[quote]The gap between the wealthiest Americans and middle- and working-class Americans has more than tripled in the past three decades, according to a J..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

...and the rest of us get poorer.

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2010 06:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4487
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:32 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Mal,

1. When inflation is taken into account, wages have pretty much stagnated for quite some time now, which the rich continue to make vastly more and more money.

2. Tthe discrepancy between rich and poor has become enormous, and that’s not good for the country, in my opinion. Most of them didn’t gain that huge amount by work ethic, but by conniving with their board of directors, fraud, lying, cheating, etc. Because a person can ATTAIN great wealth doesn’t necessarily mean they deserve it, just as if a dictator attains power, it doesn’t make it right.

Given it sounds like you are more than content to let the uber-rich eat cake and only let you have the crumbs, there is no debate or discussion to be had, really.

If you want to talk perspective, the valid perspective I see is the growing inequality, the HUGELY growing inequality. Our cost of living is a lot higher than countries with low wages, for one point. Comparing the poor in other countries to those here, and the huge disparity, isn’t valid in my opinion. . That isn’t healthy for the country, it’s huge gaps between rich and poor which begin the collapse of a system;

I don’t want to see ours collapse...any sooner than it has to, anyway. Saying “we’re rich compared to X” is a specious argument, in my opinion.

3. I don’t believe I said the disparity was because of the Bush tax cuts. They increased it; they contributed to it, but of course there are many causes...the gap was pretty big before he came into office, for one thing. S you said about other things contributing to it, so did the tax cuts, as they favored the rich.

4. Yes, they pay the bulk of taxes, I never disagreed. But the percentage perspective is still off. Between tax shelters, caoital gains and so many other things, they pay proportionally LESS than regular workers do of their earnings; That’s fair? I posted the facts on that a while ago. So that argument doesn’t hold water; how they SPEND their money also doesn’t enhance the economy; I can find that article I read which pointed out that the wealthy earn money from investments in various funds, while the middle class and poor don’t have the money TO invest.

You really think it’s reasonable for someone to make BILLLIONS while the rest of us have to save and borrow to send our kids to college, pay for childcare, etc., and even then many lose their HOMES? If so, we have no even begin discussing the issue.

Byte makes excellent points as well, especially her last paragraph.

And if you want to come back with “the rich invest, that helps businesses”, no, it doesn’t. Because banks aren’t LOANING, they are paying bigger salaries and investing for their own profits. They took our bail-out money (another point) and are hogging it and engaging in virtually the same practices which caused them to be bailed out!

Ahh, there it comes, exactly the argument I anticipated. It’s false, pure and simple. The rich invest in money, and make money because of it. The institutions they invest in aren’t circulating that money, as I said above. Ergo the money is only circulating amongst themselves, and as proven before, does NOT “trickle down”.

FMF:
Quote:

Whatever happened to rational and respectful debate? It is possible to have opposing views without regressing to the first grade.
Apparently it died long ago among some of us. Others of us try to keep on discussing and debating civilly, but there re those among us for whom such a concept is unfathomable. Just the way it is; occasionally someone will make a remark like yours and t makes me sigh and murmur “if only...”, then I remember how it really is and go on trying to talk to people who really have something to say and scroll past those I know don’t. I do still read the start of their posts, but when they go where I anticipate they’re going, I scroll on. Needless to say, they usually do.

I’ll look around for articles such as you suggested. One thing I found right off the bat was
Quote:

inequality in the United States has increased to the extent that the gap between the rich and poor is larger now than at time since 1928--greater than that of any industrialized nation (see Edward N. Wolff's 1995 Top Heavy: A Study of Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America, Twentieth). A 2007 study of the Congressional Office Bureau found the wealth of the richest 1 percent of Americans totaled $16.8 trillion, $2 trillion more than the combined wealth of the lower 90 percent of the population. The Center for American Progress reported how between 1979 and 2007 the average income of the bottom 50 percent of American households grew by 6%; the top 1% saw their income increase by 229 percent.

Of interest here are the ways in which inequality is institutionalized, in other words, the ways by which socially-defined categories of persons are unevenly rewarded for their social contributions. These are the criteria by which the social worthiness of individuals are judged and discriminations made. These vary, in part, on the basis of a society's stratification order and its cultural. The "rewards" come in a number of forms: power, wealth, social power, prestige in the eyes of others, self-esteem and sense of personal efficacy, the number and welfare of one's progeny,

In The Middle Class as a Precondition of a Sustainable Society, Nikolai Tilkidjiew observes "...the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered, in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from becoming dominant." For a number of social scientists, its shrinkage in recent decades in the United States is a cause for concern.

http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/strat.html

Warren Buffet again:
Quote:

[We] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter.” Mr. Buffett said that he made $46 million in 2006 and was taxed at 17.7 percent, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 percent.

If the majority of your income is derived from tax-advantaged sources, then your tax burden can be minimized...drastically. For example, it is estimated that Ross Perot took in $230 million in 1995 but only paid 8.5 percent of that income in taxes. Compare this to the person with an earned income over $259,700, who would pay 31.1 percent in taxes. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that this is because Perot "minimizes his tax bill by investing heavily in tax free municipals, tax-sheltered real estate, and stocks with unrealized gains."

A more recent example is Frank McCourt, the owner of the L.A. Dodgers. He received a reported $108 million and paid no federal and state taxes because of loss-carry forwards.
The truth is that one of the reasons the super-affluent get into that position is by being masters at minimizing their realized income

http://www.roshawnwatson.com/2010/05/do-rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-t
axes.html


Ah-hah! I found one that traces the timeline of a society where inequality leads to collapse:
Quote:

1. All civil societies/cultures develop Elites; this is the nature of social animals. Elites are selforganizing groups which share the same self-interests, that is, a higher-order clique; they are not conspiracies or formal organizations.

2. Under certain conditions, the structural obstacles/negative feedbacks which constrain Elite dominance weaken and the Elites (private and public/State), like any other human group, seek to exploit the resulting windfall.

3. This leads the Elites to over-reach which creates positive feedback: the more wealth and influence the Elites/State control, the easier it becomes to control even more. The net result is the Elites and the State's share of the national income rises to historic extremes.

4. Regardless of the exact nature of over-reach--expansionist warfare or financial leverage and looting are two popular choices--the interests of the Elites and the society as a whole diverge. As this divergence grows, the social contract between the Elites and those whose productivity powers the economy and society begins fraying.

5. Over-reach ontologically (inherently) leads to structural imbalances which then threaten to destabilize the productive middle class which supports the Elites. Due to the overwhelming power of the Elites/State partnership's fiefdoms, structural reform is .

6. As the productive middle class's share of national income shrinks, a well-concealed, opaque parallel system of dominance with a structure of its own arises to exclusively serve the interests of the Plutocracy/State Elites (apparatchiks). The hidden mechanisms are many: backroom deals, unwritten "understandings," price-fixing and other forms of collusion; cash payments and other "gifts and donations;" political favoritism (special admission to elite public universities for the well-connected); and a cornucopia of financial benefits: access to initial public offerings, special tax laws written to reward a particular enterprise or cartel, and so on.

7. The State, which was intended as a bulwark against the natural dominance of concentrated private capital and Monarchy, has instead become the handmaiden of the rentierfinancial Power Elites. The Elites and the State have thus become partners in the task of diverting ever-larger shares of the national income to their own coffers.

8. As a result, inequality--as measured by shares of the national income and wealth--widens, furthering the divergence of interests between the productive class and the Elites/States' unproductive fiefdoms and dependents.

9. The State/Elites seek to counter these growing imbalances by extracting more from the productive class via taxes and "theft by other means" and masking this rising inequality by manipulating the politics of experience via relentless mass media propaganda. The goal is four-fold: nurture complacency and fatalism in the citizenry; divert their attention from the concealed parallel system that benefits the Plutocracy and State Elites exclusively; legitimize simulacrum democracy and delegitimize protest.

10. To keep the State dependents passive and unthreatening, the Elites/State placate this class with "bread and circuses," State-funded entitlements paid for by raising taxes on the dwindling productive class. Under the guise of entitlements, the State (and the Elites who control it) has in effect bought the passive complicity of its dependents in the Elites' growing dominance of national income and wealth.

11. Having over-promised entitlements to the unproductive and garnered the majority of national income and wealth for themselves, the Plutocracy/State Elites can only tax the productive class so much lest they kill the horse they ride so majestically. Their only alternative to loss of income and power is to debauch the currency by printing money and debauch credit by borrowing far in excess of what can possibly be paid back.

12. The debauchery of credit and currency and rising inequality/diverting of national income to the Elites continues in a process of devolution until a phase shift/tipping point is reached and the status quo collapses in insolvency.

http://www.oftwominds.com/Survival/Overreach-InequalitySP.pdf

There is much more in all those articles, especially the last one, if anyone’s interested. That’s as much time as I’m willing to put into answering the questions. Sig covered BEAUTIFULLY why the rich having more wealth doesn’t increase the nation’s job rate OR health.

I don’t think the answer is taxes either, Mala...I see it as a BEGINNING, part of the solution, to free up more spendable money. But obviously there need to be numerous solutions to the problem, just as there were numerous causes. Outsourcing is DEFINITELY one of them; if we found ways to make it more profitable to keep jobs in-country, that would help. I’m sure there are numerous things that could contribute, but I’m not well versed enough on the issue to think of them.

I kind of disagree with the idea that investment in pharmaceutical research pays off the way you say. For the most part, it results in profits for the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies more than I think it does for the individual. It seems to me that people with moderate disorders which pharmaceutical would help would work anyway; people with serious disorders probably wouldn't be helped enough to be a contributing member of society anyway. Obviously there are exceptions, they may be many, but my experience with medications tells me the first two categories would far outweight the other.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:39 AM

AGENTROUKA


Byte, nothing will convince me that the bloodbath that was the Reign of Terror during the French revolution was in any way justified or an inevitable outcome of political circumstances or a choice on an equal level with anything else that could have been done.

They had armies coming at them regardless. Killing thousands upon thousands did nothing to stop that, nor were those armies magically stronger because they had some aristocrats in exile.

Show trials and needless brutality undermined the very ideals the Revolution was supposed to reflect, and they imply a cynical abuse of mob anger for political gain rather than for actual practical concerns.

It was paranoid, hateful, brutal, unjustly carried out and it was unnecessary. It certainly makes me weary of any violent revolution because it is inevitably led by people who are comfortable aiming death at people, which could just as easily escalate to another blood bath. It often does.




But back to your regularly scheduled hungry masses yearning for justice.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:55 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh I get that, AgentR - I wasn't making any moral pronouncements there, just pointing out that while Robespierre, as most bloody handed tyrants do, honestly thought he was doing something noble - what he was doing was not EFFECTIVE to the intended purpose, nor was it ever going to be.

Believe me, I am well aware of how much a monster the guy was, and that my own similarities to him are not the better part of my nature, all too well aware which is why I bring him up as an example of what NOT to do when folks get to thinkin about it, cause that's how it ends, a bloodbath, a reign of terror, and it never SOLVES anything.

Hell, if you don't wanna get too picky about it, you could even say that it's ineffective as a villainous course of action.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PragmaticVillainy

That's one of the issues I also had with Lelouch from Code Geass - he makes exactly the same mistake, which left me doing a facepalm over it since he shoulda been smart enough to know better.

You CANNOT drown sociopathy in blood, even it's own, it's like mud wrestling a pig - all you'll get is dirty and the pig enjoys it.

The only way to solve the problem is to not mentally mangle folks in the name of raising and educating them to where they think harming or demeaning others for fun and profit is a good thing, or even acceptable - and our society DOES do that, it glorifies it, sets it as the successful standard to emulate while casting scorn and derision upon anything altruistic or decent, and this message is pounded home on every conceivable level straight from the cradle.

And yet the one thing that constantly amazes me, that leaves me hope, is that DESPITE THIS, most folk are pretty decent, and even some of the nastier ones have their moments, the corruption just wont take cause it's so against human nature that our own natural impulses war against it constantly - which is, IMHO, the root of a lot of aberrant child behavior, as the programming gets louder, and natures influence gets stronger in response, the mixed messages start driving them insane.

I hope that clarifies it a bit for ya, AgentR, I wasn't proposing Robespierres solution so much as pointing out how futile and counterproductive it is - since there's a lotta folk here in the States who are maybe thinkin it'd be a good idea.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Malachite (interesting name BTW)....

Quote:

I guess I'm still wondering how raising taxes alone will help. Won't the government just see that as an opportunity to spend more? Even if they use it for something good like paying down the deficit, however, that isn't going to help the poor in the short run, and it won't create jobs. So, by raising taxes for the rich, do you want the money automatically redistributed, like the government starts sending checks to the poor from the excess taxes? That doesn't create substantial jobs either. Why work if the government is going to send you money for nothing? I can see that the hope might be if we just give more money to the poor, they will spend more, which will create more demand, which will create the need to make more stuff, which will increase jobs. But that still won't help the underlying mentalitiy consumers seem to have which is not to save and to rack up consumer debt. Or, if after the recession, people have wised up and decided they don't want debts, they will just take the extra money and pay down their debts and save it. (ETA: What happened with the "stimulus" checks? Did they stimulate anything, or did people just save them? Hmmm, maybe if people knew they were going to consistently get checks, they would act differently than if they just got a one time stimulus check, though). I guess that one could argue that it is at least a good thing to redistribute the wealth in the hopes that it creates more demand for consumer items and thus more jobs, but I kind of like what you said earlier and hope that would happen: that is, it would be nice if a business owner redistributed the wealth through giving increased wages. 90% tax seems a bit high, though. I worry if it would decrease a person's drive to continue expanding/growing, if you knew there was going to be no point after a while (or the only point of expanding would be to stay competitive -- not to actually make any money, which would also not be very motivating). The problem is still, why would a business produce something in the US when they could produce it elsewhere for so much cheaper? I guess the answer would be to discourage that practice with excessively huge tariffs on US products that are made outside of the US.

At any rate, you've given me much to think about.

And you have given ME much to think about!

You're right about one thing: raising taxes, in and of itself, isn't going to do anything. It very much depends on what the government does with that money that makes a difference. And some of the problem will not be solved unless we undergo a fundamental re-ordering of our economic priorities... not likely to happen in the near-term!

So, what can the gubmint do? Options:

Pay down the deficit. Won't create jobs, WILL prop up the value of the dollar. Good for peeps who've invested in gubmint paper, not much else.

Give money to folks. Which will rapidly be spent in Walmart. Good for Chinese workers, not so good for us. (However, as you said, if combined with stiff tariffs against cheap-labor nations, may do more good. That would need a break with our free-trade mezmerization, tho.)

Spend money on infrastructural improvements like green energy, healthcare and teaching. Now THAT will definitely create jobs at home!

Raise the minimum wage. Not strictly a tax-transfer program, but definitely transfers money at home. Studies have shown that rather than "costing" jobs economies actually EXPAND when minimum wages are raised.

In the end, though, as long as currencies and goods are freely traded cross-boundary economies will be subject to the competition on the basis of productivity. But since there is no functionally sound reason to constantly improve productivity (Good for maximum profits, but people ARE out of work, are they not?) nations need to break with the concept of free trade or they will wind up competing at the bottom of the barrel and unable to determine their own internal policies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Well, there's also, I think, relevant to the discussion, Sheldon Emry's take on this.
Billions for Bankers--Debts for the People
http://www.bigeye.com/bankers.htm

You'll have to put up with the bigeye link, cause I think Jeffie Rense is kinda PN-bonkers and he's the only other source willing or daring enough to host it.

It's pretty thought provoking, especially relevant now that we've gone to electronic "money" which presents even more and worse problems of this nature, like that HFT fiasco.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:40 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

What is the huge problem with the top 1% of income earners making inordinately huge amounts of money? Aren't there always going to be people who make huge quantities of money? It would be nice if they shared, but that is their choice. Why should we take their money by force (more laws)?
Obviously, you haven't been paying attention, to history or to economic theory.

It's like I said, money is like blood, it doesn't do any good unless it's circulating. And if just a few people have most of it, then it's not circulating.

Let me try this example: If 1% of the population has 90% of the money, who do they sell the output of their factories to? Each other? There's only so much a rich person can buy.

I think it was Whozit who said it best: How can companies impoverish their workers when they count on them as customers? And the answer is: They can't. At the time, I congratulated him for discovering the fundamental cause of economic collapse. Progressive taxation was not a socialist cause, it was a rescue plan for capitalism .

Quote:

Is the reason for this disparity between the top 1% and the rest of us really due to the Bush tax cuts?
In a word; YES. The United Stated was doing its best, economically-speaking, when the top tax rate was 90%. Yep, the highest incomes were taxed at 90%. The disparity between the line-worker and the boss was only a factor of ten or so, because it made no sense to earn money that would be taxed away. Because of that, businesses actually paid higher wages AND higher dividends, and put more money into research. People could buy stuff... houses, refrigerators, cars... without going deeply into debt. The savings rate was higher.

Now, CEO salaries are topped out at 38% for "ordinary income" and less for "capital gains" so it make perfect sense to grab as much money as you can. HUGE amounts of money... amounts that materially affect re-investment, dividends and wages... are being sucked off at the top. People can no longer afford to buy anything without going into debt. The economy runs on consumer credit, and when the credit runs out the economy collapses. People are laid off, which reduces demand even further, causing more layoffs.




Broad agreement with Signy here, and a couple minor clarifications. That top rate topped out in 1955 as a top marginal tax rate of NINETY-TWO PERCENT on income above $500,000.

And while the top rate now is capped at 38%, the capital-gains tax rate is well under half of that, at 15%. And this is how most of the hedge fund managers and megabank execs are paid; it's taxes as capital gains.

The disconnect between rich and poor seems to be that the rich feel like they're holding us all up, and we feel like we're propping all of THEM up. Either way, at some point of income inequality, it all collapses.

The Bush tax cuts apply to the top 2% of wage earners in this country - people whose taxable income is above $250,000/year. NOT people whose business is worth $250,000, as the right has been wrongly claiming. People whose adjusted taxable income is above a quarter-million dollars for an individual.

Wanna pay me a salary of more than a quarter-mil a year and then raise my taxes a couple of points? I'm in; where do I sign?

And yes, this country historically did better for longer when it had a more progressive tax rate.

Now, as to spending. Trickle-down does not work. Never has. It creates the ILLUSION of working, but it's like loading up your brand new $100,000 credit card: it's just the ILLUSION of having more money, not the reality.

Money spent at the bottom will ALWAYS funnel its way back to the top. Trickle-UP economics is what is real. Inject the money into the bottom of the economy, and watch it work its magic on its way to the top. Goods will be bought, people will be put to work to make more stuff to be bought, plants and factories will be built, CEOs will get rich(er).

Or you can have another collapse and another great depression. Not that there's much "great" about them...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:33 PM

BYTEMITE


Niki: *nods*

I don't get why people make this so complicated. Tax cuts for rich benefit the rich. Tax cuts for poor benefit the poor. Tax cuts for everyone benefit everyone. Everything else seems to get into poorly substantiated economic theory-work and wishful thinking.

Government spending... I'm not sure about that one. My inclination is to say it can do some good if you use it the right way, but I also think you can have too much of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:37 PM

BYTEMITE


AR: I didn't say it was a justification. I only said there were no good options.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:05 PM

AGENTROUKA


Byte: Maybe no good options, but certainly many better options. It does sound like justification if you try to juxtapose the deliberate slaughter of thousands and the war casualties that were occuring as a fixed fact - slaughter or not - as two alternate options.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 6:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sig: Excellent response; I think you about covered the options, and I agree with most all of what you said.

Byte: Also a really good point about government spending, it pretty much voices what I believe. If there were only a way to cut down duplication, administrative salaries for people who jut contribute to the bureaucracy and do little else, and a way to make programs WORK right, I’d be more in favor of it. As it is....

I would agree about “tax cuts for everybody” if it had started from a fair place. But when you’ve got the rich getting tax cuts that are worth more proportionally than the rest of us (thank you Bush), tax cuts for everyone don’t do the job. Bring their taxes back to where they WERE before Prez.-Let’s-Give-My-Buddies-Breaks, then I’d feel better about tax cuts for all. Again, as it is....

I agree about “trickle-up”, Mike, but obviously tax cuts aren’t the whole answer...or even a large part of it, to me. Just like with energy, we need multiple answers. None of which I see happening to any great degree, or expect to. We’s screwed, end of story, until someone not only figures it OUT, but has the power and is willing to use it to change things. Hahahahaha...as it were.

So what happened to Mala? I gave him what he asked for, specifics about how inequality causes collapse, and he never came back. I would have liked to hear what he had to say about that...



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 6:04 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Malachite (interesting name BTW)....

Quote:

I guess I'm still wondering how raising taxes alone will help. Won't the government just see that as an opportunity to spend more? Even if they use it for something good like paying down the deficit, however, that isn't going to help the poor in the short run, and it won't create jobs. So, by raising taxes for the rich, do you want the money automatically redistributed, like the government starts sending checks to the poor from the excess taxes? That doesn't create substantial jobs either. Why work if the government is going to send you money for nothing? I can see that the hope might be if we just give more money to the poor, they will spend more, which will create more demand, which will create the need to make more stuff, which will increase jobs. But that still won't help the underlying mentalitiy consumers seem to have which is not to save and to rack up consumer debt. Or, if after the recession, people have wised up and decided they don't want debts, they will just take the extra money and pay down their debts and save it. (ETA: What happened with the "stimulus" checks? Did they stimulate anything, or did people just save them? Hmmm, maybe if people knew they were going to consistently get checks, they would act differently than if they just got a one time stimulus check, though). I guess that one could argue that it is at least a good thing to redistribute the wealth in the hopes that it creates more demand for consumer items and thus more jobs, but I kind of like what you said earlier and hope that would happen: that is, it would be nice if a business owner redistributed the wealth through giving increased wages. 90% tax seems a bit high, though. I worry if it would decrease a person's drive to continue expanding/growing, if you knew there was going to be no point after a while (or the only point of expanding would be to stay competitive -- not to actually make any money, which would also not be very motivating). The problem is still, why would a business produce something in the US when they could produce it elsewhere for so much cheaper? I guess the answer would be to discourage that practice with excessively huge tariffs on US products that are made outside of the US.

At any rate, you've given me much to think about.

And you have given ME much to think about!

You're right about one thing: raising taxes, in and of itself, isn't going to do anything. It very much depends on what the government does with that money that makes a difference. And some of the problem will not be solved unless we undergo a fundamental re-ordering of our economic priorities... not likely to happen in the near-term!

So, what can the gubmint do? Options:

Pay down the deficit. Won't create jobs, WILL prop up the value of the dollar. Good for peeps who've invested in gubmint paper, not much else.

Give money to folks. Which will rapidly be spent in Walmart. Good for Chinese workers, not so good for us. (However, as you said, if combined with stiff tariffs against cheap-labor nations, may do more good. That would need a break with our free-trade mezmerization, tho.)

Spend money on infrastructural improvements like green energy, healthcare and teaching. Now THAT will definitely create jobs at home!

Raise the minimum wage. Not strictly a tax-transfer program, but definitely transfers money at home. Studies have shown that rather than "costing" jobs economies actually EXPAND when minimum wages are raised.

In the end, though, as long as currencies and goods are freely traded cross-boundary economies will be subject to the competition on the basis of productivity. But since there is no functionally sound reason to constantly improve productivity (Good for maximum profits, but people ARE out of work, are they not?) nations need to break with the concept of free trade or they will wind up competing at the bottom of the barrel and unable to determine their own internal policies.



This sounds very reasonable to me. I'm wondering if others here have reasonable objections to this. I know tax increases are going to be necessary, and am not really opposed to some increases, but, as you point out, I want to know that the government is going to use that money well. It seems there is a lot of wasteful spending and redundancy in the government that I would like to see reduced as well. I would like the maximum amount of money actually going to helpful investments/projects and the least going to administrative costs and various congressmans' pet projects designed to please their constiuency. I would also like clear, obvious transparency with where the funds are going. In some ways, I look at it like I look at a charitable organization. I want the most amount of money going to the cause, and the least amount going to administrative costs/excessive pay to ceos. I also want non biased third party auditors evaluating everything as well.

Oh yeah, since this has become a wish list post, I would like society to shift its priorities from rewarding sports figures and celebrities with tons of money/attention and start putting their money/devotion to parenting, education and to rewarding those underpaid people who actually benefit the community (like teachers, social workers, law officers, firemen, etc).

So, where do we, as individuals, begin?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 6:11 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

So what happened to Mala? I gave him what he asked for, specifics about how inequality causes collapse, and he never came back. I would have liked to hear what he had to say about that...




Sorry, Niki. I've been busy. Also, from your post, it seemed like you were seeing me as an antagonist, when mainly I want to hear the arguments on both sides fleshed out (and the opposing view was mainly accusing you of plagiarism, which I thought was just weak and incorrect -- and not an opposing view at all...).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 6:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx, Mala...that took some time to find, so I'm glad you read it anyway. But what do you THINK about it? You asked how inequality caused societies to collapse--well, i think it was something about how it had caused societies to collapse through history, but I couldn't find that.

But hey, being busy is no excuse...you're supposed to make this place your priority, didn't you know? None of that 'earning a living' shit, our discussions fix the world! (In our minds, at least...)

No, I didn't see you as an opponent, just as someone challenging my view. Made me look for views either agreeing with me or disagreeing, which is always a good thing, and I've learned a lot from the thread itself.

And as to sports figures, oh GAWD yes! I could rage on about that a bit, but I'll spare you...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 6:44 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Pay down the deficit. Won't create jobs, WILL prop up the value of the dollar. Good for peeps who've invested in gubmint paper, not much else.

Spend money on infrastructural improvements like green energy, healthcare and teaching. Now THAT will definitely create jobs at home!"

Hello,

Decreasing the deficit would liberate more money for use by the government on things like infrastructural improvements like green energy, healthcare, etc.

Paying down one's credit cards achieves positive savings eventually.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 6:55 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Byte: Maybe no good options, but certainly many better options. It does sound like justification if you try to juxtapose the deliberate slaughter of thousands and the war casualties that were occuring as a fixed fact - slaughter or not - as two alternate options.


I admit the ones I listed probably weren't the only options, but they're the only ones I could think of.

There was a lot of people starving at the time. Maybe the nobility was to blame for that, maybe it was economic forces at work, I wouldn't know, I haven't studied the history enough. The peasantry seemed to think it was the nobility to blame.

Now, Robespierre probably wasn't one of the people starving. He was part of the whole student rebellion crowd, meaning he had enough money to actually GO to the Paris schools and Universities. He was a lawyer, and also as I recall served on the left-wing branch of whatever they had that served as a voting block for King Louis. We can definitely argue that Robespierre riled up the starving class in a bid for his own power, especially considering the way he then went after the Girondists. We can also speculate on his motivations for wanting power, was he just an wide-eyed heart felt extremist who went to any length to try to rectify the wrongs he saw in his world, only for his efforts to turn into something horrific? Was he a hypocrite, didn't really believe anything he said, just wanted to kill some people? Who knows?

But the nobility didn't seem to care if people died of starvation, I doubt they'd care if people died if the revolution failed and they succeeded in forcibly repressing it. So it's a little different from the "slaughter from the wars they were already involved in." Attempting to exile the nobility would likely result in retaliation and forcible repression. Bad option.

Killing all the nobility before the nobility kills everyone else. Bad option. The rest of Europe was incredibly wary about what was happening with the French Revolution. The brutality of the actions of the Revolution turned off a number of possible allies the Revolution could have tried to curry favour with, namely the British, who actually were kind of annoyed with the French over that whole American Revolution thing.

Putting all the nobility in life imprisonment. Less distasteful than out and out brutally killing them, but still would require searching out hiding nobles, inevitably turn into a witch hunt, and the conditions of the prisons at the time were such that this was still a death sentence. Bad option.

I really think there was no humane way, at that point in time, that the French Revolution could have happened. And this is why I said there were no good options.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 9:17 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Attempting to exile the nobility would likely result in retaliation and forcible repression. Bad option.



It's this I disagree with. How would exiled nobles forcibly repress the revolution? How would they retaliate in ways that weren't already going on, anyway?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 9:48 AM

MALACHITE


Niki --
At long last, the response...

Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:


1. When inflation is taken into account, wages have pretty much stagnated for quite some time now, which the rich continue to make vastly more and more money.



I can agree with this statement. I'm no expert, but I don't think wages have kept up with inflation.

Quote:



2. the discrepancy between rich and poor has become enormous, and that’s not good for the country, in my opinion.



This statement is what I am mainly wondering about. I agree that it isn't an ideal society, but I'm wondering if the enormous discrepancy itself is bad for the country. Does it matter if someone makes 5 million more than me versus 50 million? The point is, they make a lot more than me, and I'm not sure that the ultrarich making the extra $45 million over me is a bad thing, in and of itself.

Quote:

Most of them didn’t gain that huge amount by work ethic, but by conniving with their board of directors, fraud, lying, cheating, etc. Because a person can ATTAIN great wealth doesn’t necessarily mean they deserve it, just as if a dictator attains power, it doesn’t make it right.




I agree with you. It sucks that bad people can still be wealthy. It sucks that bad people exist, period... I'm wondering what you would like to do about it. Tax the hell out of them? Force them to share? Even if we raise their tax to 90% after the first million they make, they still are going to be far more wealthy than we will ever be. The injustice will still be there. Perhaps we will feel a little better, though, because our slice of the pie gets bigger, though. And for the poor, a few hundred a month extra could be huge (if they use it well).

Quote:

If you want to talk perspective, the valid perspective I see is the growing inequality, the HUGELY growing inequality. Our cost of living is a lot higher than countries with low wages, for one point. Comparing the poor in other countries to those here, and the huge disparity, isn’t valid in my opinion. . That isn’t healthy for the country, it’s huge gaps between rich and poor which begin the collapse of a system;


My point in bringing up other countries was because the article seemed to be pointing out that the earning discrepancy between middle class and ultrarich was incredibly huge. I was wondering if this was a huge problem, if the middle class is still doing pretty well (that is, they live like kings compared to the majority of the world). I don't know if the middle class is discontent enough to want to start a rebellion. The other reason I brought up the gap between US wealth and the majority of other populations was to bring up a parallel. We are wondering if it is a bad thing to have a huge gap between the middle class and ultra rich in the US. Should we also be wondering if it is a bad thing for their to be a huge gap between the average american's income and the average world citizen's income?



Quote:

I don’t want to see ours collapse...any sooner than it has to, anyway.


Yes, this is a huge fear of mine as well.

Quote:



3. I don’t believe I said the disparity was because of the Bush tax cuts. They increased it; they contributed to it, but of course there are many causes...the gap was pretty big before he came into office, for one thing. S you said about other things contributing to it, so did the tax cuts, as they favored the rich.



I was responding to your initial post on this thread, in which you said, "So let's all give the rich more tax breaks, 'cuz it's profiting all of us! Yes indeedy..."

Quote:


4. Yes, they pay the bulk of taxes, I never disagreed. But the percentage perspective is still off. Between tax shelters, capital gains and so many other things, they pay proportionally LESS than regular workers do of their earnings; That’s fair? I posted the facts on that a while ago.



Are you meaning the top 1% of people here? If so, I can probably agree. Those who make their money entirely through investments will be able to pay less taxes proportionally. For those people, I wonder if the alternative minimum tax kicks in. If it doesn't, then this doesn't sound fair. Those rich people who are high income earners through non investment means pay the highest taxes (dollarwise and percentagewise), though.

Quote:

I can' find that article I read which pointed out that the wealthy earn money from investments in various funds, while the middle class and poor don’t have the money TO invest.


I can believe this, anyway. Though investment is not a surefire way to make money (though chances are, the rich can afford to lose the money if the investment tanks. And the loss being tax deductible helps defray some of that cost, too).

Quote:


You really think it’s reasonable for someone to make BILLLIONS while the rest of us have to save and borrow to send our kids to college, pay for childcare, etc., and even then many lose their HOMES? If so, we have no even begin discussing the issue.



Is it fair? I don't know. Is it fair that we were born into the US with access to clean drinking water, proper sewage management, houses with insulation and plenty of food while someone else is born to starve to death in Ethiopia? It is what it is. Is it ideal? Now that I can answer with a definite "No".

Quote:

And if you want to come back with “the rich invest, that helps businesses”, no, it doesn’t. Because banks aren’t LOANING, they are paying bigger salaries and investing for their own profits. They took our bail-out money (another point) and are hogging it and engaging in virtually the same practices which caused them to be bailed out!


Well, banks are still loaning, but I take your point to mean that banks aren't loaning enough to support small businesses or individuals. Which may not be all bad -- as Sig said, consumers racking up more consumer debt isn't going to be a solution anyway.


Quote:


Ahh, there it comes, exactly the argument I anticipated. It’s false, pure and simple. The rich invest in money, and make money because of it. The institutions they invest in aren’t circulating that money, as I said above. Ergo the money is only circulating amongst themselves, and as proven before, does NOT “trickle down”.



I'd say it depends on what they invest in, whether it causes any sort of "trickle down" effect. I see your point, but it is a generalization.

Quote:


I’ll look around for articles such as you suggested. One thing I found right off the bat was
Quote:

inequality in the United States has increased to the extent that the gap between the rich and poor is larger now than at time since 1928--greater than that of any industrialized nation (see Edward N. Wolff's 1995 Top Heavy: A Study of Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America, Twentieth). A 2007 study of the Congressional Office Bureau found the wealth of the richest 1 percent of Americans totaled $16.8 trillion, $2 trillion more than the combined wealth of the lower 90 percent of the population. The Center for American Progress reported how between 1979 and 2007 the average income of the bottom 50 percent of American households grew by 6%; the top 1% saw their income increase by 229 percent.

Of interest here are the ways in which inequality is institutionalized, in other words, the ways by which socially-defined categories of persons are unevenly rewarded for their social contributions. These are the criteria by which the social worthiness of individuals are judged and discriminations made. These vary, in part, on the basis of a society's stratification order and its cultural. The "rewards" come in a number of forms: power, wealth, social power, prestige in the eyes of others, self-esteem and sense of personal efficacy, the number and welfare of one's progeny,

In The Middle Class as a Precondition of a Sustainable Society, Nikolai Tilkidjiew observes "...the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered, in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from becoming dominant." For a number of social scientists, its shrinkage in recent decades in the United States is a cause for concern.

http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/strat.html



Yes, it is not ideal. These are just opinions that it is bad, though. I'm wanting to know exactly why the gap is a concern. What is the fear? Rebellion? Stagnancy? Total economic collapse? If so, do we have any examples from history? That is what I was wondering about. Then I was wondering about solutions.

Quote:


Warren Buffet again:
Quote:

[We] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter.” Mr. Buffett said that he made $46 million in 2006 and was taxed at 17.7 percent, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 percent.

If the majority of your income is derived from tax-advantaged sources, then your tax burden can be minimized...drastically. For example, it is estimated that Ross Perot took in $230 million in 1995 but only paid 8.5 percent of that income in taxes. Compare this to the person with an earned income over $259,700, who would pay 31.1 percent in taxes. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that this is because Perot "minimizes his tax bill by investing heavily in tax free municipals, tax-sheltered real estate, and stocks with unrealized gains."

A more recent example is Frank McCourt, the owner of the L.A. Dodgers. He received a reported $108 million and paid no federal and state taxes because of loss-carry forwards.
The truth is that one of the reasons the super-affluent get into that position is by being masters at minimizing their realized income

http://www.roshawnwatson.com/2010/05/do-rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-t
axes.html




This is all great advice on how to minimize your tax burden. The Warren Buffet quote was even quoted in one of my links. "The Millionaire Next Door" (a book about what millionaires do to earn/maintain their money and what types of millionaires are out there among other things) comes to mind. It is worth a read.

I'm going to assume you are quoting this in order to point out the inequality between classes here, in that the wealthy can actually use certain means to avoid paying higher taxes whereas the middle class can't so much. Are you wanting to get rid of this? Mind you, many middle class people are hoping this kind of thing is going to pay off for them in their IRAs and 401Ks... Perhaps you could make an exception for retirement accounts?


Quote:

Ah-hah! I found one that traces the timeline of a society where inequality leads to 1. All civil societies/cultures develop Elites; this is the nature of social animals. Elites are selforganizing groups which share the same self-interests, that is, a higher-order clique; they are not conspiracies or formal organizations...




This was a very interesting and frightening hypothesis. To me, though, it seemed to point out the evils of the elite overstretching themselves, taxing the middle class to extreme and then acquiring so much debt that the society eventually crumbles. It didn't seem to say that the magnitude of the financial gap between the rich and the poor was the problem that leads to collapse. The problem that leads to the collapse is the rich/elite overtaxing and overreaching, acquiring too much debt. This is frightening and relevant, though, as we wonder just how much of a deficit the US is going to accumulate and just how much it can sustain (I'm just not sure if it points to the magnitude of the wage disparity being a problem). Also, it didn't give any historical examples of this in action (though it alluded to the Roman Empire -- which, was conquered by another nation, right?)


Quote:

I don’t think the answer is taxes either, Mala...I see it as a BEGINNING, part of the solution, to free up more spendable money.



Eeeekk! Are we falling into the trap that the author is warning about in step 9? That the elite (aka government) are going to keep supporting themselves by increasingly taxing the masses/productive class? And we, the population will go right along with it? I hope not... (ETA: It is probably fair to say that the rich can handle a bit more tax burden without being unduly squeezed at this point, though...)

Quote:

But obviously there need to be numerous solutions to the problem, just as there were numerous causes. Outsourcing is DEFINITELY one of them; if we found ways to make it more profitable to keep jobs in-country, that would help. I’m sure there are numerous things that could contribute, but I’m not well versed enough on the issue to think of them.


Yes, I think Sig began to discuss some of the solutions nicely.

And now I must take a break...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 11:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


As to what difference does it make if people are rich: It doesn’t, to me. But when the discrepancy between rich and poor becomes too great, it’s not healthy for a country. See the quote I posted.

What would I do with the uber-rich? Tax ‘em. As you said, even if we tax ‘em 90%, they’re still rich as hell. So why not? That money could be well spent on infrastructure and many, many other things...Social Security for example, which the government has been raping for generations. If they hadn’t been, it would WORK, but the Repubs have been determined to privatize it for decades, which would profit THEM.

My remark about giving the rich more tax breaks was a snark in reference to the recent past. It in no way was meant to say tax cuts caused the whole problem.
Yes, I meant the top 1%

You keep trying to compare us to the rest of the world. I reject that; we have to make a living HERE, that’s all that’s important. It OUR government who sets tax rates, not Ethiopia’s.

You keep asking why the gap is important. I posted the quote which explains why it is unhealthy for an economy, that should have answered the question sufficiently.

As to overreaching; America was a creditor country almost all its history up until recently. Now we are a debtor nation. I think that counts as overreaching, especially as it’s not the middle class who are borrowing money form China. It’s the government spending in the last decade which caused that...and the rich benefited from that spending, along with the military-industrial complex.

I’m afraid I don’t get where you extrapolated my statements to get
Quote:

That the elite (aka government) are going to keep supporting themselves by increasingly taxing the masses/productive class?
That is not what I was saying.

Thanx for the detailed response, I appreciate it. There are good points in there we can discuss; none of them are “the” answer, but it would be nice if we could make things a bit less scary.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 1:20 AM

MALACHITE


I think we are in agreement on a lot of things. Overall, I think a compelling argument has been made for increasing taxes.

I think we are still having the same misunderstanding, though, which is actually only of minor significance, anyway. You seem to think that it is the size of the gap itself between rich and poor that is the problem? Why? Is it because you are worried people are going to rebel, or are you worried that the gap itself causes economic collapse. If you are worried it is because people will rebel (try to take by force from the wealthy), then the parallel of rich U.S. vs poor majority of the world population seems relevant. It seems, though, that you are more worried about economic collapse than rebellion. Your quote from some economist saying something to the effect of, "The gap isn't good" isn't all that compelling. I want to know why the gap isn't good -- that is, what are his reasons for saying the gap itself isn't good?

Your main quote, the 12 points-leading-to-society's-economic-destruction hypothesis, does not point to the gap being the core problem. The core problem is the social elites "overreaching", as he calls it, beyond what the middle class can bear (because, in their power and greed, they forget their responsibility to the people they are governing). (See the beginning of #5, where is says, "Overreach ontologically (inherently) leads to structural imbalances"). As a result of the "overreach", we get a widening of the gap (point #8). Point 9 of his doesn't seem quite logically connected to the rest of the paper, so I'll leave that alone. We go on to point 11, which describes how the elite continue to overreach, taxing the masses as much as they can, printing more money and going into debt, which leads to point 12, "financial insolvency" or economic ruin. As a side note, I'm wondering what happens at that point. Would China just say, "In order to pay your debt to us, we are confiscating New York and California?". So, if I am understanding the 12 points hypothesis you quoted, the gap itself isn't the problem -- it is the continued overreaching of the ruling elite coupled with excess taxation, printing excess money, and excess borrowing (to continue fueling the overreaching) that is the core problem leading to economic collapse.

As I said, I think we are quibbling about a minor detail. We have the same fear (economic collapse) and, I think, are on the same page for solutions.

One side note about what I said earlier: I'm not sure traditional iras, 401ks and roth iras are actually relying on the low capital gains tax to be cost effective for retirement. I'll need to look into this further. Mainly, I'm not sure if it is being taxed at a lower rate (because of the capital gains tax) or being taxed at a lower rate (because your average retired person will be in a lower tax bracket because they aren't earning as much as they did while working) that determines the big advantage of having retirement accounts. (Of course, the tax deferring aspects of traditional iras may also be beneficial).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 1:31 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Pay down the deficit. Won't create jobs, WILL prop up the value of the dollar. Good for peeps who've invested in gubmint paper, not much else.

Spend money on infrastructural improvements like green energy, healthcare and teaching. Now THAT will definitely create jobs at home!"

Hello,

Decreasing the deficit would liberate more money for use by the government on things like infrastructural improvements like green energy, healthcare, etc.

Paying down one's credit cards achieves positive savings eventually.

--Anthony





I think it is the "eventually" part that doesn't help the poor in the short term. As with any family, the government may have to scrimp a bit with the spending in the short run, which won't be fun.

Also, what were your thoughts on increasing taxes?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Malachite, to reiterate ... I think it's the size of the gap itself that causes economic collapse. And it we're to take a lesson from history, it's the economic collapse that causes the political one.

Peeps were mostly happy campers right before the Great Depression. It was the Roaring 20s, when the economy was floating on a bubble of stock speculation, and everyone was partying and having a good time (except farmers, who were losing their land). Taxes were low... had been reduced in the 20s. Nobody saw the tidal wave coming.

There is data from around the world that nations with more equal wealth distribution have HIGHER growth rates. (If you want to look this up, equity is measured by the GINI Index, a perfectly equal distribution would be a GINI of 1. SO google GINI and growth.) That's in line with national data which shows that regions with higher minimum wages have MORE jobs, not fewer.

But, it all DOES get back to ethics and goals, if you will. Nobody would care about growth and collapse if it didn't touch on a fundamental ethical question: What is society's or an economy's purpose? Because I could just as easily say that collapse merely weeds out the improvident and the stupid, that society isn't here to make a good life for most but to make humans strong by weeding out the weak. See? Ultimately, is IS a question of ethics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:25 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"I think it is the "eventually" part that doesn't help the poor in the short term. As with any family, the government may have to scrimp a bit with the spending in the short run, which won't be fun.

Also, what were your thoughts on increasing taxes?"

Hello,

I often wish for less short-term planning.

I do not think increasing taxes during a financial bind is wise. Rather, now is the time to shift spending from non-productive activities. End the wars and recall the troops. Use that money in better ways.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, thank goodness. A real, intelligent debate. Thank you both!
Quote:

worried that the gap itself causes economic collapse
Isn’t what it describes exactly what’s happening? The uber-rich (with help from their partners, the government, which is comprised of quite a few of them and/or is influenced by the rest) have abandoned the middle class, to the point where people like us have become “lower middle class” and others have been dropped right out of the middle class.

As to my feelings, it offends me that they receive so much incredibly higher pay for what I feel is rarely “earned”. It’s more the collusion between CEOs and their board of directors (who set their salaries), corporations and government, tax evasion and numerous other things that have allowed them to create such an unbelievable gap in recent years, which gap has left the rest of us far behind. Our wages stagnate, theirs go sky high. Yes, that bothers me...not because they earned it, but because it’s gotten by manipulation.

Oh, Sig, you did that beautifully. My answer to a lot of what you said, Mala, is “what she said”. I couldn’t find the data quickly and wasn’t willing to spend more time, but historically what she said is on point, a it is morally.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

It's this I disagree with. How would exiled nobles forcibly repress the revolution? How would they retaliate in ways that weren't already going on, anyway?


I already explained this. The French monarchy had allies outside of France. If they were exiled, they would have, without question, raised an army and tried to retake the throne. I mean, this is an assumption, but knowing how Marie Antoinette and Louis thought from historical accounts, this would have pretty much been inevitable, so my point is, how many people would have died when they cam eBACK into France (which they would have) and retaliated (which they would have)?

So, while normally I'm all for exile, in this case it wasn't a great option, unless you could find someone willing to keep them as very well-treated prisoners in all but name.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 2:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I do not think increasing taxes during a financial bind is wise.
This is where I think you're wrong.

Examine your fundamental assumptions. Why wouldn't you want to raise taxes? Most people's fundamental assumption is because they don't want to reduce consumption (aggregate demand). But would they really be reducing aggregate demand by raising taxes Bill Gates' taxes from 35% to 38% What would that STOP him from buying? If you were to increase my taxes, it wouldn't stop me from buying anything because I'm SAVING money. It might reduce my savings a bit but... big deal!

OTOH if you were to raise the taxes of a family making $50,000 or less (the median family income) it would IMMEDIATELY stop them from buying something. So it depends on WHOSE taxes are being raised.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:32 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Signy,

I know you'll think this is silly, but it seems unfair to me that different portions of the population should be made to pay extra taxes.

I know they can afford it, but it just feels wrong to take more from them just because they have more of it.

Especially I don't want to raise taxes when we can simply lower expenditures on non-essentials like warfare in order to get the funds we need as a nation.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 10:09 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


The trickle has slowed to a drip.

Puny humans!


SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 31, 2010 10:43 PM

AGENTROUKA


Byte,

I'm leaving the royal family out of here because the terror went so far beyond them. They killed aristocrats and non-aristocrats alike, they nearly committed genocide in the region Vendee, they massacred many citizens of Lyon in brutal ways. The French revolution and the civil war-like turbulance that followed was never, ever in any way a question of choosing between "bad options" where bad was defined as loss of civilian lives or the defense of the actual revolutionary ideals - like rights. It was about power and fanaticism.

They were at war with Austria well before they killed the king, well before the terror - because France declared war! A defense-through-attack strategy that wasn't even all that unsuccessful. Having a French aristocrats in exile would not have changed much about that.

Which I had already explained before.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 1, 2010 6:34 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

They killed aristocrats and non-aristocrats alike, they nearly committed genocide in the region Vendee, they massacred many citizens of Lyon in brutal ways.


No kidding it got out of hand. You think I'm arguing it didn't? I've said it how many times killing off the nobility was a bad idea?

Quote:

The French revolution and the civil war-like turbulance that followed was never, ever in any way a question of choosing between "bad options" where bad was defined as loss of civilian lives or the defense of the actual revolutionary ideals - like rights. It was about power and fanaticism.


Was it extreme and awful? Yes. And it got out of hand, and you won't hear me argue it didn't. Even though you seem to think I am, and I'm not and I'm not sure what exactly it's going to take to convince you because you keep bringing it up. I'm not a rah-rah-kill-them-all cheerleader, but you seem to think I am just because I said I think that the situation surrounding the French Revolution was very bad, and everyone was struggling for survival in that one?

But your statement here is something we absolutely do not know for certain. This is spec about the motivations involved not just with Robespierre, but the French Revolution as a whole. It's a fallacy of generalization.

It became a witch hunt, it became extreme with the very first nobleman/woman they put through a farce of a trial and executed (that is, if they even had a trial). But I don't think you can just dismiss the situation they were in, and without reference to the context say that their actions were the product of greed and fanaticism as opposed to being about their rights and survival and an extreme backlash against their oppression. Did some people take advantage for their own benefit, likely including Robespierre? Of course, and this is true of every revolution. But the reason FOR the revolution, on the level of the people fighting it (not leading it), is a rebellion against oppression. Otherwise there would never be popular support for any revolution.

Similarly, I don't think you say that they had good options, and that not choosing those more morally sound options condemns them, when you haven't NAMED any alternatives.

Quote:

They were at war with Austria well before they killed the king, well before the terror - because France declared war! A defense-through-attack strategy that wasn't even all that unsuccessful. Having a French aristocrats in exile would not have changed much about that.



And I was never talking about this war. I wasn't even aware of this war. I don't understand your purpose is in bringing up this war in a conversation about the French Revolution. Are you saying that by starvation or by this Austrian War or by my hypothetical war, they were going to die anyway, and so dying is no reason for them to not do some undefinable right thing? I'd actually agree with you, but then my problem is that I see no options that anyone had in the situation that wouldn't have led to more people dying. This is why I say there were no good options.

I wasn't just talking about the royal family either, though they would certainly have led the charge. The nobility in general would have come back to try to reclaim their land and stations just as soon as they had the allies to do it. There's historical precedence for wars being fought over nobility claim to lands and station.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 1, 2010 6:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Anthony, maybe surprisingly to you, but I agree that it doesn't feel good to me either. But given I'm aware that an awful lot of those riches are ill-gotten gains (as I have said), that countes my "guilt pangs" completely. The discrepancy is SO huge, putting their taxes back to where they were before Bush isn't actually a "tax increase" to me, and the fact that, as Sig said, it's not going to stop them buying stuff, makes me in favor of it.

Remember, if the tax cuts for the rich expire, they're essentially just taking back a freebie gift Dumby gave them. They did pretty well before that gift, somehow I think they'd survive going back to those "lean times", as it were.

If the inequality weren't so huge and the uber-rich didn't have all the dodges they do to avoid taxes, I'd actually be in favor of everyone being taxed equally. Don't fall over.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 1, 2010 6:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Anthony, maybe surprisingly to you, but I agree that it doesn't feel good to me either. But given I'm aware that an awful lot of those riches are ill-gotten gains (as I have said), that countes my "guilt pangs" completely. The discrepancy is SO huge, putting their taxes back to where they were before Bush isn't actually a "tax increase" to me, and the fact that, as Sig said, it's not going to stop them buying stuff, makes me in favor of it.

Remember, if the tax cuts for the rich expire, they're essentially just taking back a freebie gift Dumby gave them. They did pretty well before that gift, somehow I think they'd survive going back to those "lean times", as it were.

If the inequality weren't so huge and the uber-rich didn't have all the dodges they do to avoid taxes, I'd actually be in favor of everyone being taxed equally. Don't fall over.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



Don't mind me, I'm just testing something.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL