CDZ redistribution of wealth

[CultureCitizen]

There are two basic types of government. Socialism, and Capitalism. Control, and Freedom.

You are confusing the government type : dictatorship , democracy , monarchy, constitutional monarchy with the economic system : feudalism, capitalism, socialism, mixed economy.
So it is false that there are two basic forms of government or two type of government.
As per your previous posts , I take it you find quite agreeable to live under a capitalist dictatorship.

Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Economic system - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Andylusion]

There are two basic types of government. Socialism, and Capitalism. Control, and Freedom.

You are confusing the government type : dictatorship , democracy , monarchy, constitutional monarchy with the economic system : feudalism, capitalism, socialism, mixed economy.
So it is false that there are two basic forms of government or two type of government.
As per your previous posts , I take it you find quite agreeable to live under a capitalist dictatorship.

Government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Economic system - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

True, but all of those different systems ultimately boil down to who has control. Does the government have control? Or does the individual have control?

Are there mixed systems? Of course. In fact there is no such thing as a pure system. That doesn't mean a pure system wouldn't be best, but only that it simply has never existed. All political / economic systems are a mix. But generally they either lean toward Free-market Capitalism, or towards Socialism.

All the various types of governments you listed, and hundreds you didn't, are all labels to describe various steps between the two.

And control over what? In my case, the control I want the most, is over my own life. My property. My destiny.

Have we really achieved all the hopes and dreams of civilized society, by having control over who is in government?

If I have all my money taxed away, and all my hopes dashed by regulations, and my future is controlled by government agencies.... is that the "democracy" you think our ancestors came to this country to get?

See, a Capitalist Dictatorship is a contradiction in terms. If we have Capitalism, the right to free enterprise, the right to a free market, and the right to our own property... by definition you can't be living under a dictatorship.

Dictatorship:
a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.

Capitalism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals.

Capitalism = We control our lives.
Dictatorship = Government control over our lives.

The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[CultureCitizen]

See, a Capitalist Dictatorship is a contradiction in terms. If we have Capitalism, the right to free enterprise, the right to a free market, and the right to our own property... by definition you can't be living under a dictatorship.

Oh , yes you can.
Pinochet and Franciso Fanco as well as General Porfirio Diaz in Mexico were famous capitalist dictators.
And while there was right to free enterprise and free market and property, there was little regard for life and physical integrity., or the right to choose your representatives.
So what value do your properties have if you can't choose the direction of government have free speech or feel you could be taken to a concentration camp because the government doesn't like your ideas ?

Then again, you seem to feel comfortable enough with a capitalist dictatorships, as you judge them not to be dictatorships.

 

[there4eyeM]

As the eighteenth century clearly proved, unbridled 'capitalism' is the friend of no one and the enemy of all (except, of course, the potential monopolist at the eventual center of an unlimited capitalistic system). Socialism has never produced anything like that. Totalitarianism, in the guise of socialism has, in Russia, Germany and elsewhere. So has democracy and any other form taken up by power-mad sociopaths.

There is nothing inherently 'evil' in any human concept. Intention and result determine 'good' and 'bad'. There is no reason to prohibit or impose any system. The measure should be, "Does it work? Does humanity benefit? Are we glorified or demeaned by it?" The answers can only come with time and can only be responded to with intelligence and compassion.

Dividing the political-economic world into 'socialist' and 'capitalist' is deceptively oversimplifying.

There is nothing more important than individual creativity and decision making. They are the essence of human existence. Whatever develops these is proper. To the extent that 'capitalism' does, there is no problem. When it doesn't and things stagnate or worsen, something else is necessary. Capitalism was never an ideology or religion, merely one type of economic system subject to evolution and modification.

People do not exist for ideas or systems; systems, ideas, states, religions, etc., exist for humans. They must change when this is found not to be the case.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we merely need to upgrade to an "oil pump" for our political-economy. The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic to accomplish it on an at-will basis in our political-economy.

 

[Andylusion]

See, a Capitalist Dictatorship is a contradiction in terms. If we have Capitalism, the right to free enterprise, the right to a free market, and the right to our own property... by definition you can't be living under a dictatorship.

Oh , yes you can.
Pinochet and Franciso Fanco as well as General Porfirio Diaz in Mexico were famous capitalist dictators.
And while there was right to free enterprise and free market and property, there was little regard for life and physical integrity., or the right to choose your representatives.
So what value do your properties have if you can't choose the direction of government have free speech or feel you could be taken to a concentration camp because the government doesn't like your ideas ?

Then again, you seem to feel comfortable enough with a capitalist dictatorships, as you judge them not to be dictatorships.

I was trying to figure out the flaw in my thinking, and I guess it is that there is a difference between economic freedom, and political freedom, where there can be polar opposites combined into one system.

However, unless you know of an example I am not aware of, there is no socialized economic system with a free political system.

That's fairly logical since taking away people's economic freedom, tends to have negative electoral results.

Now you've said this several times, that I would feel "comfortable enough with a capitalist dictatorships". And I've ignored that till now, because you don't seem to have much of a qualifier, or as an alternative to what.

If you ask me if I have to choose between being hit with a stick, or set on fire with petrol, I'm going to choose being hit with a stick. So in a sense, I would be "comfortable enough being hit with a stick" over the alternative given.

When you look at Pinochet, and Fanco, to the alternatives given at the time, yes absolutely I would choose them, over the alternatives. Pinochet fought against a communist backed president that was screwing the entire country into a socialist hell... yes... of course I'm going to choose Pinochet over absolute chaos and destruction. Similarly, Franco gained control over a country in chaos. The government police assassinated the right-wing opposition leader, and the result was civil war. If Mitch McConnell was murdered by goons connected to Obama, we'd have a problem too.

The point being, both were better than the alternative by far.

So if you give me only those two options, "socialist dictatorship hell" or "Capitalist Dictatorship", um... yeah, I'll choose being hit with the stick, over burning to death, any day.

Now if you are asking what I would prefer with all options open... well yeah, like any other person, I'd choose maximum freedom over everything. I would greatly prefer an extremely limited government, with very limited powers. Preferably limited to conducting trade agreements with other countries, tariffs to fund the government, and defense of the nation, with all other rights reserved exclusively to the states.

That would be my ideal system.

 

[danielpalos]

dear dudes and Esquires,

This is our "mission statement" as civitas in our Republic:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Andylusion]

As the eighteenth century clearly proved, unbridled 'capitalism' is the friend of no one and the enemy of all (except, of course, the potential monopolist at the eventual center of an unlimited capitalistic system). Socialism has never produced anything like that. Totalitarianism, in the guise of socialism has, in Russia, Germany and elsewhere. So has democracy and any other form taken up by power-mad sociopaths.

There is nothing inherently 'evil' in any human concept. Intention and result determine 'good' and 'bad'. There is no reason to prohibit or impose any system. The measure should be, "Does it work? Does humanity benefit? Are we glorified or demeaned by it?" The answers can only come with time and can only be responded to with intelligence and compassion.

Dividing the political-economic world into 'socialist' and 'capitalist' is deceptively oversimplifying.

There is nothing more important than individual creativity and decision making. They are the essence of human existence. Whatever develops these is proper. To the extent that 'capitalism' does, there is no problem. When it doesn't and things stagnate or worsen, something else is necessary. Capitalism was never an ideology or religion, merely one type of economic system subject to evolution and modification.

People do not exist for ideas or systems; systems, ideas, states, religions, etc., exist for humans. They must change when this is found not to be the case.

I've never understood the concept of "unbridled capitalism".

What specifically, would you cite as an example of 'unbridled capitalism'?

 

[danielpalos]

It is only an AnCap utopia, for now.

 

[dblack]

As the eighteenth century clearly proved, unbridled 'capitalism' is the friend of no one and the enemy of all (except, of course, the potential monopolist at the eventual center of an unlimited capitalistic system). Socialism has never produced anything like that. Totalitarianism, in the guise of socialism has, in Russia, Germany and elsewhere. So has democracy and any other form taken up by power-mad sociopaths.

There is nothing inherently 'evil' in any human concept. Intention and result determine 'good' and 'bad'. There is no reason to prohibit or impose any system. The measure should be, "Does it work? Does humanity benefit? Are we glorified or demeaned by it?" The answers can only come with time and can only be responded to with intelligence and compassion.

Dividing the political-economic world into 'socialist' and 'capitalist' is deceptively oversimplifying.

There is nothing more important than individual creativity and decision making. They are the essence of human existence. Whatever develops these is proper. To the extent that 'capitalism' does, there is no problem. When it doesn't and things stagnate or worsen, something else is necessary. Capitalism was never an ideology or religion, merely one type of economic system subject to evolution and modification.

People do not exist for ideas or systems; systems, ideas, states, religions, etc., exist for humans. They must change when this is found not to be the case.

I've never understood the concept of "unbridled capitalism".

What specifically, would you cite as an example of 'unbridled capitalism'?

It's kinda like unbridled freedom. People should be 'bridled'. By governements.

 

[HUGGY]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Why not do it like they do in Eastern Europe?

Kill the fuckers...rape their women and take their shit.

Makes sense to me..

 

[CultureCitizen]

I was trying to figure out the flaw in my thinking, and I guess it is that there is a difference between economic freedom, and political freedom, where there can be polar opposites combined into one system.

Exactly , that was my point! Now we are talking about the same thing.

However, unless you know of an example I am not aware of, there is no socialized economic system with a free political system.

That's fairly logical since taking away people's economic freedom, tends to have negative electoral results.

Now you've said this several times, that I would feel "comfortable enough with a capitalist dictatorships". And I've ignored that till now, because you don't seem to have much of a qualifier, or as an alternative to what.

Since most countries are mixed economies I am not sure what you mean by socialized economic system.
Northern countries ( Sweeden , Denmark, Finland, Norway) seem to fit this model and I would argue they also have political freedom. I would say the same about Australia.
Since all of these countries have higher tax revenues than the USA, there is arguably "less freedom" in the economic sense, but their political freedom remains untouched.

If you ask me if I have to choose between being hit with a stick, or set on fire with petrol, I'm going to choose being hit with a stick. So in a sense, I would be "comfortable enough being hit with a stick" over the alternative given.

When you look at Pinochet, and Fanco, to the alternatives given at the time, yes absolutely I would choose them, over the alternatives. Pinochet fought against a communist backed president that was screwing the entire country into a socialist hell... yes... of course I'm going to choose Pinochet over absolute chaos and destruction. Similarly, Franco gained control over a country in chaos. The government police assassinated the right-wing opposition leader, and the result was civil war. If Mitch McConnell was murdered by goons connected to Obama, we'd have a problem too.

The point being, both were better than the alternative by far.

So if you give me only those two options, "socialist dictatorship hell" or "Capitalist Dictatorship", um... yeah, I'll choose being hit with the stick, over burning to death, any day.

I really despice dictatorships of any kind.
I view governments as the administrators of condominums : Since there are shared services which we all use ( security, lighting, cleaning , maintenance ) we have to give a fee to keep those services running.
But the condo administrators are not the owners of either the fees or the condominium itself. Hence they must be subject to total transparency in their expenses and changed if they do not do their job properly.

 

[Andylusion]

As the eighteenth century clearly proved, unbridled 'capitalism' is the friend of no one and the enemy of all (except, of course, the potential monopolist at the eventual center of an unlimited capitalistic system). Socialism has never produced anything like that. Totalitarianism, in the guise of socialism has, in Russia, Germany and elsewhere. So has democracy and any other form taken up by power-mad sociopaths.

There is nothing inherently 'evil' in any human concept. Intention and result determine 'good' and 'bad'. There is no reason to prohibit or impose any system. The measure should be, "Does it work? Does humanity benefit? Are we glorified or demeaned by it?" The answers can only come with time and can only be responded to with intelligence and compassion.

Dividing the political-economic world into 'socialist' and 'capitalist' is deceptively oversimplifying.

There is nothing more important than individual creativity and decision making. They are the essence of human existence. Whatever develops these is proper. To the extent that 'capitalism' does, there is no problem. When it doesn't and things stagnate or worsen, something else is necessary. Capitalism was never an ideology or religion, merely one type of economic system subject to evolution and modification.

People do not exist for ideas or systems; systems, ideas, states, religions, etc., exist for humans. They must change when this is found not to be the case.

I've never understood the concept of "unbridled capitalism".

What specifically, would you cite as an example of 'unbridled capitalism'?

It's kinda like unbridled freedom. People should be 'bridled'. By governements.

And an example of what you mean, would be... what?

See my problem is, there is a wide number of people who make these bold claims about "unbridled capitalist is bad for".... and yet they never actually cite an example of this "unbridled capitalism".

Typically when you pin them down on this ambiguous phrase, they end up referring to something that is socialistic in nature, or something than is anarchic in nature.

But I have never met a Capitalist yet who saw a guy get robbed, and say "wow! look at the capitalist system in action!". Never seen a defense lawyer yet "My client was just engaging in capitalism, which is legal under the constitution". When people were looting and burning down Ferguson, I didn't see a single reporter going "look! Capitalist gone wild!".

Capitalism by it's nature, requires the rule of law and protection of rights. If you don't own the products you have, you can't sell them. If I can't gain ownership of the products you have, there is no way I'm going to buy them. If I don't have ownership of the house I'm in, I certainly can't rent it out to anyone. If you don't own the land, you can't farm it, or lease it to someone to be farmed.

Capitalism can't work without justice and protection of rights.

Then the other side point point to is something socialist, that they blame on capitalism.

The most popular is the bank bailouts. So what happened? The government stepped in and purchased stock in banks. Hello.... did you miss that? They bought stock in banks. That's ownership over the banks. I'm not sure what definition of socialism you are using, but that's it.

Milton Friedman was famous for saying Capitalism is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking, and loss encourages prudence. Well if you take away the loss, that's not capitalism. In fact, that's why we say "Socializing the loss". Socializing, is not a Capitalist methodology.

I was just watching this film on the carbon credit scam. They were talking about these people in Brazil who had their land stolen from them, to make it into a "carbon capture project", funded by FDRs World Bank. Of course the primary purpose was to make carbon offsets, purchased by big industry, primarily General Motors.

So in 2010, the world bank, when to these local village governments, and purchased the land.

Just one problem. The local village governments sold land that wasn't theirs to sell, and the people who had been living on the land for over 100 years, lost their land.

Of course the people in the film were talking about the horrible capitalists, the horrible companies, the horribly multi-national corporations.... but wait..... who sold the land? The village governments. Who bought the land? The World Bank, which is a government entity. Who created the need for so-called "Carbon Credits" to begin with? International governments.

This is "unbridled capitalism" how?

So again, I ask the question: What SPECIFIC example would you cite of this "unbridled capitalism"? I'm open to it. Give me something.

 

[dblack]

As the eighteenth century clearly proved, unbridled 'capitalism' is the friend of no one and the enemy of all (except, of course, the potential monopolist at the eventual center of an unlimited capitalistic system). Socialism has never produced anything like that. Totalitarianism, in the guise of socialism has, in Russia, Germany and elsewhere. So has democracy and any other form taken up by power-mad sociopaths.

There is nothing inherently 'evil' in any human concept. Intention and result determine 'good' and 'bad'. There is no reason to prohibit or impose any system. The measure should be, "Does it work? Does humanity benefit? Are we glorified or demeaned by it?" The answers can only come with time and can only be responded to with intelligence and compassion.

Dividing the political-economic world into 'socialist' and 'capitalist' is deceptively oversimplifying.

There is nothing more important than individual creativity and decision making. They are the essence of human existence. Whatever develops these is proper. To the extent that 'capitalism' does, there is no problem. When it doesn't and things stagnate or worsen, something else is necessary. Capitalism was never an ideology or religion, merely one type of economic system subject to evolution and modification.

People do not exist for ideas or systems; systems, ideas, states, religions, etc., exist for humans. They must change when this is found not to be the case.

I've never understood the concept of "unbridled capitalism".

What specifically, would you cite as an example of 'unbridled capitalism'?

It's kinda like unbridled freedom. People should be 'bridled'. By governements.

And an example of what you mean, would be... what?

Well, I was being sarcastic. I find their desire to "bridle" capitalism synonymous with a general desire to see people brought to heel. The desire to force your will on others is the root of all evil. Doing it via government doesn't change that.

 

[Andylusion]

I was trying to figure out the flaw in my thinking, and I guess it is that there is a difference between economic freedom, and political freedom, where there can be polar opposites combined into one system.

Exactly , that was my point! Now we are talking about the same thing.

However, unless you know of an example I am not aware of, there is no socialized economic system with a free political system.

That's fairly logical since taking away people's economic freedom, tends to have negative electoral results.

Now you've said this several times, that I would feel "comfortable enough with a capitalist dictatorships". And I've ignored that till now, because you don't seem to have much of a qualifier, or as an alternative to what.

Since most countries are mixed economies I am not sure what you mean by socialized economic system.
Northern countries ( Sweeden , Denmark, Finland, Norway) seem to fit this model and I would argue they also have political freedom. I would say the same about Australia.
Since all of these countries have higher tax revenues than the USA, there is arguably "less freedom" in the economic sense, but their political freedom remains untouched.

If you ask me if I have to choose between being hit with a stick, or set on fire with petrol, I'm going to choose being hit with a stick. So in a sense, I would be "comfortable enough being hit with a stick" over the alternative given.

When you look at Pinochet, and Fanco, to the alternatives given at the time, yes absolutely I would choose them, over the alternatives. Pinochet fought against a communist backed president that was screwing the entire country into a socialist hell... yes... of course I'm going to choose Pinochet over absolute chaos and destruction. Similarly, Franco gained control over a country in chaos. The government police assassinated the right-wing opposition leader, and the result was civil war. If Mitch McConnell was murdered by goons connected to Obama, we'd have a problem too.

The point being, both were better than the alternative by far.

So if you give me only those two options, "socialist dictatorship hell" or "Capitalist Dictatorship", um... yeah, I'll choose being hit with the stick, over burning to death, any day.

I really despice dictatorships of any kind.
I view governments as the administrators of condominums : Since there are shared services which we all use ( security, lighting, cleaning , maintenance ) we have to give a fee to keep those services running.
But the condo administrators are not the owners of either the fees or the condominium itself. Hence they must be subject to total transparency in their expenses and changed if they do not do their job properly.

Like I said before, given all options available, I'd choose more freedom. But if you force me to choose between a socialist dictatorship, or a capitalist dictatorship, I'd take the Capitalist easy.

Yeah, I'm always amazed when people talk about Nordic countries as if they are Socialist. Take Denmark for example. One of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. Has the least amount of red tape controlling investment. Has the most open free-trade policies in Europe. How vast trade networks through Western Europe, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. Denmark has some of the lowest cost labor relative to the rest of Europe, due to lowest labor taxes and regulations. At the same time, they also have the smallest public pension system in most of Europe. Denmark has a much lower maximum state pension than the US. Almost by half. Most Danish have private pensions. Public pension contributions are only 4% of wages, compared to the US 15%. This is one of the reasons wages in Denmark are high. Because Employers are not strangled with high labor taxes, they can afford to pay workers more, and thus do.

So to recap, lower business taxes, lower labor taxes, privatize social security, increase trade, make investments more profitable, lower regulation...... You tell me, does that sound like a Capitalist based system, or a Socialist based?

The one thing they do have, is very high personal income taxes. I grant you that. And while that is a socialist based policy, I would suggest it is more than offset by the pro-business, pro-capitalist based economy. At a very minimum, it most certainly isn't a socialist based economy. And no one ever cites real socialist based economies, because they are absolutely terrible.

 

[Andylusion]

As the eighteenth century clearly proved, unbridled 'capitalism' is the friend of no one and the enemy of all (except, of course, the potential monopolist at the eventual center of an unlimited capitalistic system). Socialism has never produced anything like that. Totalitarianism, in the guise of socialism has, in Russia, Germany and elsewhere. So has democracy and any other form taken up by power-mad sociopaths.

There is nothing inherently 'evil' in any human concept. Intention and result determine 'good' and 'bad'. There is no reason to prohibit or impose any system. The measure should be, "Does it work? Does humanity benefit? Are we glorified or demeaned by it?" The answers can only come with time and can only be responded to with intelligence and compassion.

Dividing the political-economic world into 'socialist' and 'capitalist' is deceptively oversimplifying.

There is nothing more important than individual creativity and decision making. They are the essence of human existence. Whatever develops these is proper. To the extent that 'capitalism' does, there is no problem. When it doesn't and things stagnate or worsen, something else is necessary. Capitalism was never an ideology or religion, merely one type of economic system subject to evolution and modification.

People do not exist for ideas or systems; systems, ideas, states, religions, etc., exist for humans. They must change when this is found not to be the case.

I've never understood the concept of "unbridled capitalism".

What specifically, would you cite as an example of 'unbridled capitalism'?

It's kinda like unbridled freedom. People should be 'bridled'. By governements.

And an example of what you mean, would be... what?

Well, I was being sarcastic. I find their desire to "bridle" capitalism synonymous with a general desire to see people brought to heel. The desire to force your will on others is the root of all evil. Doing it via government doesn't change that.

OK! I was wondering! lol

I read that three time, and I couldn't quite figure if it was a joke or not. There are some left-wings here that say stuff like that and mean it.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yeah, I'm always amazed when people talk about Nordic countries as if they are Socialist. Take Denmark for example. One of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. Has the least amount of red tape controlling investment. Has the most open free-trade policies in Europe. How vast trade networks through Western Europe, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. Denmark has some of the lowest cost labor relative to the rest of Europe, due to lowest labor taxes and regulations. At the same time, they also have the smallest public pension system in most of Europe. Denmark has a much lower maximum state pension than the US. Almost by half. Most Danish have private pensions. Public pension contributions are only 4% of wages, compared to the US 15%. This is one of the reasons wages in Denmark are high. Because Employers are not strangled with high labor taxes, they can afford to pay workers more, and thus do.

Well, I can live with a low corporate rate and a high income rate or viceversa.
They also have a very high VAT tax and one of the lowest inequality indexes in the world.
Education and healthcare are free.
It seems like a fair trade off to me

 

[BULLDOG]

Obviously, the extremely absurd present concentration of wealth in a tiny minority is unhealthy. That minority is dependent on the majority for the nation's infrastructure, defense and the markets the majority compose. With the refusal of the minority to use their intelligence and spread out the benefits, what choices remain?

If you confiscated all the wealth, and redistributed it equally, in a matter of years, at most about 10, but likely less, the exact same situation as the present would result.

Spreading the wealth, would result in nothing different than what we have.

This is the problem with left-wing economics. It's based on faulty assumptions that somehow wealth is "static" and if we just spread it around, then everyone will have some. That's completely false.

Wealth is dynamic. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed over and over.

The reason poor people are poor, is generally because they consume their wealth, and it is gone. The reason rich people are rich, is because they invest, save, and grow their wealth, and they have more of it.

I'll give you an example.

In Canada, Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million, and lost it all. She lives pay check to pay check, and rides the bus to work.

Steve Jobs bought "The Graphics Group" from George Lucas for $10 Million. Renamed Pixar, he sold Pixar to Disney for $7.4 Billion.

Now, Jobs could have spent the millions on super cars, super yachts, big parties, and sex clubs and whatever. Then he would have ended up just like Sharon. 10 years later, completely broke, instead of 10 years later, $7.4 Billion rich.

If you divided up all the wealth 100% equally among all the people, the result would be that in about 10 years, the poor people would end up poor again, and the rich people would end up rich again.

Again, it's the difference between consuming and investing. It's the difference between the beer pong people and the pinball people.

When Warren Buffet was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route he was working, to buy a pinball machine. He then placed the pinball machine in a local business. There, his investment earned money.

Now what do most people do in high school? I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do was to buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's home whose parents were out of town, and play beer pong all night. By morning everyone was drunk and broke. They consumed their wealth, and it was gone.

Warren Buffet isn't a billionaire because he was "lucky", or because he has the Midas touch. He's a billionaire because he's been investing since he was a child, and investments have a pay off. That's why they are investments.

Sharon Tirabassi is not poor because the evil rich held her down, or because she didn't get a Harvard education, or because "wealth is concentrated" or whatever excuse you can come up with. Sharon is poor, because she spends everything she makes. That's all there is to it.

So if you divided up all the wealth, in a matter of years, everything would end up right back where it is now.

But nobody is wanting to distribute all the money in the country evenly among everybody. All we want is for equal opportunity for everybody to earn their own, and for the ones who have received massive preferential treatment to pay a little more In taxes.

 

[there4eyeM]

Sales taxes, being regressive, are a good example of redistribution upward. Use taxes, as taxing foreign-based companies for using a nation's infrastructure and markets for making a profit, seem more reasonable. Why should a company that benefits from doing business in one place pay nothing for the privilege just because the mailing address is on the other side of a political border?

 

[RKMBrown]

Sales taxes, being regressive, are a good example of redistribution upward. Use taxes, as taxing foreign-based companies for using a nation's infrastructure and markets for making a profit, seem more reasonable. Why should a company that benefits from doing business in one place pay nothing for the privilege just because the mailing address is on the other side of a political border?

ROFL liar