You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

[ShackledNation]

Oh horseshit. Class envy and oppression does not define every economic action.

By this, your success is due to you because you fucked over someone else and are therefore inherently evil to boot. Just not AS evil as someone who is more successful.

Oh and please try that "debt isn't ruinous" line when you've maxed out your cards and try to get a mortgage or car loan, on the bank.

Why is it greed for a man to want to keep the fruit of his labor, but not greed when someone uses the power of government to deprive another man of his hard-earned property?

You've read what I wrote there with a jaundiced eye.

What I said, quite simply, is the rich are rich because the resources of this Nation enabled their success -- not because they are endowed with magical powers. And for that reason it is only fair that they return an appropriate share of what they've managed to acquire to the source of their good fortune. And an appropriate share will by no means be ruinous to them. Because for the uber-rich, even if their tax rate is 91% of their income they would still have more and be living better than 98% of the population.

There is nothing complicated or devious about that. It simply proposes a payment of taxes proportionate to that paid by less financially successful citizens.

And if the rich don't think paying a tax on their earnings is justified they have a choice of not earning anything or moving to a nation where the tax rates are lower and trying to do as well there.

Exactly how is taxing the rich at 91% or at a higher than anyone else "proportionate" to less financially successful citizens? It isn't in absolute or relative terms. And the rich are not saying they should pay no taxes and the poor should pay more. If there is a tax on earnings, everyone should pay it. Even if the rate is flat the rich will pay more.

What resources of this nation enabled their success? What does that even mean? Their success was enabled by their business and innovative skills. Nobody said anything about magical powers.

 

[Antiderivative]

What I said, quite simply, is the rich are rich because the resources of this Nation enabled their success -- not because they are endowed with magical powers.

That is why I believe in Georgism which should be extended to financial banks.

 

[California Girl]

Oh horseshit. Class envy and oppression does not define every economic action.

By this, your success is due to you because you fucked over someone else and are therefore inherently evil to boot. Just not AS evil as someone who is more successful.

Oh and please try that "debt isn't ruinous" line when you've maxed out your cards and try to get a mortgage or car loan, on the bank.

Why is it greed for a man to want to keep the fruit of his labor, but not greed when someone uses the power of government to deprive another man of his hard-earned property?

You've read what I wrote there with a jaundiced eye.

What I said, quite simply, is the rich are rich because the resources of this Nation enabled their success -- not because they are endowed with magical powers. And for that reason it is only fair that they return an appropriate share of what they've managed to acquire to the source of their good fortune. And an appropriate share will by no means be ruinous to them. Because for the uber-rich, even if their tax rate is 91% of their income they would still have more and be living better than 98% of the population.

There is nothing complicated or devious about that. It simply proposes a payment of taxes proportionate to that paid by less financially successful citizens.

And if the rich don't think paying a tax on their earnings is justified they have a choice of not earning anything or moving to a nation where the tax rates are lower and trying to do as well there.

Successful people are successful because they work hard and sacrifice. This country plays a role - it's that whole 'American Dream' thing - but they don't get given their success. They work for it. They already pay far more than the rest of us, and yet greedy people want them to just keep bailing the rest of the country out.

It is not their fault that we are in this mess, so why should they pay for it?

 

[ShackledNation]

In the old days the rich traveled in a coach-and-four while the poor traveled on foot. That is inequality. Today the rich travel in fancy cars while the poor travel in run-down cars. That is a dramatic reduction in inequality. This is all the more true when we consider that the amenities many poor people now have in their cars would have been unheard of in the richest people’s homes just four generations ago.

 

[Antiderivative]

Successful people are successful because they work hard and sacrifice. This country plays a role - it's that whole 'American Dream' thing - but they don't get given their success. They work for it. They already pay far more than the rest of us, and yet greedy people want them to just keep bailing the rest of the country out.

It is not their fault that we are in this mess, so why should they pay for it?

Except when the blow billions of dollars on lobbying to make them even more successful.

However, rw kooks love to overlook this fact. They think that crony capitalism is very American.

 

[California Girl]

Successful people are successful because they work hard and sacrifice. This country plays a role - it's that whole 'American Dream' thing - but they don't get given their success. They work for it. They already pay far more than the rest of us, and yet greedy people want them to just keep bailing the rest of the country out.

It is not their fault that we are in this mess, so why should they pay for it?

Except when the blow billions of dollars on lobbying to make them even more successful.

However, rw kooks love to overlook this fact. They think that crony capitalism is very American.

I think that depends on who you're referring to as 'the rich'. Most of the 'rich' haven't blown billions on lobbying.... some certainly have.... but certainly not all.

Your problem, is that you like to overlook the fact that not all rich people are the people you are referring to.... but you'll punish them just so you can get into the wallets of those you hold responsible for the recession.

Sensible people know that there is plenty of blame to go around for that fuck up.... and you could take a look in the mirror for one of those responsible.

 

[Antiderivative]

I think that depends on who you're referring to as 'the rich'. Most of the 'rich' haven't blown billions on lobbying.... some certainly have.... but certainly not all.

Your problem, is that you like to overlook the fact that not all rich people are the people you are referring to.... but you'll punish them just so you can get into the wallets of those you hold responsible for the recession.

Sensible people know that there is plenty of blame to go around for that fuck up.... and you could take a look in the mirror for one of those responsible.

I don't punish the rich. In fact, downsize government by 90% and abolish patent laws. Let the free market work.

However, kooks hate free market ideology. They can't compete in a free market that is why they are statists hacks.

 

[ShackledNation]

I think that depends on who you're referring to as 'the rich'. Most of the 'rich' haven't blown billions on lobbying.... some certainly have.... but certainly not all.

Your problem, is that you like to overlook the fact that not all rich people are the people you are referring to.... but you'll punish them just so you can get into the wallets of those you hold responsible for the recession.

Sensible people know that there is plenty of blame to go around for that fuck up.... and you could take a look in the mirror for one of those responsible.

I don't punish the rich. In fact, downsize government by 90% and abolish patent laws. Let the free market work.

However, kooks hate free market ideology. They can't compete in a free market that is why they are statists hacks.

Apple has recently been making the absurdity of patent laws horribly clear. Android has been dethroning Apple's grip on the market, so rather than innovate Apple files patent lawsuits to make Android less competitive.

Apple filed for 14 patent applications on July 14, covering everything from "cable structure for preventing tangling" to an "adaptive audio feedback system and method."

People too often overlook the government granted monopoly of the patent.

 

[imbalance]

Without patent laws the $trillions funding research & development across all sectors of industry making innovation possible would essentially become a donation rather than an investment. In other words, there would be no more funding. Patent laws exist so that the people who invested the time and money needed to create a new product are able to recoup their investment before others are allowed to profit from something they had zero hand in creating.

 

[Antiderivative]

Without patent laws the $trillions funding research & development across all sectors of industry making innovation possible would essentially become a donation rather than an investment. In other words, there would be no more funding. Patent laws exist so that the people who invested the time and money needed to create a new product are able to recoup their investment before others are allowed to profit from something they had zero hand in creating.

^^ Works for big Pharma.

 

[imbalance]

Without patent laws the $trillions funding research & development across all sectors of industry making innovation possible would essentially become a donation rather than an investment. In other words, there would be no more funding. Patent laws exist so that the people who invested the time and money needed to create a new product are able to recoup their investment before others are allowed to profit from something they had zero hand in creating.

^^ Works for big Pharma.

As well it should. Consider a drug like Adderall. It had I believe a ten year patent which has expired. I've been prescribed Adderall since 2003 and when I found myself without health insurance in 2007 the patent had not yet expired so my monthly Adderall expense went from $35 to $155 overnight. Was I happy about that? Of course not, but I knew why it was the way it was and it made sense. Then in either 2009 or 2010 the patent expired and generic D-Amphetamine Salts were on the market for $35/script without insurance.

Now, should the company manufacturing the generic have been allowed to sell the product in 2007 when the company who created the brand Adderall was still $billions of dollars away from breaking even on the $ they put into R&D? Even if you somehow think that's reasonabe, it doesn't matter, because no one is going to donate their $billions to R&D to thereby guarantee themselves the only person on the planet with 0 chance of making a net profit on the fruits borne from the R&D.

 

[ShackledNation]

Without patent laws the $trillions funding research & development across all sectors of industry making innovation possible would essentially become a donation rather than an investment. In other words, there would be no more funding. Patent laws exist so that the people who invested the time and money needed to create a new product are able to recoup their investment before others are allowed to profit from something they had zero hand in creating.

I understand that argument, and once believed it. But it simply is not true. Any positive effects of the patent are negated by the negative effects of monopolies. Rather than try to improve upon inventions, businesses worry about lawsuits. Small businesses trying to start up a business worry that their inventions may fall under some general patent that will result in their financial ruin. This serves to stifle innovation.

Innovation would not cease without patents, and such arguments sound logical only when looking at the effects of patents on one group of people. New inventions will always be profitable. Without patents, companies must continue to invent and innovate, rather than cling to patents that last decades so they don't have to worry about free market competition.

One of the reasons drugs are so expensive is because of patent monopolies. Patents function to keep prices high because there is only one seller. Patents operate on the idea that competition hurts the economy. In reality, competition only hurts those that are simply not competitive and benefits us all in the long run. Patent law is the antithesis of such values.

 

[ShackledNation]

Without patent laws the $trillions funding research & development across all sectors of industry making innovation possible would essentially become a donation rather than an investment. In other words, there would be no more funding. Patent laws exist so that the people who invested the time and money needed to create a new product are able to recoup their investment before others are allowed to profit from something they had zero hand in creating.

^^ Works for big Pharma.

As well it should. Consider a drug like Adderall. It had I believe a ten year patent which has expired. I've been prescribed Adderall since 2003 and when I found myself without health insurance in 2007 the patent had not yet expired so my monthly Adderall expense went from $35 to $155 overnight. Was I happy about that? Of course not, but I knew why it was the way it was and it made sense. Then in either 2009 or 2010 the patent expired and generic D-Amphetamine Salts were on the market for $35/script without insurance.

Now, should the company manufacturing the generic have been allowed to sell the product in 2007 when the company who created the brand Adderall was still $billions of dollars away from breaking even on the $ they put into R&D? Even if you somehow think that's reasonabe, it doesn't matter, because no one is going to donate their $billions to R&D to thereby guarantee themselves the only person on the planet with 0 chance of making a net profit on the fruits borne from the R&D.

On the topic of science:
Patents Chilling Effect on Science - Slashdot

"“The American Association for the Advancement of Science recently conducted a survey on the effect of patenting on the sciences. The results are frightening: 1/5th or more of all research projects in the United States are being chilled by patent holders. The sheer amount of research being canceled because of licensing issues is astounding, but at the same time many of these researchers hold their own patents and therefore contribute to the problem.”

Sound like innovation prospering to anyone?

Also, not all inventions can receive patents. People may spend more time and effort trying to come up with patentable inventions, and relatively less time on making "improvements, and refinements of a non-patentable kind," thus wasting resources--and actually slowing down development because the workers are engaging not in the types of innovations they need for their product development but rather in things that satisfy the patent office.

 

[imbalance]

I understand that argument, and once believed it. But it simply is not true. Any positive effects of the patent are negated by the negative effects of monopolies. Rather than try to improve upon inventions, businesses worry about lawsuits. Small businesses trying to start up a business worry that their inventions may fall under some general patent that will result in their financial ruin. This serves to stifle innovation.

Innovation would not cease without patents, and such arguments sound logical only when looking at the effects of patents on one group of people. New inventions will always be profitable. Without patents, companies must continue to invent and innovate, rather than cling to patents that last decades so they don't have to worry about free market competition.

One of the reasons drugs are so expensive is because of patent monopolies. Patents function to keep prices high because there is only one seller. Patents operate on the idea that competition hurts the economy. In reality, competition only hurts those that are simply not competitive and benefits us all in the long run. Patent law is the antithesis of such values.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you.

 

[Antiderivative]

As well it should. Consider a drug like Adderall.

The cheap man's coke which was supposed to subdue over active children from irresponsible adults.

It worked wonders.

Do you have anymore dumbass statements?

 

[Rinata]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.


More : You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot fight hate by supporting a hater.

You're assuming hate needs to be fought, but actually hate for hateful things is desirable and productive. Tolerance is the acceptance of evil.

Your signature gives me the creeps. That's a very distasteful statement.

 

[editec]

What I said, quite simply, is the rich are rich because the resources of this Nation enabled their success -- not because they are endowed with magical powers.

That is why I believe in Georgism which should be extended to financial banks.

Gerogism is based on land values, isn't it?

Probably that would have been a fairer system when land was the source of all wealth, but in today's society it doesn't seem like a very good system for levying the taxes needed to fund our much more complex governments.

It still works more or less fairly for funding local governments, of course.

 

[editec]

Why is it greed for a man to want to keep the fruit of his labor, but not greed when someone uses the power of government to deprive another man of his hard-earned property?

You've read what I wrote there with a jaundiced eye.

What I said, quite simply, is the rich are rich because the resources of this Nation enabled their success -- not because they are endowed with magical powers. And for that reason it is only fair that they return an appropriate share of what they've managed to acquire to the source of their good fortune. And an appropriate share will by no means be ruinous to them. Because for the uber-rich, even if their tax rate is 91% of their income they would still have more and be living better than 98% of the population.

There is nothing complicated or devious about that. It simply proposes a payment of taxes proportionate to that paid by less financially successful citizens.

And if the rich don't think paying a tax on their earnings is justified they have a choice of not earning anything or moving to a nation where the tax rates are lower and trying to do as well there.

Successful people are successful because they work hard and sacrifice. This country plays a role - it's that whole 'American Dream' thing - but they don't get given their success. They work for it. They already pay far more than the rest of us, and yet greedy people want them to just keep bailing the rest of the country out.

It is not their fault that we are in this mess, so why should they pay for it?

That is one of the reasons that I believe that our tax codes ought to be made even more progressive, rather than flatter.

It is precisely those of modest wealthy (who are the real engines of affluence in society) whose taxes are now too high, but they are not too high because the poor are given too much.

Rather the bourgeois are overtaxed because the stupendously wealthy (who are, after all, very often that wealthy because of policies of big government) are taxed at the same rate as those whose affluence does not come from the machinations of big government.

 

[Big Fitz]

Destroying the rich? What worl are you living in? the gap between the rich and middle class is getting bigger. Asking the rich to pay for their ride is not drstroying them.

the income gap is a red herring. It is not a zero-sum game.

numbers are the only way to measure the difference.

Yes, but it's still not a zero sum game.

 

[Big Fitz]

At the end of the day, most right-wing loons would have loved to live in Russia pre 1917....serfdom is their ideal society....

And their blind patriotism reminds me of the Bolsheviks.

Well their patriotism is blind for sure....

Are you two done fucking each other up the ass in mutual admiration yet? Talk about ideological brain damage. "Serfdom" is a conservatve ideal? Since when? What part of 'you get to keep what you earn and live the life you want' equate with serfdom?? Do you even KNOW what serfdom is? Learn some history on the subject of what serfdom and feudalism is. If you then compared it to modern political philosophy that is FUNCTIONALLY the same thing, assuming intellectual honesty (fat chance) you'd be shocked to discover what is ultimately most like it..