|
On September 20 2011 04:16 BlackJack wrote:I agree it's most practical to take the money of the people that have the most money if you're trying to raise revenue, but that doesn't make it not "punishing" the rich. Leave the spin to the Washington politicians  Also your scenario ignores the alternate way of balancing the budget which is to cut spending.
The whole problem of the "higher taxes for the wealthy = punishing the rich" argument is that it works under the assumption that the rich deserve all their wealth and the astronomical gap in comparision to the average american in the first place.
I think it's pretty obvious that the wealth accumulation at the top of your society doesn't just stem from hard work, superior skills and individual effort alone, but is heavily facilitated by flaws in the overall fairness/justice of the system.
You really can't call it punishing if you take into consideration that the gap between rich/poor in your country resembles third world countries exactly because the rich are favored in the first place - taking away the favoritism isn't punishement but rather re-establishment of fairness. Calling it 'punishement' is the actual spin of the situation 
|
Two things
Firstly, You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Giving really poor people who don't do jack money seems immoral, but the fact is that they're guaranteed to inject that money right back into our economy almost immediately because they're spending it on things they need. It also means that they CAN lift themselves out of poverty if they try. Morality aside, it is good economics.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true.
It is difficult for the poor to become rich. It is easy for the rich to become richer.
|
On September 20 2011 07:23 KiaL.Kiwi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:16 BlackJack wrote:I agree it's most practical to take the money of the people that have the most money if you're trying to raise revenue, but that doesn't make it not "punishing" the rich. Leave the spin to the Washington politicians Also your scenario ignores the alternate way of balancing the budget which is to cut spending. The whole problem of the "higher taxes for the wealthy = punishing the rich" argument is that it works under the assumption that the rich deserve all their wealth and the astronomical gap in comparision to the average american in the first place. I think it's pretty obvious that the wealth accumulation at the top of your society doesn't just stem from hard work, superior skills and individual effort alone, but is heavily facilitated by flaws in the overall fairness/justice of the system. You really can't call it punishing if you take into consideration that the gap between rich/poor in your country resembles third world countries exactly because the rich are favored in the first place - taking away the favoritism isn't punishement but rather re-establishment of fairness. Calling it 'punishement' is the actual spin of the situation
You are not the person to judge that. Neither is the very government that obviously supports its own system! Not to mention that you could make the same case for any poor person who is working the system. By the way, there are a TON more poor people working the system than their are rich people working the system. But aside from my personal opinion, you can't deny the fact that you can't impose higher taxes on an entire group of people based on your ASSUMPTION that some of their income-peers got to where they are by exploiting the system.
In fact, the more I'm thinking about your post, the more I disagree with it in another way. Even if they did "exploit" the system, that's not a crime. If you're right about there being flaws in overall fairness/justice in our system, then we should change the system. Not punish people for utilizing how it works.
|
On September 20 2011 07:23 KiaL.Kiwi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:16 BlackJack wrote:I agree it's most practical to take the money of the people that have the most money if you're trying to raise revenue, but that doesn't make it not "punishing" the rich. Leave the spin to the Washington politicians Also your scenario ignores the alternate way of balancing the budget which is to cut spending. The whole problem of the "higher taxes for the wealthy = punishing the rich" argument is that it works under the assumption that the rich deserve all their wealth and the astronomical gap in comparision to the average american in the first place. I think it's pretty obvious that the wealth accumulation at the top of your society doesn't just stem from hard work, superior skills and individual effort alone, but is heavily facilitated by flaws in the overall fairness/justice of the system. You really can't call it punishing if you take into consideration that the gap between rich/poor in your country resembles third world countries exactly because the rich are favored in the first place - taking away the favoritism isn't punishement but rather re-establishment of fairness. Calling it 'punishement' is the actual spin of the situation
I'm honestly interested in finding out what the ratio of people who fairly gained their wealth in comparison to the people who lied and cheated their way. Of course, this is probably impossible to find out.
I think that 'leveling the playing field' isn't the government's duty- but they should go out for people who abused their way to wealth and go out closing loopholes and potential exploits.
Though I think replacing the income tax with the FairTax could have some effective results on our GINI, if that's what you're interested in. I'm surprised it's only really endorsed by conservatives, despite it being potentially even more progressive than the income tax.
|
On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true.
Two other things:
Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on.
The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent.
Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke?
|
On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke?
Problem is investors and wall street don't make anything. They contribute nothing to society aside from using the system itself to make money from money. They don't produce goods or anything of the like. You could argue they invest money that drives business but that is simply because of their abuse of the system we have.
Investment banking is slimier than just about any other profession out there.
|
I'll ignore the first part of your post since you don't seem to get what I am talking about. I'm not talking about tax evasion or similar white collar crimes alone, but about structural favoritism of the rich people in your system. They don't necessarily need to abuse/work/exploit it in any way to be favored.
In fact, the more I'm thinking about your post, the more I disagree with it in another way. Even if they did "exploit" the system, that's not a crime. If you're right about there being flaws in overall fairness/justice in our system, then we should change the system. Not punish people for utilizing how it works.
So you actually agree with raising the taxes if they were ridicously low (and thereby unfair) in the first place? Take the examples of the original post:
Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.
Raising those taxes to a realistic level is exactly what you describe as changing the flaws of the system. And it's at the same time exactly what is demonized as "punishing the rich".
|
On September 20 2011 07:42 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke? Problem is investors and wall street don't make anything. They contribute nothing to society aside from using the system itself to make money from money. They don't produce goods or anything of the like. You could argue they invest money that drives business but that is simply because of their abuse of the system we have. Investment banking is slimier than just about any other profession out there.
I don't get it, you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph? How do you think small business thrive?
|
On September 20 2011 07:45 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 07:42 Sadist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke? Problem is investors and wall street don't make anything. They contribute nothing to society aside from using the system itself to make money from money. They don't produce goods or anything of the like. You could argue they invest money that drives business but that is simply because of their abuse of the system we have. Investment banking is slimier than just about any other profession out there. I don't get it, you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph? How do you think small business thrive?
They abuse the system we have. Bankers should not be making more than doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. Its disgusting. They don't make anything. Do they deserve $50 million for managing a 2 billion dollar account? Absofuckinglutely no.
|
On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke?
Moral weight? Who cares about morality? What matters is whether the economic system actually friggin' works or not. And to that I say yes, you need incentives and people making more money than others. I'm not suggesting socialism or communism.
No, banks and investments are all borrowing and borrowing. Services and Goods are what actually grow an economy. Yes all money is used, but the question is how efficiently and how quickly it is used. Poorer people will spend the money on things they need immediately. If they have a business, that is money they can immediately use for their business, as opposed to billionaires, who have to give it to people who give it to people to use for their business. Banks and finance are incredibly important for the economy, but it is obviously not as efficient as giving people who need money money.
Do you disagree with my second point or are you just arguing for the sake of it? Are you actually suggesting it's just as hard to go from 1 million to 2 million than going from 0 to 1 million? Or less extreme, going from $30k -> $130k and going $400k -> $500k?
|
Canada11265 Posts
On September 20 2011 06:28 R3demption wrote:
Who would be up for cutting spending on our leaders and politicians? They are supposed to be civil servants... Our founding fathers founded and worked for the country on their own dime.
Well I don't know what wages your politicians are paid, but I'm sure you could cut it back a bit. As for cutting back entirely, well that essentially limits your politicians to the independently wealthy. Which is essentially what the original Canadian democracy was for- the landed class, renters couldn't vote. But I still like the idea that a non-millionaire could become a politician. It's a little harder in your two party system, but I know our parties can pull from a wider backgrounds including ex-union rep's which allows a greater variety of opinions. In the grand scheme of things, it's not going to touch the debt, but if you're cutting everywhere else, why not. Wages for politicians need to be high enough to attract qualified/ competent individuals and make it worth their while, but low enough that people don't aim for it just for the money.
As for the whole tax vs cutbacks. Quite honestly, it's probably will be both. It makes no sense to say that we should only stick to spending cuts when the deficit budgets are as high as they are. There's just too much to cut. And the military really needs to be cut. Usually the choice is between guns or butter, but Reagan chose both and drove the country into deficit spending. I'm not sure if the US has ever properly switched out of a war time economy since world war 2. There will probably be a depression as factories need to switch to domestic good, but the military is such a large drain in the economy that doesn't particularly help the consumer markets. But it's a switch that needs to happen.
And I completely agree with Haem. Progressive taxes has absolutely nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with taxing where the money is. Practicality not a misplaced sense of fairness.
|
On September 20 2011 07:44 KiaL.Kiwi wrote:I'll ignore the first part of your post since you don't seem to get what I am talking about. I'm not talking about tax evasion or similar white collar crimes alone, but about structural favoritism of the rich people in your system. They don't need to abuse/work/exploit it in any way to be favored. Show nested quote +
In fact, the more I'm thinking about your post, the more I disagree with it in another way. Even if they did "exploit" the system, that's not a crime. If you're right about there being flaws in overall fairness/justice in our system, then we should change the system. Not punish people for utilizing how it works.
So you actually agree with raising the taxes if they were ridicously low (and thereby unfair) in the first place? Take the examples of the original post: Show nested quote +Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Raising those taxes to a realistic level is exactly what you describe as changing the flaws of the system. And it's at the same time exactly what is demonized as "punishing the rich".
What do you mean raising taxes if they were ridiculously low? What taxes are you talking about?
But the point in me saying that wasn't that I believe the system is broken. It was pointing out that you should fix the system, rather than punish people who simply play the game. IE, I don't get angry at people for using marines... I get angry at blizzard for making them so good.
And I'm all for simplifying the tax code so that BS like you just mentioned doesn't happen. Though, if I'm being honest... I have no problem with a billionaire paying 15% income tax. I still have never heard a coherent argument as to why somebody should pay a higher PERCENTAGE of their money to government just because they make more. And when I say a coherent argument, I mean one that doesn't assume that any significant portion of the "rich" are greedy, slimy, criminals. They're not. No more than any other asshole in this world.
|
What I don't understand is how people who earn (or at least get) more than ~4000-5000€ per month (after tax) could even want any more money.
I have a plus of about 150€ per month (after paying for appartment etc), and I don't feel poor.
I wouldn't even know what to do with my money if I had 3k left after paying for everything important. Buying a house and a car. And then? A Money Bin?
If you make 5000€ per month, does 1000€ more really make you happier?
(I am aware that that obviously isn't super rich yet, but why would anyone need/want more money ever?)
|
On September 20 2011 08:00 Dyme wrote:
What I don't understand is how people who earn (or at least get) more than ~4000-5000€ per month (after tax) could even want any more money.
I have a plus of about 150€ per month (after paying for appartment etc), and I don't feel poor.
I wouldn't even know what to do with my money if I had 3k left after paying for everything important. Buying a house and a car. And then? A Money Bin?
If you make 5000€ per month, does 1000€ more really make you happier?
(I am aware that that obviously isn't super rich yet, but why would anyone need/want more money ever?)
Having lots of money means you can donate it to the things you love. You can support artists, churches, politicians, and perform amazing acts of charity. In America, we don't have a lot of government support for the arts, for instance, and almost all artistic organizations are held up by generous benefactors.
There are plenty of good reasons to want lots of money.
|
On September 20 2011 07:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke? Moral weight? Who cares about morality? What matters is whether the economic system actually friggin' works or not. And to that I say yes, you need incentives and people making more money than others. I'm not suggesting socialism or communism. No, banks and investments are all borrowing and borrowing. Services and Goods are what actually grow an economy. Yes all money is used, but the question is how efficiently and how quickly it is used. Poorer people will spend the money on things they need immediately. If they have a business, that is money they can immediately use for their business, as opposed to billionaires, who have to give it to people who give it to people to use for their business. Banks and finance are incredibly important for the economy, but it is obviously not as efficient as giving people who need money money. Do you disagree with my second point or are you just arguing for the sake of it? Are you actually suggesting it's just as hard to go from 1 million to 2 million than going from 0 to 1 million? Or less extreme, going from $30k -> $130k and going $400k -> $500k?
I care about morality. I care about real justice. Not the kind of justice that usually gets thrown around. I care about people keeping what they earn, and earning what they make. And do you honestly think that stealing money from the rich will fix anything? or help the system friggin' work? It would be a bandaid at best. What we need to do is stop spending so much.
You're ridiculously wrong about what grows an economy. You're right in the sense that giving it to a poor person is going to inject it into the street level of the economy pretty much instantly, but that doesn't mean it's the most efficient. You have to feed the upper portions of the economy as well. You're basically describing a stimulant. Let's take money away from the future (in this example, a rich person putting money in the bank so that it can become a mortgage for any number of new pieces of infrastructure) to help stimulate economy RIGHT NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. You have no reason to believe that either one is more efficient or important than the other in the grand scheme of things.
And I disagree with your general implication that money just simply makes money on its own. Yeah, you have larger gains when you start off with more money... but you also have more to lose. No? It's the same exact thing as a no limit hold'em game. You can win more pots by having a bigger stack, but you can also lose a lot more. right?
|
Canada11265 Posts
How about Haem's argument? It had nothing to do with character flaws or fairness. Simple hard cold facts. Where is the money.
If we assume that we need a government (statist) and the government costs money, then we need some sort of tax (tariffs, income, sale's tax, etc). Tariffs tax import/export. Sale's tax, across the board and income tax taxes any sort of income made for the year. Now if you raise income tax across the board, the lowest class simply can't afford it. Not, oh dear, I can't buy that hummer I always wanted, but I was making rent and now I can't. Plus if you raise tax on the poor you don't get very much (see Haem's post.) A couple cents, wheee! You raise it a little bit for the rich, you suddenly get a lot and it really doesn't effect the riches standard of living nor 'punish' them in any way.
They still make an insane amount of money. They still own 3 yachts, 8 houses, and however many cars, a helicopter, an island, a I don't know... etc, etc. We're not creating a communist society here where you can only make x amount and no more. You make an insane amount of money, you keep an insane amount of money, you just get taxed at a higher tax bracket (all the money made in excess of it.)
Edit:
Wait, stealing money from the rich? Are you an Austrian Economics or Anarcho-capitalist guy, because that brings into another ball game entirely in which we have very little common ground.
Furthermore, I'm not sure you are for justice so much as maintaining status quo. Because all things being equal, the status quo tends amass wealth and power for a couple people and leave almost everyone else oppressed or indebt. Justice to me isn't a matter of fairness, but insuring that the wealthy and powerful elites are unable to abuse their power and disenfranchise the working class. Because if we're arguing if you accumulated those toys (money, we could include power), then you get to use those toys, both money and power. Well they gained the power, so it would be unfair to reign them in because they deserve it (worked hard, etc). Because unless they're philanthropists, that seems to be the end result of unregulated capitalism. Which is why even Adam Smith argued that the state had a role to play to protect the people from corporations amassing too much power.
|
On September 20 2011 07:47 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 07:45 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:42 Sadist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke? Problem is investors and wall street don't make anything. They contribute nothing to society aside from using the system itself to make money from money. They don't produce goods or anything of the like. You could argue they invest money that drives business but that is simply because of their abuse of the system we have. Investment banking is slimier than just about any other profession out there. I don't get it, you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph? How do you think small business thrive? They abuse the system we have. Bankers should not be making more than doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. Its disgusting. They don't make anything. Do they deserve $50 million for managing a 2 billion dollar account? Absofuckinglutely no.
HEY BUDDY GUESS WHAT THE WORLD BLOWS.
They're not doing anything wrong just because they want to make money. Not to mention how ignorant you are in regard to what banks/bankers and investments/investors contribute to society. Sure, a doctor may save hundreds of lives in their lifetime, but you have absolutely no fucking clue how many lives an increased standard of living can save. And are you really going to try and decode what causes the US to have such a ridiculously high standard of living and likewise a low poverty rate? REALLY? YOU?? Yeah... let's just give YOU total control. You can distribute the money however you think is "fair" and we'll see how things go... moron.
|
On September 20 2011 08:04 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 07:49 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 07:39 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 07:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Two things
You really only need a certain amount of money to live on. Therefore there should always be a generally progressive tax system, simply because the poorer you are, the more you need your money. That's just the way livelihood works. Billionaires don't spend all their money. They invest it. They donate it. They obviously cannot spend all that money on themselves. The middle class are the ones contributing the most directly into our economy, so it's important to alleviate them of taxes the most, especially during a recession.
Secondly, the way capitalism works is that it's FAR easier to make money if you have money. That's what investing is all about. With enough capital you can seriously influence the market and make a ton of money out of your money. The idea that the rich earn exactly what they get implies that it is just as easy to make 2 million from 1 million as it is from 0 to 1 million, and that's just not true. Two other things: Your first point is just a disguised version of the "they can afford it" argument, which holds no moral weight whatsoever. That's all entirely relative. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that everybody should constantly send their money to impoverished people until they have just enough to live on. The second half of your first point: Every dollar contributes to our society in one way or another. Unless you have a big fat white guy with a monocle sitting on a pile of dollars, smoking a cigar with Scrooge McDuck. If it's in the bank, it's being used. Where do you think you get money for your mortgage? Other people's money in the bank. No dollar goes unspent. Your second point: unless your investing in bonds or some super safe portfolio, you can lose everything as easily as you can double your money. Also, it's not in the slightest bit easy to have your money "make money" for you. Why do you think so many lottery winners die broke? Moral weight? Who cares about morality? What matters is whether the economic system actually friggin' works or not. And to that I say yes, you need incentives and people making more money than others. I'm not suggesting socialism or communism. No, banks and investments are all borrowing and borrowing. Services and Goods are what actually grow an economy. Yes all money is used, but the question is how efficiently and how quickly it is used. Poorer people will spend the money on things they need immediately. If they have a business, that is money they can immediately use for their business, as opposed to billionaires, who have to give it to people who give it to people to use for their business. Banks and finance are incredibly important for the economy, but it is obviously not as efficient as giving people who need money money. Do you disagree with my second point or are you just arguing for the sake of it? Are you actually suggesting it's just as hard to go from 1 million to 2 million than going from 0 to 1 million? Or less extreme, going from $30k -> $130k and going $400k -> $500k? I care about morality. I care about real justice. Not the kind of justice that usually gets thrown around. I care about people keeping what they earn, and earning what they make. And do you honestly think that stealing money from the rich will fix anything? or help the system friggin' work? It would be a bandaid at best. What we need to do is stop spending so much. You're ridiculously wrong about what grows an economy. You're right in the sense that giving it to a poor person is going to inject it into the street level of the economy pretty much instantly, but that doesn't mean it's the most efficient. You have to feed the upper portions of the economy as well. You're basically describing a stimulant. Let's take money away from the future (in this example, a rich person putting money in the bank so that it can become a mortgage for any number of new pieces of infrastructure) to help stimulate economy RIGHT NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. You have no reason to believe that either one is more efficient or important than the other in the grand scheme of things. And I disagree with your general implication that money just simply makes money on its own. Yeah, you have larger gains when you start off with more money... but you also have more to lose. No? It's the same exact thing as a no limit hold'em game. You can win more pots by having a bigger stack, but you can also lose a lot more. right?
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
And no, I'm not suggesting taking everything rich people earn. Not because of morality, but because it's not good economics.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the full extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree?
|
Warren Buffet, the most quoted businessman by Obama.
I mean cmon ... just get one rich guy that goes, "Yeah, Take my money!" and you become an instant celebrity. He's a big liberal and supports the administration's policies. He's wrong about how badly a tax on the rich works out for the country.
|
Are you at all reading what I'm posting.
On September 20 2011 07:55 Holophonist wrote:
But the point in me saying that wasn't that I believe the system is broken. It was pointing out that you should fix the system, rather than punish people who simply play the game. IE, I don't get angry at people for using marines... I get angry at blizzard for making them so good.
Exactly. Billionaires paying the same percentage of taxes on a huge part of their income as someone who makes 20.000$ bucks a year is a problem of the system. No one who's reasonable just expects the government to take away the money of the rich and directly transfer it to the to the average american - but it's expected that the flaws in the system that allow indiviuals to accumulate astronomically high wealth while the living standards of the rest of your country are decreasing or stagnating at best get fixed. (and those flaws aren't constricted to taxes alone - but they make good examples because the imbalance is very apparent and easy to quantify)
And when I say a coherent argument, I mean one that doesn't assume that any significant portion of the "rich" are greedy, slimy, criminals. They're not. No more than any other asshole in this world.
There have been tons of arguments in this thread (and the economy thread, and the republican nomination thread, and basically any other thread on politics) that fullfill your criteria. If you want to ignore them that's your choice, but don't expect people to list them again and again and again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
