See What Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Has Caused:

[daveman]

But where does your hate for the working man come from? If you're that envious, why not go work in the factory yourself?

But where does your hate for the rich man come from? If you're that envious, why not work to get wealthy yourself?

Operative word bolded...it's the Maynard G. Krebs syndrome...

Some people think the world owes them a living.

They're wrong.

 

[The T]

But where does your hate for the rich man come from? If you're that envious, why not work to get wealthy yourself?

Operative word bolded...it's the Maynard G. Krebs syndrome...

Some people think the world owes them a living.

They're wrong.

Precisely the point.

 

[Sundial]

In some cases the owners are the managers as well. In some cases not. In almost every case management has shares in the company, making them owners as well.
But that is irrelevant to the point I made, namely that wealthy people have done far more good that gov't programs.

Like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Unemployment insurance, disability, safety regulations? Highways, GPS, the Internet? The courts, the police, the law itself? Public education? Money? National defense?

Even if you give credit to the rich for what they have, rather than what they do, I don't see how they've done more than that.

Anyway, your premise is false: the wealth of a nation is a function of the productivity of its workers; not the wealth of the rich.

Social Security etc etc ad nauseam are all funded by contributions from private businesses. They are simply giving back money they already took from productive people.
It is not my premise that the wealth of the nation is the wealth of the rich. That is so idiotic only someone like you could believe it. My premise is that private enterprise is what has created the living standard we have. Government has at best created the circumstances for it, at worst and more typically retarded that progress.

It sounds like you're saying government programs are worthless because they're funded by taxes, and that anyone who works for government is unproductive, because he works for government.

Is that what you're saying?

 

[daveman]

Operative word bolded...it's the Maynard G. Krebs syndrome...

Some people think the world owes them a living.

They're wrong.

Precisely the point.

Amazing how many people think otherwise. And by "amazing", I mean "pathetic".

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're confusing things with the people who own them. A factory is not an extension of the person who owns it. A factory may be used in the process of production. But the person who owns it, merely by owning it, produces nothing.

I haven't confused jack squat. People who own factories had to risk their cash so that it could be created. You seem to be implying that the owners don't deserve to be compensated for providing the capital that makes a productive enterprise possible. Do you think your brother in law should be able to use your car anytime he wants without compensating you?



The factory wouldn't exist unless someone put up the capital to create it. Those people deserve to be compensated for risking their capital, whether they work in the factory or not. Your theory that they are superfluous to the production process is the ultimate idiocy. Nothing would get produced if factories didn't get built.

Ownership and work are two different things. They may overlap, but one is not the other. To take an extreme example, suppose it was possible to own the air, as well as the land and the water. Would you say the owner of the air was "providing" something to workers, by letting them breathe?

Whoever said ownership and work were the same? The bottom line is that no one would have a job if people with capital didn't invest it to build a factory. Your theory that owners are irrelevant to the production process is simply too stupid for words to describe. The air is not a factory. The air existed before human beings appeared on the scene. On other hand, everything in a factory costs money. Someone had to buy it so some turd with a high school diploma can make far more than he's really worth.

I can see why someone who works all day for next to nothing might resent someone who does nothing, while making 100x as much.

But where does your hate for the working man come from? If you're that envious, why not go work in the factory yourself?

That is a horseshit argument. To say owners of business do not work just because they are not on the production floor getting dirty fingernails is asinine.
There are many different forms of 'work'.
Your resentment is that an employee doing a menial task for an extended number of years is not compensated for his "time"....The old union mentality of "putting in one's time"..
Perhaps that was the way it was years ago. People were paid for putting in time.
That does not happen anymore. People are now paid for what they produce.
Precisely the reason why productivity has increased and labor costs have increased less rapidly.
In any event, the owner of the business or the investors do not owe you or anyone else and explanation as to what they do with THEIR money. They are the ones taking all the risks. As long as they break no laws, provide a safe working environment and adequate pay for services, it is no one's business.

 

[bripat9643]

It sounds like you're saying government programs are worthless because they're funded by taxes, and that anyone who works for government is unproductive, because he works for government.

Is that what you're saying?

That's pretty close to being the truth. However, in the case of many government employees, they are worse than useless. Everything they do is positively destructive. This is especially true in the case of EPA employees.

 

[Sundial]

I can see why someone who works all day for next to nothing might resent someone who does nothing, while making 100x as much.

But where does your hate for the working man come from? If you're that envious, why not go work in the factory yourself?

Your hatred for the people who provide the productive capital that makes our standard of living possible isn't going to help "the working man." Destroying the wealthy only helps the class of government parasites, and that's only in the short run.

Providing factories and machinery so people have jobs is not "doing nothing."

Liberals are imbeciles who would shoot a hole in their own boat just to get even with someone else riding in it.

Owning something is not the same as "providing" it. Rich people own land, factories, water, minerals, copyrights, broadcasting frequencies, and money. But they "provide" none of those things. Purchasing something is not the same as providing it.

And I don't hate the rich. Rich people are just like anyone else. Some are good, some are bad, and most are somewhere in between.

My argument is they should pay their fair share of taxes - and that a fair share for the rich is more than everyone else.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Unemployment insurance, disability, safety regulations? Highways, GPS, the Internet? The courts, the police, the law itself? Public education? Money? National defense?

Even if you give credit to the rich for what they have, rather than what they do, I don't see how they've done more than that.

Anyway, your premise is false: the wealth of a nation is a function of the productivity of its workers; not the wealth of the rich.

Social Security etc etc ad nauseam are all funded by contributions from private businesses. They are simply giving back money they already took from productive people.
It is not my premise that the wealth of the nation is the wealth of the rich. That is so idiotic only someone like you could believe it. My premise is that private enterprise is what has created the living standard we have. Government has at best created the circumstances for it, at worst and more typically retarded that progress.

It sounds like you're saying government programs are worthless because they're funded by taxes, and that anyone who works for government is unproductive, because he works for government.

Is that what you're saying?

Government employment exists in it's own universe. Because government produces no revenue, employment is always a burden on the taxpayer. Furthermore,m because government employment is funded by a virtual unending supply of funds( taxes which can be increased at any time) there is no reason for government to control labor costs.
If government was mandated to stay within the parameters of a budget with no hope of additional funding for cost over runs, the discussion of taxation would rarely come about.
Remember government consumes. It does not produce.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I can see why someone who works all day for next to nothing might resent someone who does nothing, while making 100x as much.

But where does your hate for the working man come from? If you're that envious, why not go work in the factory yourself?

Your hatred for the people who provide the productive capital that makes our standard of living possible isn't going to help "the working man." Destroying the wealthy only helps the class of government parasites, and that's only in the short run.

Providing factories and machinery so people have jobs is not "doing nothing."

Liberals are imbeciles who would shoot a hole in their own boat just to get even with someone else riding in it.

Owning something is not the same as "providing" it. Rich people own land, factories, water, minerals, copyrights, broadcasting frequencies, and money. But they "provide" none of those things. Purchasing something is not the same as providing it.

And I don't hate the rich. Rich people are just like anyone else. Some are good, some are bad, and most are somewhere in between.

My argument is they should pay their fair share of taxes - and that a fair share for the rich is more than everyone else.

That won't wash. Until the class envy crowd can convince the rest of us that if paying a supermajority of the federal tax burden is not a 'fair share' then they need to shut it.
Once again, this fair share argument actually has nothing to do with the collection of revenue. It is a thinly veiled agenda to punish those who other believe "have too much" or "have enough and they should share"...
The other agenda here from the left is that there is a belief that somehow those with more are preventing those with less from achieving their goal of having more.
The zero sum game.

 

[bripat9643]

I can see why someone who works all day for next to nothing might resent someone who does nothing, while making 100x as much.

But where does your hate for the working man come from? If you're that envious, why not go work in the factory yourself?

Your hatred for the people who provide the productive capital that makes our standard of living possible isn't going to help "the working man." Destroying the wealthy only helps the class of government parasites, and that's only in the short run.

Providing factories and machinery so people have jobs is not "doing nothing."

Liberals are imbeciles who would shoot a hole in their own boat just to get even with someone else riding in it.

Owning something is not the same as "providing" it. Rich people own land, factories, water, minerals, copyrights, broadcasting frequencies, and money. But they "provide" none of those things. Purchasing something is not the same as providing it.

That's pure, unadulterated, Marxist horseshit. Before you can own something, you have to buy it. Buying it is providing it. You want to pretend factories just exist as if they are facts of nature. The don't. Someone has to build them and someone has to pay for them. The fact that land exists doesn't mean they purchasers of the land don't provide it for productive use. The owner of a piece of land doesn't have to build a factory on it. They could build a mansion on it or just leave it fallow as a privacy barrier between himself and his neighbors. The same goes for water, minerals, patents, copyrights, radio frequencies and money.

I don't know how anyone can claim the rich don't provide money. Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that the rich supply the money.

And I don't hate the rich. Rich people are just like anyone else. Some are good, some are bad, and most are somewhere in between.

My argument is they should pay their fair share of taxes - and that a fair share for the rich is more than everyone else.

You care about the rich the same way a farmer cares about his hogs. You view them as resource ripe for slaughter, not as people with rights.

You haven't posted any "argument" as to what the rich's "fair share" is. You've been trying this pathetic charade that the rich don't contribute to the production process, but only imbeciles are swallowing that.

There has never been a single credible argument posted in this forum that you are any other welfare parasite is entitled to a single cent the rich have earned.

 

[bripat9643]

Your hatred for the people who provide the productive capital that makes our standard of living possible isn't going to help "the working man." Destroying the wealthy only helps the class of government parasites, and that's only in the short run.

Providing factories and machinery so people have jobs is not "doing nothing."

Liberals are imbeciles who would shoot a hole in their own boat just to get even with someone else riding in it.

Owning something is not the same as "providing" it. Rich people own land, factories, water, minerals, copyrights, broadcasting frequencies, and money. But they "provide" none of those things. Purchasing something is not the same as providing it.

And I don't hate the rich. Rich people are just like anyone else. Some are good, some are bad, and most are somewhere in between.

My argument is they should pay their fair share of taxes - and that a fair share for the rich is more than everyone else.

That won't wash. Until the class envy crowd can convince the rest of us that if paying a supermajority of the federal tax burden is not a 'fair share' then they need to shut it.
Once again, this fair share argument actually has nothing to do with the collection of revenue. It is a thinly veiled agenda to punish those who other believe "have too much" or "have enough and they should share"...
The other agenda here from the left is that there is a belief that somehow those with more are preventing those with less from achieving their goal of having more.
The zero sum game.

The prime directive of every liberal is to grow government, and the only place to get additional money is from the rich. The left has to demonize the rich because that's the only way they can justify looting them. They certainly aren't going to make much headway trying to increasing taxes on the poor.

 

[The Rabbi]

Like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? Unemployment insurance, disability, safety regulations? Highways, GPS, the Internet? The courts, the police, the law itself? Public education? Money? National defense?

Even if you give credit to the rich for what they have, rather than what they do, I don't see how they've done more than that.

Anyway, your premise is false: the wealth of a nation is a function of the productivity of its workers; not the wealth of the rich.

Social Security etc etc ad nauseam are all funded by contributions from private businesses. They are simply giving back money they already took from productive people.
It is not my premise that the wealth of the nation is the wealth of the rich. That is so idiotic only someone like you could believe it. My premise is that private enterprise is what has created the living standard we have. Government has at best created the circumstances for it, at worst and more typically retarded that progress.

It sounds like you're saying government programs are worthless because they're funded by taxes, and that anyone who works for government is unproductive, because he works for government.

Is that what you're saying?

It might sound like that if you were drunk.

For someone with two functioning brain cells what I am saying is that gov't programs depend on the private sector for funding. Therefore the private sector is far more important than the public, and the source of whatever good the public sector might do. That might be good, like annhiliating polio and other childhood illnesses. It might be necessary, like funding courts. It might be destructive, like writing regulatons that make productive work impossible, even charitable work. But all of it is dependent on the well functioning of the private sector with its profit motive.

 

[Sundial]

But where does your hate for the working man come from? If you're that envious, why not go work in the factory yourself?

But where does your hate for the rich man come from? If you're that envious, why not work to get wealthy yourself?

It comes from your imagination; you imagine it.

 

[Sundial]

Real compensation for workers has stagnated, while the value of their output grows.

Workers, in other words, work harder for less, while the rich get even richer.

 

[bripat9643]

Real compensation for workers has stagnated, while the value of their output grows.

Workers, in other words, work harder for less, while the rich get even richer.

The chart shows just the opposite.

 

[Sundial]

But where does your hate for the working man come from? If you're that envious, why not go work in the factory yourself?

But where does your hate for the rich man come from? If you're that envious, why not work to get wealthy yourself?

It's the whole victim mentality thing. People really hate those who help them. The victms REALLY hate themselves for having to take from them. So their hate is cyclic.

Victims are people who see problems as occasions for persecution rather than challenges to overcome. We all play the role of victim occasionally, but for some, it has turned into a way of life.

These people feel persecuted by humans, processes, and inanimate objects with equal ease—they almost seem to enjoy it. They are often angry, usually annoyed, and almost always complaining.

Just when you think everything is humming along perfectly, they find something, anything, to complain about. At Halloween parties, they’re Eeyore, the gloomy, pessimistic donkey from the Winnie the Pooh stories—regardless of the costume they choose.

Victims aren’t looking for opportunities; they are looking for problems. Victims can’t innovate.

"Angry, annoyed, and almost always complaining" is pretty good description. And it does seem like they enjoy the idea that they're being persecuted.

But they're not actually victims of anything... except maybe too much FOX TV viewing.

 

[daveman]

But where does your hate for the working man come from? If you're that envious, why not go work in the factory yourself?

But where does your hate for the rich man come from? If you're that envious, why not work to get wealthy yourself?

It comes from your imagination; you imagine it.

Oh, you mean like you're imagining bripat's hate for the working man?

 

[Sundial]

Social Security etc etc ad nauseam are all funded by contributions from private businesses. They are simply giving back money they already took from productive people.
It is not my premise that the wealth of the nation is the wealth of the rich. That is so idiotic only someone like you could believe it. My premise is that private enterprise is what has created the living standard we have. Government has at best created the circumstances for it, at worst and more typically retarded that progress.

It sounds like you're saying government programs are worthless because they're funded by taxes, and that anyone who works for government is unproductive, because he works for government.

Is that what you're saying?

Government employment exists in it's own universe. Because government produces no revenue, employment is always a burden on the taxpayer. Furthermore,m because government employment is funded by a virtual unending supply of funds( taxes which can be increased at any time) there is no reason for government to control labor costs.
If government was mandated to stay within the parameters of a budget with no hope of additional funding for cost over runs, the discussion of taxation would rarely come about.
Remember government consumes. It does not produce.

Except for roads, bridges, GPS, national defense, public safety, the Hoover Dam... except things like that... right?

 

[Sundial]

Social Security etc etc ad nauseam are all funded by contributions from private businesses. They are simply giving back money they already took from productive people.
It is not my premise that the wealth of the nation is the wealth of the rich. That is so idiotic only someone like you could believe it. My premise is that private enterprise is what has created the living standard we have. Government has at best created the circumstances for it, at worst and more typically retarded that progress.

It sounds like you're saying government programs are worthless because they're funded by taxes, and that anyone who works for government is unproductive, because he works for government.

Is that what you're saying?

It might sound like that if you were drunk.

For someone with two functioning brain cells what I am saying is that gov't programs depend on the private sector for funding. Therefore the private sector is far more important than the public, and the source of whatever good the public sector might do. That might be good, like annhiliating polio and other childhood illnesses. It might be necessary, like funding courts. It might be destructive, like writing regulatons that make productive work impossible, even charitable work. But all of it is dependent on the well functioning of the private sector with its profit motive.

OK. Well. This board is full of stupid angry people. You can't blame me for getting you confused with one of the others. Maybe I thought you were britpat or something.

Anyway, I agree it's a stupid thing to think.

Government provides the framework on which all private sector profits depend. Everything from what can be owned (land, factories) to what can't be owned (air, people) to the nature of contracts to money itself. Most recently, the government bailed out the private sector to the tune of billions of dollars, preventing economic collapse. Without government there is no economy - at least not as we know it - and there are no rich people.

But you're right that the government exists to serve the private sector - or more specifically, the private individual citizens of the country. It's not there to make a profit, or to serve its own interests. The government is the tool of the people, and it's useful only so long as it serves our interests.

 

[daveman]

It sounds like you're saying government programs are worthless because they're funded by taxes, and that anyone who works for government is unproductive, because he works for government.

Is that what you're saying?

It might sound like that if you were drunk.

For someone with two functioning brain cells what I am saying is that gov't programs depend on the private sector for funding. Therefore the private sector is far more important than the public, and the source of whatever good the public sector might do. That might be good, like annhiliating polio and other childhood illnesses. It might be necessary, like funding courts. It might be destructive, like writing regulatons that make productive work impossible, even charitable work. But all of it is dependent on the well functioning of the private sector with its profit motive.

OK. Well. This board is full of stupid angry people. You can't blame me for getting you confused with one of the others. Maybe I thought you were britpat or something.

Anyway, I agree it's a stupid thing to think.

Government provides the framework on which all private sector profits depend. Everything from what can be owned (land, factories) to what can't be owned (air, people) to the nature of contracts to money itself. Most recently, the government bailed out the private sector to the tune of billions of dollars, preventing economic collapse. Without government there is no economy - at least not as we know it - and there are no rich people.

But you're right that the government exists to serve the private sector - or more specifically, the private individual citizens of the country. It's not there to make a profit, or to serve its own interests. The government is the tool of the people, and it's useful only so long as it serves our interests.

It can be argued that government feels it no longer works for us, but that we work for it.