

If we have more small businesses, then it's better for the economy, because more people are "making their fortunes" rather than having a list of 100 multi-billionaires who couldn't give a damn about the people in the communities where they invest their money. If we slash the middle class and make it all into billionaires and the drones who work for them, then (1) there's very little chance to move up - and thus incentive to try - and (2) the gap between the top and the bottom will grow wider over time, leading to reduced quality of life for all but those on top (which is already happening)

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Remember, you're taxing wealth creation, not wealth already earned.

You really need to stop referring to this point if you're not going to support it. You haven't bothered to link to any documentation...you haven't even bothered to try to explain it yourself.

[Dru]

	Originally Posted by bleitao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So if the rich pay a greater tax, this aims to level out the distribution of wealth. Correct me if im wrong, but isnt that just on par with Communism

communism is a government practice. this discussion concerns the economy. socialism =/= communism. congratulations for buying the product.

---------- Post added 11-30-2010 at 07:55 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by bleitao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because you work hard, it doesnt mean youre entitled to OTHER PEOPLES money. People who are rich work SMART as appose to simply working hard and to reiterate it isnt right for them to be penalised for doing so.

i guess that depends on which tax bracket you're from, wouldn't it?

"working smart" means employing unscrupulous tactics to gain an advantage. it means making evasion and loop-holing an art form. it means reaping not what you've sewn, but what others have sewn for you.

"working hard" means you don't have to use bait-and-switch tactics when asked tricky questions about how exactly you've earned your money, why you're so rich and your workers are so poor, why you're getting bailed out of the mess you created when you're spouting about "letting the economy fix itself", and how a 'free market (AKA capitalism)' is "fair" to those who work hard when, evidently, it's the lazy, smart people who end up getting the biggest slice of the pie. "working hard" means that you're honest about what you do.

capitalism is it's own parody.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You really need to stop referring to this point if you're not going to support it. You haven't bothered to link to any documentation...you haven't even bothered to try to explain it yourself.

Sorry, I assumed everyone knew what "INCOME TAX" meant.

Think for a moment:

Person A has $500B to start a year, and almost all of it is in gold in their personal safe at home. They don't do anything with it for the year, and live solely off the rest, and don't earn any income.

Person B has $50 to start a year, but starts a business that explodes and he earns $100K profit first year.

Who pays more in federal taxes that year?

(Hint: Taxes are based upon INCOME, i.e. wealth creation, not what you already have.)

---------- Post added 12-01-2010 at 08:09 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In the short-term, yes. Over the long-term though, prices tend to equalize and drop to reflect the lower amounts of money being passed around.

Which means that everyone loses.

No, he's going to have less to invest once he reaches that mark, assuming one million is the set breakpoint between "normal taxation" and "super-rich taxation" in this hypothetical example. All it does is slow down growth at the top. The higher one goes, the harder it becomes to go higher, but honestly, after a certain point do you really need more money? If somebody makes a million a year, they can do pretty much anything they want. They can afford to travel, buy cars, buy houses, etc. Looking at money as a utility, there's really no point having more than one needs to provide for one's own needs.

The point is that's he's going to need to earn more to reach $1M net.

	Watching millionaires bitch about taxes when people are having a hard time keeping food on the table nauseates me, to be honest.

If anyone in the US is having a hard time keeping food on the table, they need to visit their local welfare office.

As for wealth already earned, it gets spent, doesn't it? Unless people just put money in the bank and sit on it, that money is always moving, always being re-invested, always being used to generate more wealth. That's part of the reason why there's an ever-increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots. If food and shelter are taking up 80% of your income, that leaves 20% for entertainment and wealth generation. If food and shelter are taking up 20% then there's only so much entertainment that can go on before wealth generation makes up the rest. At some point, wealth generation becomes the entertainment, so it's doubly efficient to be rich.

Except that that 80% keeps a lot of people employed at much higher than minimum wage. (Auto manufacturers, boat manufacturers, lawn care, etc.)

That 20% the "have-nots" spend generally go to people who are making minimum wage.

	Leaving out the fact that stores like Wal-mart heavily patronize foreign workers at a cost to domestic jobs, there's also the fact that the improved standard of living through cheap goods comes at the cost of improved standard of living through flourishing local economy.

Since Walmart doesn't actually manufacture anything it sells, it isn't patronizing any foreign workers.

	It's a self-feeding cycle: The goods are cheap, so people shop there. It's hard to compete, so people close shop to work there. Wages are low when you're a cog in the machine, so you can't afford to shop any place but cheap retail stores like your grand benefactor.

You talk as though Walmart wipes out all competition. That's simply not the case.

	People who hate centralized power in government don't seem to mind centralized power in corporations.

I hate to rain on your parade, but Walmart doesn't wipe out all competition. Target is doing just fine, as are larger regional chains. There is no "centralized power".

	It's easy to use retail as an example of this, but call-centers are moved to India, manufacturing centers are moved to China and Mexico, etc. Commoditization can happen in pretty much any industry under the right circumstances. Who knows, perhaps as we speak there is a tribe in central Africa being taught C++ for the cost of a few glass beads per week.

I work in IT. I know how it works.

I also know the antidote.

	Structurally speaking, it is a little different. If you have 5 local retail stores replaced by one walmart, then the 5 retailers are going to cause a more even wealth distribution. I'm gonna butcher this math/model, but here goes:

if there are 5 retailers in an area that is replaced by Walmart, then they needed replacing.

	Retail store - 1 owner, 3 managers, 20 employees Walmart - 1 store manager, 10 department managers, 100 employees 5 retail stores = 5 owners, 15 managers, 100 employees The store manager is conceivably going to make similar to what a store owner would have made - not great money, but well enough to live comfortably.

You obviously haven't worked in a retail setting.

The managers in both scenarios probably make enough to pay the bills without much discretionary left over. The employees can be assumed to make enough to pay the bills if they combine incomes with a partner or roommate, etc. The idea i'm pressing (somebody correct me if the premise is too much of a stretch) is that the benefit to the community in terms of jobs/commodity supply is roughly the same, but in the walmart situation, there's less money being pumped into the community (via 1 store manager instead of 5 owners) while there's more being piped to walmart's central operations machine. It is more efficient, and it does generate more wealth, but the wealth is all being funneled to the top. I think in the real world, we don't have trickle down-economics, we have trickle-up economics.

You completely ignored all the people in the area where Walmart opens that get more discretionary income.

If we have more small businesses, then it's better for the economy, because more people are "making their fortunes" rather than having a list of 100 multi-billionaires who couldn't give a damn about the people in the communities where they invest their money. If we slash the middle class and make it all into billionaires and the drones who work for them, then (1) there's very little chance to move up - and thus incentive to try - and (2) the gap between the top and the bottom will grow wider over time, leading to reduced quality of life for all but those on top (which is already happening)

1) You'll have to demonstrate that this is the case, since the middle class isn't exactly being slashed.
2) ... since people do have the opportunity to move up.
3) ... That these circumstances and not government interference are causing "reduced quality of life."

You've assumed each without any evidence.

[Eridal]

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

Structurally speaking, it is a little different. If you have 5 local retail stores replaced by one walmart, then the 5 retailers are going to cause a more even wealth distribution. I'm gonna butcher this math/model, but here goes: Retail store - 1 owner, 3 managers, 20 employees Walmart - 1 store manager, 10 department managers, 100 employees 5 retail stores = 5 owners, 15 managers, 100 employees The store manager is conceivably going to make similar to what a store owner would have made - not great money, but well enough to live comfortably. The managers in both scenarios probably make enough to pay the bills without much discretionary left over. The employees can be assumed to make enough to pay the bills if they combine incomes with a partner or roommate, etc.

Your numbers are way off for a walmart store if you're talking about even a moderately sized supercenter which most of them are going towards.

1 Store Manager 2-4 Co-Mangers 6-10 Assistant Managers 4-6 Zone Managers 6-10 Department Mangers and 300-500 Base Employees

Store Managers vary widely based on their store but can make upwards of 300k a year

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That 20% the "have-nots" spend generally go to people who are making minimum wage.

And isn't that exactly what's supposed to happen? Give poor people a little extra money all around, and they will mutually spend each other into greater prosperity?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I hate to rain on your parade, but Walmart doesn't wipe out all competition. Target is doing just fine, as are larger regional chains. There is no "centralized power".

Er, Target and large regional chains are not what anyone is worried about. THEY are wiping out competition too.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Person B has $50 to start a year, but starts a business that explodes and he earns $100K profit first year.

This is a totally realistic scenario. I mean there are all kinds of businesses that I can start for $50 bucks. And I don't think you know what profit means or have any idea about how small businesses work. If a small business is "making profit" you are DOING IT WRONG. Pay yourself a bonus, pay your employees a bonus, advertise, re-invest in the business: all better options than being taxed on profit.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And isn't that exactly what's supposed to happen? Give poor people a little extra money all around, and they will mutually spend each other into greater prosperity?

The idea is to get people working in jobs that are higher than minimum wage. If we feed people who tend to shop where minimum wage people work, you just get more minimum wage jobs.

	Er, Target and large regional chains are not what anyone is worried about. THEY are wiping out competition too.

Thank you for supporting my point that there isn't a "corporate power center."

---------- Post added 12-01-2010 at 12:43 PM ----------

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

This is a totally realistic scenario. I mean there are all kinds of businesses that I can start for $50 bucks. And I don't think you know what profit means or have any idea about how small businesses work. If a small business is "making profit" you are DOING IT WRONG. Pay yourself a bonus, pay your employees a bonus, advertise, re-invest in the business: all better options than being taxed on profit.

Thanks for dodging the question by completely missing the point. want to try again?

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thanks for dodging the question by completely missing the point. want to try again?

The question is stupid, along with your scenario because you fail to account for the fact that the person with the $500 billion (totally realistic number too) would have already paid taxes on that amount, unless of course, it was obtained illegally. The person having 500 billion will also generate far more revenue because it is extremely likely that person will have a nice home, car, etc. etc. all of which are taxable transactions (revenue from property taxes, sales taxes etc. etc. will far outweigh an income tax of $30k on $100k profit). How can you not see that? Your scenario of a billionaire sleeping on a huge pile of cash is laughable. Want to try again?

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we feed people who tend to shop where minimum wage people work, you just get more minimum wage jobs.

Oh, right, and we wouldn't want that. Better discourage those folks in every possible way. The harder we make it for them to buy food and necessities, the more they'll realize that they should stop being poor! That will fix everything.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thank you for supporting my point that there isn't a "corporate power center."

Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Costco, Walgreens, CVS and Lowe's ARE the "corporate power center," at least in American retail. Although they compete with each other, their interests are largely the same and they can cooperate on a number of issues that benefit them--among which is under-selling mom-n-pop businesses to eliminate local competition.

[freeeekyyy]

Bob Smith thinks that people named Smith should pay more taxes.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, right, and we wouldn't want that. Better discourage those folks in every possible way. The harder we make it for them to buy food and necessities, the more they'll realize that they should stop being poor! That will fix everything.

Do I have to always point out the obvious? By contrast to what I said before, if we encourage people to do business with those who make more than minimum wage, then we encourage those jobs to be created.

Now, which jobs do you want people to have? Minimum wage, or above minimum wage?

	Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Costco, Walgreens, CVS and Lowe's ARE the "corporate power center," at least in American retail. Although they compete with each other, their interests are largely the same and they can cooperate on a number of issues that benefit them--among which is under-selling mom-n-pop businesses to eliminate local competition.

Um... That's called Collusion... it's illegal.

[thref23]

I used to be in favor of a flat tax rate. I strongly do not believe that anybody should be punished or given additional responsibilities just because they have more money. Even if they did not make the money, chances are somebody made it for them and has/had their right to do so.

But, I have realized two things. First, it takes money to make money. Therefore, taking opportunity into account (and America is all about opportunity), in a sense the person with $10 million in his bank account has a bit more that 200 times the money than the person with $50k in his account.

Second, the person who got rich (whether he got rich or his parents did or whatever), got rich, likely benefitted or intends to benefit from living in America (and for all the flak America gets re: the gap between rich and poor, even in poor communities there are still more rags to riches stories here than you will find in a majority of whole countries). After they have made their fortune, I don't see anything too wrong with tapping them on the shoulder, and saying "hey, we expect you to give back a little bit to the country that helped make what you did."

Then you have trickle down philosophies and arguments like "make the taxes higher and rich folk will find ways to evade them" - I don't buy the latter argument people with either evade or not evade taxes a small percentage increase will affect that minimally IMO. I think there is some validity in the trickle-down theory but it is lazy and pointless to just assume that money will trickle down from the rich to those who need it or should otherwise have it. I am in favor of instituting programs that allow for rich folk (and others, possibly) to petition (on an individual basis) for tax breaks or exclusions as a result of high investments made towards random exceptionally charitable and/or economically supportive initiatives.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do I have to always point out the obvious? By contrast to what I said before, if we encourage people to do business with those who make more than minimum wage, then we encourage those jobs to be created.

You and I are talking past each other, and I wish I could figure out what's going wrong.

What do you mean by "encourage"? When you say "we [should] encourage people to do business with those who make more than minimum wage," what do you mean by that?

I can think of some possibilities.

--Groups of concerned citizens should get together and pay for advertising which encourages people to buy goods made by American citizens on American soil at living wages?

--Poor people should be told to buy things from high-end retailers, even if they can't quite afford it, because this will cause those retailers to hire more people, and theoretically the poor customers might be able to get those jobs? (And then if they do, they can pay off their credit cards?)

--We should make sure rich people get even more money, because then they'll buy more expensive things, and whoever is making and selling those things will hire more people? And poor people will theoretically be able to step up and take those jobs?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Um... That's called Collusion... it's illegal.

Hey, if there are separate lobbyists all offering campaign contributions in return for the same KINDS of legislation, and they're not dumb enough to go out and have drinks together after work, how can you prove collusion? It's just market forces!

[thref23]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, investments are only a good idea if there's something to invest in.

There is always something to invest in, there just aren't always many people who care to or are otherwise able to, recognize what it is.

[Arcanist]

There's a walmart in my crappy little town. There are also two locally owned hardware stores, and both those stores do a lot of business. Walmart doesn't carry every product or brand imaginable and most of their stuff is low quality junk anyway. Carry different brands or better quality stuff.

[themuzicman]

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

You and I are talking past each other, and I wish I could figure out what's going wrong. What do you mean by "encourage"? When you say "we [should] encourage people to do business with those who make more than minimum wage," what do you mean by that? I can think of some possibilities. --Groups of concerned citizens should get together and pay for advertising which encourages people to buy goods made by American citizens on American soil at living wages? --Poor people should be told to buy things from high-end retailers, even if they can't quite afford it, because this will cause those retailers to hire more people, and theoretically the poor customers might be able to get those jobs? (And then if they do, they can pay off their credit cards?) --We should make sure rich people get even more money, because then they'll buy more expensive things, and whoever is making and selling those things will hire more people? And poor people will theoretically be able to step up and take those jobs?

Or let the rich keep more of what they earn, so they do what comes naturally to them an use the services of those who make more than minimum wage?

	Hey, if there are separate lobbyists all offering campaign contributions in return for the same KINDS of legislation, and they're not dumb enough to go out and have drinks together after work, how can you prove collusion? It's just market forces!

Doesn't quite work that way with large corporations.

[Fishism]

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

This is a totally realistic scenario. I mean there are all kinds of businesses that I can start for $50 bucks. And I don't think you know what profit means or have any idea about how small businesses work. If a small business is "making profit" you are DOING IT WRONG. Pay yourself a bonus, pay your employees a bonus, advertise, re-invest in the business: all better options than being taxed on profit.

As a small business owner who has, believe it or not, successfully created wealth WHILE paying taxes, I can tell you that to grow a small business, it MUST show taxable profit, if, by some chance, you're looking for financial assistance to grow said business. Either that, or you use personal equity to put up as collateral for this business, which was probably grown through those "pay yourself a bonus" moves which, guess what, you had to pay taxes on.

Maybe it's different for me here in Canada, but I cannot escape the tax man. He'll tax the profits of my business, the salary I will take out of my business (both salary/dividends at different rates), and of course the other wonderful sales taxes and property taxes.

The best I can do is tax plan properly, which involves income splitting between all applicable taxable entitites to try to stay in the lowest tax brackets. This is called "tax avoidance" which is legal and is what the "rich people" hire lawers and accountants to do ("trickle lateral economics" anyone?). "Tax evasion", however, is illegal.

Bottom line, nobody likes to pay taxes and for those of us who willingly accept this as a necessary responsibility, it's not the fact that we pay taxes that troubles us. It's how the revenue we provide to our government is managed that drives us crazy. Not only is the income gap a problem, but so is the gap between equivalent private and public sector jobs. Government creates labour laws that they themselves dont' follow.

It makes us "tax avoiders" think heavily about "tax evading".

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Fishism To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Maybe it's different for me here in Canada

It is. Obviously. And of course salary is subject to income tax, no one ever said that it isn't. MM was talking about corporate profit which has a specific (low) and different rate than personal income tax. A small business that shows a profit here needs a better accountant.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sorry, I assumed everyone knew what "INCOME TAX" meant.

Yeah...that's not what you need to explain. You keep referring to the idea that we shouldn't "tax wealth creation" without explaining how supply-side economics makes more sense than demand-side. I already explained why you're wrong, but you didn't rebutt. You just kept making the same assertion over and over again.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(Hint: Taxes are based upon INCOME, i.e. wealth creation, not what you already have.)

There are more taxes than just the income tax. So, what you mean is that income tax is based on income. Also, I get that you have a simple-minded approach to economics, but even you must be able to understand that there's a difference between wealth and money. So, when you claim something is "wealth creation" do you mean that someone has more cash-ola than they did before or do you mean that it generally increases the amount of wealth in the world?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I hate to rain on your parade, but Walmart doesn't wipe out all competition. Target is doing just fine, as are larger regional chains. There is no "centralized power".

It's a centralization of size. Large retailers don't have the same political interests as small retailers. When there's a wide variety of business sizes they tend to fight each other over lobbying interests. When there's a small variety of sizes they tend to see eye-to-eye. So, when there are a lot of big retailers, they form one voice that drowns out smaller retailers, twisting the law in their favor.

That's why diversity is good.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	if there are 5 retailers in an area that is replaced by Walmart, then they needed replacing.

But, as a champion of the free market, shouldn't you advocate for MORE competition rather than less? Arguing that everything should be consolidated into a single entity sounds an awful lot like centralized planning.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You completely ignored all the people in the area where Walmart opens that get more discretionary income.

I think the point was that replacing a half dozen stores with one store means that the town employs fewer people. So, the people in the town can get goods for less money, but that money leaves the town for good since it's not going to people inside the town. In effect, the town now has a trade imbalance because more money is leaving the town than being brought into the town. Or something to that effect.

I don't feel too bad about that particular effect. I lean towards the idea that no one has the right to pick a place to live, and then demand that someone abracadabra a job into that place that will pay them what they want to make. You follow the jobs, not the other way around. If your town dies, oh well, move to another town. It's kind of silly to have a great highway system if no one uses it.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1) You'll have to demonstrate that this is the case, since the middle class isn't exactly being slashed. 2) ... since people do have the opportunity to move up. 3) ... That these circumstances and not government interference are causing "reduced quality of life."

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

"6. According to Harvard Magazine, 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans
9. Only the top 5% of households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975
11. In 1950, the ratio of the average executive’s paycheck to the average worker’s paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one
18. An analysis of income tax data by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of US households own nearly twice as much of America’s corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago
23. Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the US rose a whopping 16% to 7.8 million in 2009"

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The idea is to get people working in jobs that are higher than minimum wage. If we feed people who tend to shop where minimum wage people work, you just get more minimum wage jobs.

That's not the idea. Some jobs just aren't worth more than the minimum wage. The idea, actually, is to improve the American worker to the point where they're worth so much that companies come looking for them. Education and training, you know, instead of steadily sliding down the rankings until we have the literacy rate of a 3rd world nation.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thanks for dodging the question by completely missing the point. want to try again?

LOL...what was that pot? Something about a darkish appearance?

	Originally Posted by thref23 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is always something to invest in, there just aren't always many people who care to or are otherwise able to, recognize what it is.

No, there isn't always ENOUGH to invest in. When the majority of the money is owned by people who don't do any real work, but rather expect to make all their money through investments, you end up with too much liquid trying to fit into too small a balloon. The balloon can expand, but eventually it will pop. That's where bubbles come from.

The existence of a bubble is, all by itself, pretty good evidence that there aren't enough investment opportunities. We have a lot of very smart people spending all their time and money hunting for investments for the wealthy to take advantage of. Since they all end up recommending the same small pool of investments, it means there's just nothing else.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Or let the rich keep more of what they earn, so they do what comes naturally to them an use the services of those who make more than minimum wage?

Wow. That's not even the beginning of an explanation.

[mormeguil]

As a small business owner who has, believe it or not, successfully created wealth WHILE paying taxes, I can tell you that to grow a small business, it MUST show taxable profit, if, by some chance, you're looking for financial assistance to grow said business. Either that, or you use personal equity to put up as collateral for this business, which was probably grown through those "pay yourself a bonus" moves which, guess what, you had to pay taxes on.

It depends a lot about the form of business you have. Normally, you could manage to spend a few years not making any profit in Canada, but after a while profit will have to appear and be taxed.

On the other hand Canada as a much much smaller gap between the rich and the poor and a much better social and economical mobility.