Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

I thought corrective was a benign and odd locution given our context. It sounds like your point or worry is the result of real world applications of power structures. They can help but they also can harm. This is not a matter of better rules or no rules (though that is a part), it's a fundamental matter of bettering ourselves so we participate in society with general empathy instead of our sole focus on the ego. A balance is much healthier. Ego unchecked always leads to excess, which is where it becomes unhealthy and corrosive for society.

I totally agree with all this on a personal level. Just not sure how it applies to politics or government.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Capital gains are not EARNED. It's money made from having money.

It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income. If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work. That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.

 

[dblack]

Capital gains are not EARNED. It's money made from having money.

It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income. If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At he very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work. That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.

This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your turn.
Remember?
Are you living with mommy and daddy or any other family members?
What government programs are you using?

Welcome to the libtarded nation of Georges that can't even earn a full time minimum wage salary

Do you ever consider that billionaire corporations can spend their collected DOZENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in cash and other assets to provide higher wages and better benefits for all humanity?

Corporations are nothing more than a piece of paper, a contract between a group of owners. The owners are, in large part, the people of this nation, the 401k investors and such.

Just as your money is for you to spend as you wish, so to is the money owned by the owners of said corporations.

Or are you trying to say it should be illegal for people to have more money than, say you? Is that where YOU draw the line on legal assets?

Seriously, should anyone be allowed to have more income and assets than you? If not why not? If yes ok how much more than you should be legalized in your land of nirvana?

 

[KNB]

Capital gains are not EARNED. It's money made from having money.

It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income. If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work. That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.

It isn't EARNED like a real paycheck is EARNED, by actually doing something other than already being rich.

And why aren't the 1% putting their money back to work?
Google Joins Apple Avoiding Taxes With Stateless Income - Bloomberg
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens - CNN.com
The Real Problem With Offshore Tax Havens | TIME.com
http://tjn-usa.org/storage/documents/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_-_22-07-2012.pdf
Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
BBC News - Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
Offshore Tax Haven Money Could Save Us From the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones
A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows - Business
Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network - ABC News
Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes - Business Insider

 

[RKMBrown]

Capital gains are not EARNED. It's money made from having money.

It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income. If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At he very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work. That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.

This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.

Huh?

 

[dblack]

It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income. If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At he very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work. That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.

This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.

Huh?

Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.

 

[bripat9643]

Capital gains are not EARNED. It's money made from having money.

It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income. If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work. That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.

It isn't EARNED like a real paycheck is EARNED, by actually doing something other than already being rich.

And why aren't the 1% putting their money back to work?
Google Joins Apple Avoiding Taxes With Stateless Income - Bloomberg
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens - CNN.com
The Real Problem With Offshore Tax Havens | TIME.com
http://tjn-usa.org/storage/documents/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_-_22-07-2012.pdf
Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
BBC News - Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
Offshore Tax Haven Money Could Save Us From the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones
A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows - Business
Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network - ABC News
Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes - Business Insider

If you think it's not earned, then I have a proposition for you: send me all your money and I'll return it in 10 years with no interest or ROI. That's a fair deal according to your theory of "earned," don't ya think?

 

[Bombur]

Marx predicted that capitalism would blow up 100 years ago, which is clearly wrong. He also didn't understand diddly-squat about the U.S. labor market. According to him, we should all be earning less than we did when he wrote Das Kapital. The reality is that we are all earning fabulously more. Economists have demonstrated the idiocy of the labor theory of value time and time again. In short, you have to be a brain dead loser to believe Karl Marx said anything useful.

Your position is 100% horse manure. It's all based on Marxist propaganda which we know to be dead wrong.

Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.

Who said he was perfectly right about everything?

Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.

I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.

The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.

First of all, if your argument is "almost" - you have no argument.

Second, nothing could be further from the truth.

Third, why is it that every liberal at this board to points to China in every argument? If oppressive communism is so wonderful, go live there stupid.

LOL

Trends matter in the real world.

China is not an example of communism at work in my argument. My comments were about the nature of productivity growth as it relates to wage growth.

Your "rebuttals" are not really on point. Maybe we need to re-start the discussion at a more basic level so you can keep up.

 

[dblack]

This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.

Huh?

Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.

To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I oppose income equality.

I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.

But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.

 

[KNB]

It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income. If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work. That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.

It isn't EARNED like a real paycheck is EARNED, by actually doing something other than already being rich.

And why aren't the 1% putting their money back to work?
Google Joins Apple Avoiding Taxes With Stateless Income - Bloomberg
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens - CNN.com
The Real Problem With Offshore Tax Havens | TIME.com
http://tjn-usa.org/storage/documents/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_-_22-07-2012.pdf
Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
BBC News - Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
Offshore Tax Haven Money Could Save Us From the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones
A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows - Business
Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network - ABC News
Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes - Business Insider

If you think it's not earned, then I have a proposition for you: send me all your money and I'll return it in 10 years with no interest or ROI. That's a fair deal according to your theory of "earned," don't ya think?

Some have argued that reducing capital gains tax rates would increase short-run and long-run economic growth. The long-run level of output depends on the amount of saving and investment. Saving and investment increase the amount of capital in the economy and hence, aggregate supply (i.e., the amount of goods and services available in the economy). Many economists note that capital gains tax reductions appear to have little or even a negative effect on saving and investment (see above).

Consequently, capital gains tax rate reductions are unlikely to have much effect on the long-term level of output or the path to the long-run level of output (i.e., economic growth). Furthermore, it is argued that a temporary or permanent capital gains tax reduction is an effective economic stimulus measure. An effective short-term economic stimulus, however, will have to increase aggregate demand, which requires additional spending. A tax reduction on capital gains would mostly benefit very high income taxpayers who are likely to save most of any tax reduction.

Economists note that a temporary capital gains tax reduction possibly could have a negative impact on short-term economic growth. A temporary tax cut could induce investors to sell stock (i.e., realize capital gains by reducing the lock-in effect), but provides no incentive to invest since investors know they will face higher tax rates in the future. To the extent that the resulting sell-off depresses stock prices, consumer confidence, already low during recessions, could be further undermined thus reducing consumer spending.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40411.pdf

"A tax reduction on capital gains would mostly benefit very high income taxpayers who are likely to save most of any tax reduction."

That sounds like what all of those links are reporting- the 1% are hoarding trillions in offshore tax shelters instead of reinvesting it.

 

[Bombur]

I oppose income equality.

I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.

But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.

Income equality is impossible.

The issue being discussed is the degree of income inequality and the fact that it is growing. Also being discussed is the cause for this national trend and the possible problems related to a higher level of income inequality and any problems associated with the cause of rising income inequality.

 

[RKMBrown]

This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.

Huh?

Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.

>> One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want.

Pure facist/marxist/totalitarian government centric straw-man BS. You are mixing the concept of an economic system, with the purpose of improving efficiency of resources and labor, more particularly you use the term allocating toward projects, with emphasis on what the [collective] people need and want.

No. The most important function of any economic system is voluntary production of goods, services, and voluntary allocations of resources to benefit said production of goods and services.

>> Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals.

Capitalism does not delegate. Again you appear to have some sort of authoritarian government pov thing going in your speech.

>> If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with.

Strawman. Assumes doing well means capital growth.

>> If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.

Strawman. Assumes failure, means loosing money. This sentence also assumes there's only room for one person to try at a time in capitalism. This sentence further, ignores that even in capitalism the government can screw it up by creating competition that fights the capitalist efforts, using the capitalist's tax revenue against him.

 

[dblack]

I oppose income equality.

I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.

But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.

To be fair, it's not income inequality they're (usually) complaining about. It's increasing income inequality, or perhaps extreme income inequality. But I still find it a dubious concern. I also find it interesting that they focus on that, rather than increasing poverty. The reason they don't, is that there isn't increasing poverty. Relative to the past, the people at the bottom levels in our economy, are better of than they were, and their lot continues to improve. This they want to ignore, focusing instead on the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest. The presumption they're trying to slide in here is that limiting the wealth controlled by the top level will equate to increased wealth for the bottom levels - but I think that's a hard case to make directly. Maybe that's why they never do.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I oppose income equality.

I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.

But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.

Income equality is impossible.

The issue being discussed is the degree of income inequality and the fact that it is growing. Also being discussed is the cause for this national trend and the possible problems related to a higher level of income inequality and any problems associated with the cause of rising income inequality.

HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?

What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?

 

[dblack]

Huh?

Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.

>> One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want.

Pure facist/marxist/totalitarian government centric straw-man BS. You are mixing the concept of an economic system, with the purpose of improving efficiency of resources and labor, more particularly you use the term allocating toward projects, with emphasis on what the [collective] people need and want.

No. The most important function of any economic system is voluntary production of goods, services, and voluntary allocations of resources to benefit said production of goods and services.

You're really missing the point here - or perhaps I'm making it poorly. All I'm saying is that if you shut down the capitalists, what they do still needs to be done. If we moved to socialism, for example, we need to 'hire' a bunch of managers who would do essentially the same thing capitalists do now of their own accord - namely, 'allocating labor and resources toward projects'. Capitalists do this by investing in companies and ventures they believe will turn a profit. Government bureaucrats would have other, more political, priorities.

 

[Bombur]

I oppose income equality.

I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.

But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.

Income equality is impossible.

The issue being discussed is the degree of income inequality and the fact that it is growing. Also being discussed is the cause for this national trend and the possible problems related to a higher level of income inequality and any problems associated with the cause of rising income inequality.

HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?

What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?

It is my business because it impact the entire country and is in part a product of government policy or the lack thereof. It is my business because it impacts the people of my nation and threatens the long term prosperity of my country.

There are a lot of things that can be done that will help the US labor force regain their market leverage. We could address trade imbalances, tax policy, UHC, regulations as they relate to trade, and many other smaller issues.

 

[RKMBrown]

Huh?

Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.

To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?

That's what we are doing now. The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.

 

[dblack]

Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.

To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?

That's what we are doing now. The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.

To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.