how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to Mr Matt
Re: The Two Percenters are at it again. the title of this thread is the best...."OMG THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN, THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR MONEY!! OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!"  | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by jfd15:the title of this thread is the best...."OMG THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN, THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR MONEY!! OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!" I think the full sentence is: "Keep their money, instead of paying a greater share of the cost of the society that enabled them to make so much money."
"Enable" through things like the SEC, FDIC, CFTC, social-creation of corporate entities (legal yet fictional "persons" who stand as the fall guy for officers and investors, reducing their personal liability for losses). "Enabled" by society negotiating free-trade agreements which benefit financial and commercial markets (the result of which harms the average American laborer who can't compete with offshore labor). "Enabled" that way, while society doing nothing to defend American workers against China's currency manipulation (to promote its exports).
And, "greater share of the cost of society" relative to the growing disparity of benefit from society. The growing disparity of opportunity to quadruple incomes in 30 years (as the top 1/100th of society did).
I.e., the maintenance of this society benefits some more than others. We're not talking about "some" like 50% do better than the other 50%. It's more like 1% do better than the other 99%. And, "better" isn't just marginally better. We're talking about doubling or quadrupling incomes during a time when the average income earner saw their incomes remain relatively flat.
I don't know anyone who wants to make everyone have exactly the same thing. But, everyone paying the same percentage of tax isn't the answer either.
We validate that with our tiered (progressive) rates. Even so-called flat-taxers validate this principle when they propose two rates: 0% for everyone up to $16k, and a flat rate for everyone else.
So, it's a valid question.
1. How many tiers there should be? One abrupt tier between two tiers. Or, more gradual tiers in recognition of more gradual levels of earnings. More gradual definitions of what is "essential" to the American Dream.
2. What the top tier should be? How much of a $40 million annual income should be used to help pay for the society that made such opportunities possible? How should that be balanced with income-averaging techniques (distributing inordinate incomes over 5 years so that only the consistent, $40-million earners are recognized)? I don't dispute the wealthiest 1% want to keep their money. That's why they lobbied hard for reduced top income rates, and taxing capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary (labor-generated) income.
I don't even fault them. But, likewise, I don't fault the average American asking if that demographic is shouldering the appropriate portion of cost of this society.
I don't fault people for asking if reduced income and capital-gains taxes on the wealthy produced what we were sold in order to get us to approve those reductions.
IMO, it hasn't. It's only resulted in the wealthiest Americans benefiting from our society at a much faster, disproportionate rate than the average American. There's no evidence "letting them keep more of their money" led to increased GDP growth as a result of their capital investments.
I think this will become a much starker point when the post-crash data comes in. But, so far, it looks like the wealthiest 10% of the population benefited vastly more from the economic bailout than the average American:
quote:
So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)
-- »sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri···lth.html
| |
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | then why don't you follow your convictions and emigrate to Cuba or Venezuela?....btw, i wonder the same of Michael Moore, extolling the virtues of Cuban healthcare but you know he won't be going to Havana when he has his inevitable heart attack...
the old saying is truthful: "when the gov't steals from Peter to "redistribute" to Paul, don't expect Paul to complain"....in your case not only do you not complain, you will come up with a million reasons to justify that the gov't steals from Peter to pay you.... | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by jfd15:then why don't you follow your convictions and emigrate to Cuba or Venezuela? That's just a veiled reference to "socialism" as an absolute concept.
But, as already mentioned, we engage in socialism all the time. Building codes, zoning laws, food- and drug-quality laws. Social creation of "corporate entities," the SEC and FDIC.
These things all alter what otherwise "willing buyers and sellers" would negotiate amongst themselves in a "free market." These things create winners and losers that wouldn't exist if left to "willing buyers and sellers."
Our success is largely dependent upon how society regulates markets. For example, society leveling the playing field for commercial and financial markets through "free trade agreements." And then doing nothing to protect American workers against China's currency manipulation (which decimates domestic manufacturing).
Discussing these things, and assessing who is benefiting the most from society's intervention in markets is no more "socialist" than you using government to dictate that your neighbor can't convert her home into a late-night biker bar.
It's no more "socialist" than when the wealthiest Americans insisted that being taxed less would lead to expanded economic benefit for all. Instead, an era of deregulation and lower taxes contributed to an economic meltdown, and the wealthiest Americans benefiting the most from social bailout of the financial markets.
said by jfd15:....btw, i wonder the same of Michael Moore, extolling the virtues of Cuban healthcare but you know he won't be going to Havana when he has his inevitable heart attack... That's always the difficult question. "Best for who."
The medical field is highly socialized, giving the AMA a monopoly over setting standards and limiting the number of entrants into the field (controlling "supply and demand").
It's not remarkable to use such a monopoly to set standards higher than a "free market" would create if left to "willing buyers and sellers." And then say "it's the best for those who can afford it."
The problem is, it's not the "best" for those who can't afford it, and whose access to lessor-quality, more-affordable choices is criminalized.
So, which is best? Socially-created expensive heart bypass surgeries? Or low-quality, yet widely-available treatment for eye infections, influenza, tumors, etc?
Like everything in a society, which is best depends on who benefits. If you're the poor worker without health insurance (who may be fired for missing work), affordable access to diagnose and treat an eye infection may make a huge difference in the quality of your life. The ability to keep your job.
If you're wealthy and need heart-bypass surgery, socially-manipulated quality controls (to set the standards higher than a "free market" would) will benefit you the most. Perhaps adding years to your life.
That's just another example of how "the rules" created by society benefit some more than others. How it's not the "free market" of self-made people that you selectively argue.
said by jfd15:the old saying is truthful: "when the gov't steals from Peter to "redistribute" to Paul, don't expect Paul to complain"....in your case not only do you not complain, you will come up with a million reasons to justify that the gov't steals from Peter to pay you.... The problem with your argument is that you never address how you're using government to limit your neighbor's enjoyment of her property in a way that improves the interest you have in your own property.
In a truly "free market" (without socializing the market), you would have to buy as much property as necessary to protect you from your neighbor's enjoyment of her property. A buffer, at your expense, for your enjoyment of your own property.
Instead, you use government (through zoning laws) to prohibit your neighbor's activities that are at odds with your interest in your own property. Things like converting her home into a late-night biker bar.
Why? Because it's cheaper to use government to force your neighbor to use her property in the interest of your property than it is for you to buy enough property to protect your own interests.
You can't process that. So, you just keep calling everyone else a "socialist." It makes the world simpler. It's easier to explain complex topics as "us versus them." | |
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | said by amigo_boy:The problem with your argument is that you never address how you're using government to limit your neighbor's enjoyment of her property in a way that improves the interest you have in your own property. In a truly "free market" (without socializing the market), you would have to buy as much property as necessary to protect you from your neighbor's enjoyment of her property. A buffer, at your expense, for your enjoyment of your own property. Instead, you use government (through zoning laws) to prohibit your neighbor's activities that are at odds with your interest in your own property. Things like converting her home into a late-night biker bar. Why? Because it's cheaper to use government to force your neighbor to use her property in the interest of your property than it is for you to buy enough property to protect your own interests. You can't process that. So, you just keep calling everyone else a "socialist." It makes the world simpler. It's easier to explain complex topics as "us versus them." because i'm not "using gov't to limit my neighbor's enjoyment on her property" - you seem to be fixated on this for some silly reason....i'm not in favor of "gov't zoning laws" everywhere - i think you have me confused with someone else...are you having trouble processing this?? i'm saying "gov't leave me alone" got it?
now rattle off another 5000 word reply addressing things i never mentioned, clown.... | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by jfd15:because i'm not "using gov't to limit my neighbor's enjoyment on her property" - you seem to be fixated on this for some silly reason....i'm not in favor of "gov't zoning laws" So, you would get rid of zoning laws, building codes, food- & drug-quality laws, the SEC, FDIC and social creation of corporate entities (a fictional, yet legal "person" to stand as the fall guy for officers and investors)?
I think you're doing what many do who selectively invoke the "socialist" word. When faced with how they benefit from these socializations of markets (things which force people to buy things or use their properties in ways they wouldn't if left to "willing buyers and sellers"), they claim they don't benefit. Or, allude to how they don't support these things.
If it's the latter. If you'd really get rid of all those things (and live in a completely "free-market" world, without socialized markets) it helps us weigh the merit of your views about how the wealthiest 1% of Americans should be treated.
I.e., your views would be marginal due to the fact that only a tiny fraction of Americans support getting rid of zoning laws in the pursuit of ideological purity.
said by jfd15:now rattle off another 5000 word reply addressing things i never mentioned, clown.... The fact that you didn't mention them is the reason I "rattled" it off. It's easy to call people "socialist" while hoping nobody questions all the socialism you probably benefit from.
For example, if you have a 401k plan, you benefit from the SEC. A socialization of the market. Forcing people to invest their money into things they might not (by limiting their choices). Forcing recipients of investments to behave in ways that their investors might not require, if left to the consent of "willing buyers and sellers."
The result is a more predictable market. One which requires less due diligence (caveat emptor) from you. All obtained by forcing people to do things they wouldn't if left to a pure, free market of consensual relations.
Why wouldn't I mention these things? You benefit from society altering markets to remove risk, by limiting what willing participants may do (who might benefit personally from more freedom to incur more risk, or manage the risk in their own way.).
The same thing for zoning laws. If you live in an area zoned residential, you are shifting to your neighbor your responsibility to purchase sufficient property to protect yourself from your neighbor's full enjoyment of her property. By limiting her use of her property, you don't have to spend your money to buy enough property to protect your enjoyment of your property (without requiring your neighbor to use her property to your benefit).
You may say it's consensual. That your neighbor can buy property in an area zoned for biker bars if she prefers. But, the same holds true for taxation. If you don't like our tax system, you can move to another country.
Instead, you rely on the cheap "socialism" argument to define those you disagree with. When they point out how you enjoy "socialism" too, your response is "why do you bring up 5000 things I never mentioned?"
That's the whole point. You don't want that stuff mentioned. It destroys your cheap use of the conversation-killing "socialism." | |
|
