Wealth inequality

[Foxfyre]

Come on guys. Any of you who have attended highschool know that income and profits are two different things. (Or maybe not. These days, who knows what is being taught in highschool?)

Anyhow, taxes are paid on profits, not income. You have to see a corporation's P & L to know what percentage of taxes are actually being paid.

If you guys really want some real skinny on what is happening in the world of corporate taxes, Forbes has boiled it down to some key elements in this article:

Excerpted:

Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ - news - people ) and others among the top 25 state in their annual reports that if Obama's tax measures pass it would mean a certain tax hike, probably amounting to billions of dollars.

Would no more tax holiday for GE really end up helping Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? Doubtful. "The average Joe should be in favor of lower corporate taxes," says Hodge, "because ultimately they are paying the corporate income tax. Either as workers, getting lower wages and fewer jobs, or as consumers, paying higher prices, or as retirees, getting lower dividends and earnings on their investments."
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com

And in rebuttal to Sheila's video, I will provide an article from the Heritage Foundation, the opposing argument from Think Progress, that provides a very different perspective on wealth in the USA:

Excerpt:

Alan Reynolds reminds readers that the left repeatedly cites income figures from a famous study by economist Emanuel Saez, which show that top earners’ share of income has increased. Yet the left never cites figures from another study by Saez on wealth inequality, which show that top earner’s share of wealth at the beginning of the 21st century is lower than it was in the early 1900s.
Income Inequality vs. Wealth Inequality | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

 

[Pogo]

Not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'll just take on this snippet:

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Does everyone not understand that the nature of capitalism strongly discourages these polyanna ideals? That the goal of such capitalists is profit rather than profit sharing? That the two are mutually antagonistic if not mutually exclusive? That such companies strive to make the most at the least cost of doing business, jobs being the primary cost, and therefore the last thing they want to increase? That companies, and rich people, and capitalism, are specifically not there to enrich other people?

OK then. Let's quit hanging ideals of how we wish the world worked over the ways it actually does.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'll just take on this snippet:

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Does everyone not understand that the nature of capitalism strongly discourages these polyanna ideals? That the goal of such capitalists is profit rather than profit sharing? That the two are mutually antagonistic if not mutually exclusive? That such companies strive to make the most at the least cost of doing business, jobs being the primary cost, and therefore the last thing they want to increase? That companies, and rich people, and capitalism, are specifically not there to enrich other people?

OK then. Let's quit hanging ideals of how we wish the world worked over the ways it actually does.

Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?

I wish--oh, how MUCH I wish--the teachings of 19th century classical liberalism was mandatory curriculum in school any more.

But it can be summed up in one sentence written by Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Business and commerce works best, most efficiently, most effectively, and most to the benefit of ALL when it is done ethically, responsibly, and for the purpose of achieving profit. Anything else is guaranteed to produce less affluence for all but those in government or who are necessary for government to prosper.

 

[Pogo]

Not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'll just take on this snippet:

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Does everyone not understand that the nature of capitalism strongly discourages these polyanna ideals? That the goal of such capitalists is profit rather than profit sharing? That the two are mutually antagonistic if not mutually exclusive? That such companies strive to make the most at the least cost of doing business, jobs being the primary cost, and therefore the last thing they want to increase? That companies, and rich people, and capitalism, are specifically not there to enrich other people?

OK then. Let's quit hanging ideals of how we wish the world worked over the ways it actually does.

Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?

I wish--oh, how MUCH I wish--the teachings of 19th century classical liberalism was mandatory curriculum in school any more.

But it can be summed up in one sentence written by Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Business and commerce works best, most efficiently, most effectively, and most to the benefit of ALL when it is done ethically, responsibly, and for the purpose of achieving profit. Anything else is guaranteed to produce less affluence for all but those in government or who are necessary for government to prosper.

I think you just repeated what I said; the goal of capitalism is profit. And profit sharing undermines that profit. Therefore it's not rational or reasonable to ascribe altruistic communistic (small c) motives to capitalists from which that very system discourages them, nor is it reasonable to expect them to behave in ways counter to their own interests as capitalists. That's all I'm saying.

And RE the first line: "Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?" -- no, what you've just described is wages. Capitalism is the concept of receiving reward in return for creating/selling some product or service. That creation has capital costs -- material, physical plant, labor... and those costs work against profit, therefore they must be kept to a minimum -- not a maximum. It's in the capitalist's interest to spend less on materials, less on physical plant, and less on labor. Thus the incentive is not to hire more people; it's to hire fewer.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'll just take on this snippet:




Does everyone not understand that the nature of capitalism strongly discourages these polyanna ideals? That the goal of such capitalists is profit rather than profit sharing? That the two are mutually antagonistic if not mutually exclusive? That such companies strive to make the most at the least cost of doing business, jobs being the primary cost, and therefore the last thing they want to increase? That companies, and rich people, and capitalism, are specifically not there to enrich other people?

OK then. Let's quit hanging ideals of how we wish the world worked over the ways it actually does.

Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?

I wish--oh, how MUCH I wish--the teachings of 19th century classical liberalism was mandatory curriculum in school any more.

But it can be summed up in one sentence written by Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Business and commerce works best, most efficiently, most effectively, and most to the benefit of ALL when it is done ethically, responsibly, and for the purpose of achieving profit. Anything else is guaranteed to produce less affluence for all but those in government or who are necessary for government to prosper.

I think you just repeated what I said; the goal of capitalism is profit. And profit sharing undermines that profit. Therefore it's not rational or reasonable to ascribe altruistic communistic (small c) motives to capitalists from which that very system discourages them, nor is it reasonable to expect them to behave in ways counter to their own interests as capitalists. That's all I'm saying.

And RE the first line: "Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?" -- no, what you've just described is wages. Capitalism is the concept of receiving reward in return for creating/selling some product or service. That creation has capital costs -- material, physical plant, labor... and those costs work against profit, therefore they must be kept to a minimum -- not a maximum. It's in the capitalist's interest to spend less on materials, less on physical plant, and less on labor. Thus the incentive is not to hire more people; it's to hire fewer.

No dear. Capitalism is much much more than mere wages. Capitalism assumes the ability to acquire and use one's own property for one's own benefit and/or pleasure. Capitalism assumes the ability to earn interest or other increase on what is saved, the ability to profit from what is invested either in the enterprises of others or in one's own enterprise.

Those who are most successful in this process, and that is sometimes via simple good luck, but more likely due to innovation, inspiration, creativity, and plain hard work, are going to acquire much more wealth than those who are less successful.

Wages are something quite different. Wages are acquired through a contract between the worker and employer for the mutual benefit of both. Wages are a commodity ie.e cost of doing business in the course of engaging in capitalism every bit as much as are inputs, infrastructure, and other costs of doing business, i.e. engaging in capitalism. And yes, the enterprise that manages the costs of doing business effectively and efficiently will prosper more than those who do not. But also, those who profit most are in the position to expand, grow, improve, and provide more jobs and opportunity to acquire wealth for others than will those who are less successful.

But yes, a worker can engage in the capitalist system by selling his/her labor to the highest bidder and thereby earn profits for himself or herself. And those who make good choices of how they conduct their lives, educate themselves, and acquire references and work ethic will be far more successful and generally will acquire much more wealth than those who do not.

 

[MikeK]

Again the question that every citizen should ask himself/herself. Is it more important to take money from the rich? Or is it more important to increase revenues to the U.S. treasury.

Does anybody here understand that every dollar that government takes out of the private sector, whether from the rich or the poor, is a dollar that is not available to the private sector to save so that others have money to borrow, invest so that companies can grow, or spend to expand the economy? Every dollar that the government takes is a dollar not available to hire people, increase wages, increase benefits?

And does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the means to save more money, so that others have money to borrow?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Raising taxes on the working class means less money to spend on things they want. So when we talk about raising taxes on the rich the working class mentality preconsciously assumes the same effect will apply -- which simply is not the case.

Wealth in the working class is measured in the thousands of dollars. Wealth in the upper economic levels is measured in the multi-millions and billions. So when we raise taxes on the rich all it does is make them a little less rich, but still rich, and still able to buy the things they want -- or hire employees to facilitate their current and expanding ambitions. The notion that raising taxes on corporations limits their ability to hire is a misconception which is based on a preconscious projection of the working class mentality.

Hiring employees is not the same as buying a new diswasher, which is an expense, a loss. One does not hire an employee without a clear vision of ultimate derived profit. Hiring an employee is an investment, not a loss. So this notion that taking an extra million dollars in taxes from a corporation which is worth half a billion will limit that corporation's ability to engage in new ventures and to hire new employees is a handy deception the likes of the Koch Brothers have imposed on the working class mind, where it makes sense by association.

Taxing the rich doesn't impede their ability to do anything! In order to negatively affect the bottom line of most corporations it would be necessary to raise their taxes 400% or more. Because their wealth, and the wealth of their principals, is beyond the comprehension of the working class mentality. The upper economic levels are in possession of more than 90% of this Nation's wealth!

Another question:

What is more important? To make rich people pay more? Or to make it possible for more people to become rich?

One has nothing to do with the other!

Evidence of that is plainly seen in the fact that the most prosperous and productive years in our history, the decades between the late 1940s and the early 1980s (when "Reagonomics" was foisted on us) was attended by a 91% tax rate on the upper economic levels. Our prosperity diminished in proportion with the decreasing upper level tax rate.

It's there in black & white for all to see. Here's a quick look:

The income tax rate of $200,000 annual income, or more:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

 

[MikeK]

I just discovered the tax rate chart URL posted in my above message is no longer available. So the following is an update:

Historical Marginal Income Tax Rates ? Visualizing Economics

 

[Foxfyre]

Again the question that every citizen should ask himself/herself. Is it more important to take money from the rich? Or is it more important to increase revenues to the U.S. treasury.

Does anybody here understand that every dollar that government takes out of the private sector, whether from the rich or the poor, is a dollar that is not available to the private sector to save so that others have money to borrow, invest so that companies can grow, or spend to expand the economy? Every dollar that the government takes is a dollar not available to hire people, increase wages, increase benefits?

And does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the means to save more money, so that others have money to borrow?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Raising taxes on the working class means less money to spend on things they want. So when we talk about raising taxes on the rich the working class mentality preconsciously assumes the same effect will apply -- which simply is not the case.

Wealth in the working class is measured in the thousands of dollars. Wealth in the upper economic levels is measured in the multi-millions and billions. So when we raise taxes on the rich all it does is make them a little less rich, but still rich, and still able to buy the things they want -- or hire employees to facilitate their current and expanding ambitions. The notion that raising taxes on corporations limits their ability to hire is a misconception which is based on a preconscious projection of the working class mentality.

Hiring employees is not the same as buying a new diswasher, which is an expense, a loss. One does not hire an employee without a clear vision of ultimate derived profit. Hiring an employee is an investment, not a loss. So this notion that taking an extra million dollars in taxes from a corporation which is worth half a billion will limit that corporation's ability to engage in new ventures and to hire new employees is a handy deception the likes of the Koch Brothers have imposed on the working class mind, where it makes sense by association.

Taxing the rich doesn't impede their ability to do anything! In order to negatively affect the bottom line of most corporations it would be necessary to raise their taxes 400% or more. Because their wealth, and the wealth of their principals, is beyond the comprehension of the working class mentality. The upper economic levels are in possession of more than 90% of this Nation's wealth!

Another question:

What is more important? To make rich people pay more? Or to make it possible for more people to become rich?

One has nothing to do with the other!

Evidence of that is plainly seen in the fact that the most prosperous and productive years in our history, the decades between the late 1940s and the early 1980s (when "Reagonomics" was foisted on us) was attended by a 91% tax rate on the upper economic levels. Our prosperity diminished in proportion with the decreasing upper level tax rate.

It's there in black & white for all to see. Here's a quick look:

The income tax rate of $200,000 annual income, or more:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

I have already posted rebuttal to all of this and refer you back to my last several posts in the last few hours.

The bottom line is that you see government as being entitled to whatever it wants of whatever people earn or you don't. If you do, you have rejected the basic principles this country was founded on.

The bottom line is that you think that there is an unalienable right to the property and wages or profits that you earn through ethical and honorable labor, or you don't. If you don't, then you have rejected the basic principles this country was founded on.

The bottom line is that iyou think you are entitled to receive what others have earned because they have more than you do or you don't. If you do, then you are a Marxist at heart and not a capitalist.

 

[pjnlsn]

In my opinion, the issue of wealth inequality, or simply to recognize the problem, is simple. Average wages , at least among so called blue collar workers, have been falling relative to production for a decade or so, and the ratio is now as low as it was about the 70's.

There's no easy, objective answer to the problem, but given that the majority of people are not in top 1% in which wealth in this country has been clustered (literally the hoarding, so to speak, is indeed taking place closer to the top 1% than the top 10 or 20, political slogans aside), and that the same people would probably not want that to be the case, then the answer of how things should be is simple.

 

[pjnlsn]

Not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'll just take on this snippet:

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Does everyone not understand that the nature of capitalism strongly discourages these polyanna ideals? That the goal of such capitalists is profit rather than profit sharing? That the two are mutually antagonistic if not mutually exclusive? That such companies strive to make the most at the least cost of doing business, jobs being the primary cost, and therefore the last thing they want to increase? That companies, and rich people, and capitalism, are specifically not there to enrich other people?

OK then. Let's quit hanging ideals of how we wish the world worked over the ways it actually does.

Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?

I wish--oh, how MUCH I wish--the teachings of 19th century classical liberalism was mandatory curriculum in school any more.

But it can be summed up in one sentence written by Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Business and commerce works best, most efficiently, most effectively, and most to the benefit of ALL when it is done ethically, responsibly, and for the purpose of achieving profit. Anything else is guaranteed to produce less affluence for all but those in government or who are necessary for government to prosper.

Most people don't want things to be exactly equal. They want to be rewarded for their hard work, obviously. But it's not as though the only two options are communism or the way it is now, with nearly all the wealth in the hands of the top 10%, and a significant amount in the hands of a mere 1 percent of the population.

If this isn't an exaggeration, it would seem the US is slowly turning into a modern form of plutocracy, what with upwards wealth inequality increasing along with the influence on government of the richest private citizens.

 

[Pogo]

Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?

I wish--oh, how MUCH I wish--the teachings of 19th century classical liberalism was mandatory curriculum in school any more.

But it can be summed up in one sentence written by Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Business and commerce works best, most efficiently, most effectively, and most to the benefit of ALL when it is done ethically, responsibly, and for the purpose of achieving profit. Anything else is guaranteed to produce less affluence for all but those in government or who are necessary for government to prosper.

I think you just repeated what I said; the goal of capitalism is profit. And profit sharing undermines that profit. Therefore it's not rational or reasonable to ascribe altruistic communistic (small c) motives to capitalists from which that very system discourages them, nor is it reasonable to expect them to behave in ways counter to their own interests as capitalists. That's all I'm saying.

And RE the first line: "Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?" -- no, what you've just described is wages. Capitalism is the concept of receiving reward in return for creating/selling some product or service. That creation has capital costs -- material, physical plant, labor... and those costs work against profit, therefore they must be kept to a minimum -- not a maximum. It's in the capitalist's interest to spend less on materials, less on physical plant, and less on labor. Thus the incentive is not to hire more people; it's to hire fewer.

No dear. Capitalism is much much more than mere wages. Capitalism assumes the ability to acquire and use one's own property for one's own benefit and/or pleasure. Capitalism assumes the ability to earn interest or other increase on what is saved, the ability to profit from what is invested either in the enterprises of others or in one's own enterprise.

Yes, dear. That's what I just said. I mean it's nice that we agree and all. Enjoy it already. But what you put in the last post describes wages. Think about it.

Those who are most successful in this process, and that is sometimes via simple good luck, but more likely due to innovation, inspiration, creativity, and plain hard work, are going to acquire much more wealth than those who are less successful.

Wages are something quite different. Wages are acquired through a contract between the worker and employer for the mutual benefit of both. Wages are a commodity ie.e cost of doing business in the course of engaging in capitalism every bit as much as are inputs, infrastructure, and other costs of doing business, i.e. engaging in capitalism. And yes, the enterprise that manages the costs of doing business effectively and efficiently will prosper more than those who do not. But also, those who profit most are in the position to expand, grow, improve, and provide more jobs and opportunity to acquire wealth for others than will those who are less successful.

But yes, a worker can engage in the capitalist system by selling his/her labor to the highest bidder and thereby earn profits for himself or herself. And those who make good choices of how they conduct their lives, educate themselves, and acquire references and work ethic will be far more successful and generally will acquire much more wealth than those who do not.

Interesting dance, apparently to put distance away from the original sentiment, that being the implication of altruistic motivations on the part of those who just don't have them and in fact, have motivations to the contrary.

Stop the pretense. Companies don't hire because people need jobs. They hire because they have to in order to keep up with their business. That's the kind of problem they like to have, but let's be clear about which leads which, shall we? As the previous post points out, more money in the pocket of the laborer means more money available to spend; more money available to spend means more buying of that company's product or service: more demand for that company's product or service means the company must hire more labor to keep up, and only at that point is it economically feasible for them to do so. The company is the follower in this chain of events, not the leader.

 

[MikeK]

Again the question that every citizen should ask himself/herself. Is it more important to take money from the rich? Or is it more important to increase revenues to the U.S. treasury.

Does anybody here understand that every dollar that government takes out of the private sector, whether from the rich or the poor, is a dollar that is not available to the private sector to save so that others have money to borrow, invest so that companies can grow, or spend to expand the economy? Every dollar that the government takes is a dollar not available to hire people, increase wages, increase benefits?

And does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the means to save more money, so that others have money to borrow?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Raising taxes on the working class means less money to spend on things they want. So when we talk about raising taxes on the rich the working class mentality preconsciously assumes the same effect will apply -- which simply is not the case.

Wealth in the working class is measured in the thousands of dollars. Wealth in the upper economic levels is measured in the multi-millions and billions. So when we raise taxes on the rich all it does is make them a little less rich, but still rich, and still able to buy the things they want -- or hire employees to facilitate their current and expanding ambitions. The notion that raising taxes on corporations limits their ability to hire is a misconception which is based on a preconscious projection of the working class mentality.

Hiring employees is not the same as buying a new diswasher, which is an expense, a loss. One does not hire an employee without a clear vision of ultimate derived profit. Hiring an employee is an investment, not a loss. So this notion that taking an extra million dollars in taxes from a corporation which is worth half a billion will limit that corporation's ability to engage in new ventures and to hire new employees is a handy deception the likes of the Koch Brothers have imposed on the working class mind, where it makes sense by association.

Taxing the rich doesn't impede their ability to do anything! In order to negatively affect the bottom line of most corporations it would be necessary to raise their taxes 400% or more. Because their wealth, and the wealth of their principals, is beyond the comprehension of the working class mentality. The upper economic levels are in possession of more than 90% of this Nation's wealth!

Another question:

What is more important? To make rich people pay more? Or to make it possible for more people to become rich?

One has nothing to do with the other!

Evidence of that is plainly seen in the fact that the most prosperous and productive years in our history, the decades between the late 1940s and the early 1980s (when "Reagonomics" was foisted on us) was attended by a 91% tax rate on the upper economic levels. Our prosperity diminished in proportion with the decreasing upper level tax rate.

It's there in black & white for all to see. Here's a quick look:

The income tax rate of $200,000 annual income, or more:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

I have already posted rebuttal to all of this and refer you back to my last several posts in the last few hours.

The bottom line is that you see government as being entitled to whatever it wants of whatever people earn or you don't. If you do, you have rejected the basic principles this country was founded on.

The bottom line is that you think that there is an unalienable right to the property and wages or profits that you earn through ethical and honorable labor, or you don't. If you don't, then you have rejected the basic principles this country was founded on.

The bottom line is that iyou think you are entitled to receive what others have earned because they have more than you do or you don't. If you do, then you are a Marxist at heart and not a capitalist.

That is a Libertarian rant which does nothing but attempt to deny reality, which is taxation is the necessary means by which equitable distribution and essential application of the Nation's wealth resources may be achieved. Left to their own devices the rich would hoard so much of our productive capacity that the workers, who actually do the producing, would live in abject poverty while the Wall Street schemers, the usurers, the criminal bankers, the corporatists and plutocrats would be left to foster a neo-aristocracy through political bribery and hoarding the wealth it enables.

PS: I am not a Marxist. If you knew what Marxism is you would understand that. I am a socialist -- not a communist.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you just repeated what I said; the goal of capitalism is profit. And profit sharing undermines that profit. Therefore it's not rational or reasonable to ascribe altruistic communistic (small c) motives to capitalists from which that very system discourages them, nor is it reasonable to expect them to behave in ways counter to their own interests as capitalists. That's all I'm saying.

And RE the first line: "Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?" -- no, what you've just described is wages. Capitalism is the concept of receiving reward in return for creating/selling some product or service. That creation has capital costs -- material, physical plant, labor... and those costs work against profit, therefore they must be kept to a minimum -- not a maximum. It's in the capitalist's interest to spend less on materials, less on physical plant, and less on labor. Thus the incentive is not to hire more people; it's to hire fewer.

No dear. Capitalism is much much more than mere wages. Capitalism assumes the ability to acquire and use one's own property for one's own benefit and/or pleasure. Capitalism assumes the ability to earn interest or other increase on what is saved, the ability to profit from what is invested either in the enterprises of others or in one's own enterprise.

Yes, dear. That's what I just said. I mean it's nice that we agree and all. Enjoy it already. But what you put in the last post describes wages. Think about it.

Those who are most successful in this process, and that is sometimes via simple good luck, but more likely due to innovation, inspiration, creativity, and plain hard work, are going to acquire much more wealth than those who are less successful.

Wages are something quite different. Wages are acquired through a contract between the worker and employer for the mutual benefit of both. Wages are a commodity ie.e cost of doing business in the course of engaging in capitalism every bit as much as are inputs, infrastructure, and other costs of doing business, i.e. engaging in capitalism. And yes, the enterprise that manages the costs of doing business effectively and efficiently will prosper more than those who do not. But also, those who profit most are in the position to expand, grow, improve, and provide more jobs and opportunity to acquire wealth for others than will those who are less successful.

But yes, a worker can engage in the capitalist system by selling his/her labor to the highest bidder and thereby earn profits for himself or herself. And those who make good choices of how they conduct their lives, educate themselves, and acquire references and work ethic will be far more successful and generally will acquire much more wealth than those who do not.

Interesting dance, apparently to put distance away from the original sentiment, that being the implication of altruistic motivations on the part of those who just don't have them and in fact, have motivations to the contrary.

Stop the pretense. Companies don't hire because people need jobs. They hire because they have to in order to keep up with their business. That's the kind of problem they like to have, but let's be clear about which leads which, shall we? As the previous post points out, more money in the pocket of the laborer means more money available to spend; more money available to spend means more buying of that company's product or service: more demand for that company's product or service means the company must hire more labor to keep up, and only at that point is it economically feasible for them to do so. The company is the follower in this chain of events, not the leader.

I think I went to some trouble to spell out in some detail that the capitalist rarely engages in capitalism for any altruistic motives or to provide jobs for anybody. The jobs happen because the capitalist is successfully engaged in looking to his own interests, the workers are necessary in order for him to do that, and that in turn provides the market for the capitalists products or services.

Nor is the worker usually interested in providing profits for his employer. He is rather interested in increasing his own wealth and, in a pure capitalist system, that generally results in the worker doing his job effectively in order to produce more profits for his employer.

In a capitalistic system, everybody benefits everybody else by simply looking to their own interests.

This was beautifully illustrated in a Walter Williams essay a few years ago:

Excerpt:

Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Walter Williams

 

[Pogo]

Raising taxes on the working class means less money to spend on things they want. So when we talk about raising taxes on the rich the working class mentality preconsciously assumes the same effect will apply -- which simply is not the case.

Wealth in the working class is measured in the thousands of dollars. Wealth in the upper economic levels is measured in the multi-millions and billions. So when we raise taxes on the rich all it does is make them a little less rich, but still rich, and still able to buy the things they want -- or hire employees to facilitate their current and expanding ambitions. The notion that raising taxes on corporations limits their ability to hire is a misconception which is based on a preconscious projection of the working class mentality.

Hiring employees is not the same as buying a new diswasher, which is an expense, a loss. One does not hire an employee without a clear vision of ultimate derived profit. Hiring an employee is an investment, not a loss. So this notion that taking an extra million dollars in taxes from a corporation which is worth half a billion will limit that corporation's ability to engage in new ventures and to hire new employees is a handy deception the likes of the Koch Brothers have imposed on the working class mind, where it makes sense by association.

Taxing the rich doesn't impede their ability to do anything! In order to negatively affect the bottom line of most corporations it would be necessary to raise their taxes 400% or more. Because their wealth, and the wealth of their principals, is beyond the comprehension of the working class mentality. The upper economic levels are in possession of more than 90% of this Nation's wealth!


One has nothing to do with the other!

Evidence of that is plainly seen in the fact that the most prosperous and productive years in our history, the decades between the late 1940s and the early 1980s (when "Reagonomics" was foisted on us) was attended by a 91% tax rate on the upper economic levels. Our prosperity diminished in proportion with the decreasing upper level tax rate.

It's there in black & white for all to see. Here's a quick look:

The income tax rate of $200,000 annual income, or more:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

I have already posted rebuttal to all of this and refer you back to my last several posts in the last few hours.

The bottom line is that you see government as being entitled to whatever it wants of whatever people earn or you don't. If you do, you have rejected the basic principles this country was founded on.

The bottom line is that you think that there is an unalienable right to the property and wages or profits that you earn through ethical and honorable labor, or you don't. If you don't, then you have rejected the basic principles this country was founded on.

The bottom line is that iyou think you are entitled to receive what others have earned because they have more than you do or you don't. If you do, then you are a Marxist at heart and not a capitalist.

That is a Libertarian rant which does nothing but attempt to deny reality, which is taxation is the necessary means by which equitable distribution and essential application of the Nation's wealth resources may be achieved. Left to their own devices the rich would hoard so much of our productive capacity that the workers, who actually do the producing, would live in abject poverty while the Wall Street schemers, the usurers, the criminal bankers, the corporatists and plutocrats would be left to foster a neo-aristocracy through political bribery and hoarding the wealth it enables.

PS: I am not a Marxist. If you knew what Marxism is you would understand that. I am a socialist -- not a communist.

Well put, and that's my point above. We already have a country run by plutocratic corporatists enjoying revolving doors in DC opening up an endless cesspool of conflicts of interests, foxes in charge of henhouses and lobbyism. I just don't get why some feel inclined to genuflect to that system against their own interests. Some seem to have forgotten that a corporation exists at the pleasure of We the People and seem to believe the opposite is true. Reagan the lifelong corporate puppet sold that song and dance. It still astonishes me that anyone bought it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'll just take on this snippet:




Does everyone not understand that the nature of capitalism strongly discourages these polyanna ideals? That the goal of such capitalists is profit rather than profit sharing? That the two are mutually antagonistic if not mutually exclusive? That such companies strive to make the most at the least cost of doing business, jobs being the primary cost, and therefore the last thing they want to increase? That companies, and rich people, and capitalism, are specifically not there to enrich other people?

OK then. Let's quit hanging ideals of how we wish the world worked over the ways it actually does.

Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?

I wish--oh, how MUCH I wish--the teachings of 19th century classical liberalism was mandatory curriculum in school any more.

But it can be summed up in one sentence written by Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Business and commerce works best, most efficiently, most effectively, and most to the benefit of ALL when it is done ethically, responsibly, and for the purpose of achieving profit. Anything else is guaranteed to produce less affluence for all but those in government or who are necessary for government to prosper.

Most people don't want things to be exactly equal. They want to be rewarded for their hard work, obviously. But it's not as though the only two options are communism or the way it is now, with nearly all the wealth in the hands of the top 10%, and a significant amount in the hands of a mere 1 percent of the population.

If this isn't an exaggeration, it would seem the US is slowly turning into a modern form of plutocracy, what with upwards wealth inequality increasing along with the influence on government of the richest private citizens.

If you don't want the wealth in so few hands of the productive, then work with me to end the entitlement mentality that has about half the U.S. population receiving some kind of government benefit and thus become unwilling to work hard enough to earn enough that they might lose that benefit. Help me to return the American mentality that made low income a phase or right of passage that we all went through in order to achieve a piece of the American dream.

The more we look to government to create that American dream for us, the harder it is going to be for more of us to attain.

 

[Pogo]

No dear. Capitalism is much much more than mere wages. Capitalism assumes the ability to acquire and use one's own property for one's own benefit and/or pleasure. Capitalism assumes the ability to earn interest or other increase on what is saved, the ability to profit from what is invested either in the enterprises of others or in one's own enterprise.

Yes, dear. That's what I just said. I mean it's nice that we agree and all. Enjoy it already. But what you put in the last post describes wages. Think about it.



Interesting dance, apparently to put distance away from the original sentiment, that being the implication of altruistic motivations on the part of those who just don't have them and in fact, have motivations to the contrary.

Stop the pretense. Companies don't hire because people need jobs. They hire because they have to in order to keep up with their business. That's the kind of problem they like to have, but let's be clear about which leads which, shall we? As the previous post points out, more money in the pocket of the laborer means more money available to spend; more money available to spend means more buying of that company's product or service: more demand for that company's product or service means the company must hire more labor to keep up, and only at that point is it economically feasible for them to do so. The company is the follower in this chain of events, not the leader.

I think I went to some trouble to spell out in some detail that the capitalist rarely engages in capitalism for any altruistic motives or to provide jobs for anybody. The jobs happen because the capitalist is successfully engaged in looking to his own interests, the workers are necessary in order for him to do that, and that in turn provides the market for the capitalists products or services.

Nor is the worker usually interested in providing profits for his employer. He is rather interested in increasing his own wealth and, in a pure capitalist system, that generally results in the worker doing his job effectively in order to produce more profits for his employer.

In a capitalistic system, everybody benefits everybody else by simply looking to their own interests.

This was beautifully illustrated in a Walter Williams essay a few years ago:

Excerpt:

Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Walter Williams

Very well, I accept your 180.

Love ya Foxy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, dear. That's what I just said. I mean it's nice that we agree and all. Enjoy it already. But what you put in the last post describes wages. Think about it.



Interesting dance, apparently to put distance away from the original sentiment, that being the implication of altruistic motivations on the part of those who just don't have them and in fact, have motivations to the contrary.

Stop the pretense. Companies don't hire because people need jobs. They hire because they have to in order to keep up with their business. That's the kind of problem they like to have, but let's be clear about which leads which, shall we? As the previous post points out, more money in the pocket of the laborer means more money available to spend; more money available to spend means more buying of that company's product or service: more demand for that company's product or service means the company must hire more labor to keep up, and only at that point is it economically feasible for them to do so. The company is the follower in this chain of events, not the leader.

I think I went to some trouble to spell out in some detail that the capitalist rarely engages in capitalism for any altruistic motives or to provide jobs for anybody. The jobs happen because the capitalist is successfully engaged in looking to his own interests, the workers are necessary in order for him to do that, and that in turn provides the market for the capitalists products or services.

Nor is the worker usually interested in providing profits for his employer. He is rather interested in increasing his own wealth and, in a pure capitalist system, that generally results in the worker doing his job effectively in order to produce more profits for his employer.

In a capitalistic system, everybody benefits everybody else by simply looking to their own interests.

This was beautifully illustrated in a Walter Williams essay a few years ago:

Excerpt:

Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Walter Williams

Very well, I accept your 180.

Love ya Foxy.

I love you too Pogo. But a careful reading of my posts in this thread and for the couple of decades on line will show that I have been 100% consistent in my views on this topic. I have learned much, but the basic concepts and principles remain the same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again the question that every citizen should ask himself/herself. Is it more important to take money from the rich? Or is it more important to increase revenues to the U.S. treasury.

Does anybody here understand that every dollar that government takes out of the private sector, whether from the rich or the poor, is a dollar that is not available to the private sector to save so that others have money to borrow, invest so that companies can grow, or spend to expand the economy? Every dollar that the government takes is a dollar not available to hire people, increase wages, increase benefits?

And does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the means to save more money, so that others have money to borrow?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Raising taxes on the working class means less money to spend on things they want. So when we talk about raising taxes on the rich the working class mentality preconsciously assumes the same effect will apply -- which simply is not the case.

Wealth in the working class is measured in the thousands of dollars. Wealth in the upper economic levels is measured in the multi-millions and billions. So when we raise taxes on the rich all it does is make them a little less rich, but still rich, and still able to buy the things they want -- or hire employees to facilitate their current and expanding ambitions. The notion that raising taxes on corporations limits their ability to hire is a misconception which is based on a preconscious projection of the working class mentality.

Hiring employees is not the same as buying a new diswasher, which is an expense, a loss. One does not hire an employee without a clear vision of ultimate derived profit. Hiring an employee is an investment, not a loss. So this notion that taking an extra million dollars in taxes from a corporation which is worth half a billion will limit that corporation's ability to engage in new ventures and to hire new employees is a handy deception the likes of the Koch Brothers have imposed on the working class mind, where it makes sense by association.

Taxing the rich doesn't impede their ability to do anything! In order to negatively affect the bottom line of most corporations it would be necessary to raise their taxes 400% or more. Because their wealth, and the wealth of their principals, is beyond the comprehension of the working class mentality. The upper economic levels are in possession of more than 90% of this Nation's wealth!

Another question:

What is more important? To make rich people pay more? Or to make it possible for more people to become rich?

One has nothing to do with the other!

Evidence of that is plainly seen in the fact that the most prosperous and productive years in our history, the decades between the late 1940s and the early 1980s (when "Reagonomics" was foisted on us) was attended by a 91% tax rate on the upper economic levels. Our prosperity diminished in proportion with the decreasing upper level tax rate.

It's there in black & white for all to see. Here's a quick look:

The income tax rate of $200,000 annual income, or more:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

1982 was 50%

1988 was 28%

 

[Pogo]

I think I went to some trouble to spell out in some detail that the capitalist rarely engages in capitalism for any altruistic motives or to provide jobs for anybody. The jobs happen because the capitalist is successfully engaged in looking to his own interests, the workers are necessary in order for him to do that, and that in turn provides the market for the capitalists products or services.

Nor is the worker usually interested in providing profits for his employer. He is rather interested in increasing his own wealth and, in a pure capitalist system, that generally results in the worker doing his job effectively in order to produce more profits for his employer.

In a capitalistic system, everybody benefits everybody else by simply looking to their own interests.

This was beautifully illustrated in a Walter Williams essay a few years ago:

Excerpt:

Very well, I accept your 180.

Love ya Foxy.

I love you too Pogo. But a careful reading of my posts in this thread and for the couple of decades on line will show that I have been 100% consistent in my views on this topic. I have learned much, but the basic concepts and principles remain the same.

Oh Foxy Foxy... if I had a dollar for every time you've protested that you're really not playing both sides of the fence, I could start my own bidness and hire a bunch of workers

To be fair, no you didn't specifically say the company does its hiring out of altruism, but seems to me you sure tried to imply it. I justa keep-a you honest about what's what.

As noted at the start I'm not getting into all the nuts and bolts of who should be taxed what; I'm just distilling this selected part of your premise. I think it's a dangerous game to pretend the corporations are in charge of us rather than the other way around. That's when we creep toward fascism (as if we're not already halfway there....)

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, and I don't disagree that employers will pay as little as they can for labor to accomplish the employer's goals. But in a well functioning capitalistic system, the employer has to compete with other employers for that labor. Thus to get the dregs of the work force he may indeed not have to pay more than starvation wages. But to get competent, effective, effective people with the right skill sets and work ethics, he will be bidding against other employers and will pay as much as he has to in order to get them. But make that cost so high that the profit margin is so reduced that the employer is no longer willing to risk his assets to shoot for it, and the employer cuts back, scales back, or discontinues business altogether. And voila, no more jobs for the employees.

As illustrated in Williams' essay, it all works if it is allowed to work freely and without artificial interference.

And it is still more benevolent and more beneficial to allow more people to strive to become rich than it is to wish to make rich people less rich.