This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

[Gadawg73]

[...]

ZERO PERCENT PERSONAL INCOME TAX FOR 51% OF US WORKERS... PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX FOR THE 49% SCALING UP BASED ON INCOME... Ayup that's marx all the way.

[...]

Think so? Then, as I suspected, you have no idea of what Marxism is.

That zero percent personal income tax rate applies only to those whose incomes are below the poverty level. What would you have them do, pay a tax on Monday and qualify for welfare on Tuesday?

A progressive assessment imposed on those who can pay millions of dollars in personal income tax without it affecting their lifestyles in any way is more than fair. In fact it is merciful compared to what I advocate -- which is confiscation of every penny of personal wealth in excess of twenty million dollars! And as bad as I'm sure you think that is, it still is a hell of a lot better than Marxism. So you need to do a little reading before tossing around those "Marxist" and "Socialist" accusations.

You're missing the point. Start with unquestionably unearned wealth first, and you may not have to go beyond that. Above-average inheritance and trust funds must be confiscated. Given an undeserved head start, the spoiled-rotten children of the rich will become a cancer on society. So they must be cut off from Daddy's Money at age 18. If we have to do it on our own, so must they.

Who determines what is "above average"?
You, someone else, GOVERNMENT?
Lord help us.
Best way to do is to keep your hands to yourself and I will keep mine to myself.
What someone inherited is none of your business. The person that left it to them ALREADY PAID TAXES ON IT.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have no idea what it is that you think is different between your view of re-distribution and Marx view of re-distribution.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs). Karl Marx, 1875

Why don't you explain how your desire to take by force from each according to his ability, and redistribute that to each according to his need or needs is any different that Marx' oft cited idiom.

Marx's Manifesto is a very brief treatise. I suggest you read it (again?) then tell us what Marxist (communist) entity you are aware of in which any citizen/subject is permitted to accumulate a twenty million dollar fortune or its equivalent. Keep in mind that Marxism (communism) cannot take hold, nor has it ever taken hold, in a nation which is not impoverished and typically devastated by war or revolution. So the very suggestion that anything resembling Marxist principles being adopted in a nation as fundamentally wealthy and socially intact as ours is ignorantly absurd and reflective of the opportunistic nonsense that plagued the entertainment industry in the 1950s.

The implementation of moderately socialist regulations and policies for the purpose of preventing the rapacious effects of laissez-faire capitalism, which tends to eventually cause a society to feed on itself, is not Marxism. It's common sense economics.

"moderately socialist" is similar to "sort of pregnant".

 

[Gadawg73]

Union folks are mobs that are too stupid to act like an individual and like sheep follow the dumb masses and pay someone else part of their wages to negotiate what the average skills are in the job they do.

 

[RKMBrown]

Union folks are mobs that are too stupid to act like an individual and like sheep follow the dumb masses and pay someone else part of their wages to negotiate what the average skills are in the job they do.

When a CEO negotiates a price for a contract with customer, are the employees of that corporation being "stupid?" A group of individuals collectively bargaining for a contract for better wages/benefits/working conditions. Yeah that's not necessarily stupid.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

What is a moderately socialist regulation? What is a moderately socialist policy?

[...]

The Glass-Steagal Act is one outstanding example. It prevented the banks from gambling with their depositors' money. Ronald Reagan went after that and the low-life, self-serving, degenerate sonofabitch, Bill Clinton, repealed it. And the rest (I think) you know.

 

[JoeNormal]

Answers in blue.

You would be wrong. Waiting is the problem. I have no patience for people that sit on their butts waiting for a job to show up. None. There is no excuse for it. Silly Pride? hmph.

Do you think someone who lost a job that paid a living wage should spend no more than a week looking for another living wage job <No> and if nothing turns up he/she should take a job flipping burgers or stocking shelves at WalMart for minimum wage? <No> Or do you believe there are plenty of living wage jobs available for anyone who wants one? <No>

Or do you think that everyone who is out of work is "sitting on their butts waiting for jobs to show up?" <No> Do you know that many of these unfortunates have families to support, which simply cannot be done on minimum wage? <Yes>This isn't the 1950s. <Correct>


So what? <personal experience... everyone on my team got a job right away>You're fortunate enough to have a skill which happens to be in demand. <Yes>Do you think the same situation applies to everyone who is unemployed? <No>

I don't know if you're boasting or bullshitting. <Just a statement of fact> But if you're boasting you are a pretty fortunate fellow to have such exceptional latitude. <I believe everyone has said latitude.>Do you really need me to tell you everyone is not so well off? <No>


Again you're focused on the least offensive category of those who are "stealing" from the tax base <Some level of focus is based on the opinion that this group of people would be helped by switching from hand-outs that make me want to puke with hand-ups that make me proud to be an American.> when the worst thieves by far are the categories I outlined in a previous message: the war-mongers, the Military Industrial Complex, the offshore wealth hoarders, the bankers who ripped off the FDIC with their schemes, et al. <Their number is few, but I do agree we need to correct their behavior. You may have missed my point... I could easily have gone the route of Evil CEO taking advantage of low paid labor... I decided against that route, because it makes me want to puke. Better?> These guys don't make you "want to puke." <Wrong.>The guys who can't find a decent job do. <My issue with the guys who can't find a decent job is that I just don't believe in the concept that a job must be given. Any man worth his salt can start working right now... while looking for better work. When I was in my younger years I always had two jobs. One the one paying a wage and two the job of improving my skills and/or running my own company on the side, etc. building something for the future outside of the paycheck from the man I was currently working for. >

I won't do it. I won't take "re-distribution" checks. Hell no. It's bad enough that my tax rate isn't always the highest rate. This class envy tax crap has to stop.

You will if you find yourself up the creek without a paddle. And don't think it can't happen, because it's happened to a lot of men who are just as good if not better than you are.
<No. I have a very close family. If any one of my family looses a job they are welcome in my home while they pick themselves back up. My Brother, Sister, Father, Kids, Aunts, Uncles, First Cousins,... every single one of them work together as a family unit in this way. We have each other's back. I recognize that some people have no family to watch their back. It makes me want to puke to view, forced theft through re-distributions as someone watching my back. The fact that it's not voluntary, the fact that it's progressive, the fact that it's a hand-out... yeah that makes me want to puke.>

The sentiment that taxation equals theft is pure Fox News spin. You claim you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh so who's your guy? Glenn Beck? Sean Hannity?

 

[Gadawg73]

Answers in blue.

Do you think someone who lost a job that paid a living wage should spend no more than a week looking for another living wage job <No> and if nothing turns up he/she should take a job flipping burgers or stocking shelves at WalMart for minimum wage? <No> Or do you believe there are plenty of living wage jobs available for anyone who wants one? <No>

Or do you think that everyone who is out of work is "sitting on their butts waiting for jobs to show up?" <No> Do you know that many of these unfortunates have families to support, which simply cannot be done on minimum wage? <Yes>This isn't the 1950s. <Correct>


So what? <personal experience... everyone on my team got a job right away>You're fortunate enough to have a skill which happens to be in demand. <Yes>Do you think the same situation applies to everyone who is unemployed? <No>

I don't know if you're boasting or bullshitting. <Just a statement of fact> But if you're boasting you are a pretty fortunate fellow to have such exceptional latitude. <I believe everyone has said latitude.>Do you really need me to tell you everyone is not so well off? <No>


Again you're focused on the least offensive category of those who are "stealing" from the tax base <Some level of focus is based on the opinion that this group of people would be helped by switching from hand-outs that make me want to puke with hand-ups that make me proud to be an American.> when the worst thieves by far are the categories I outlined in a previous message: the war-mongers, the Military Industrial Complex, the offshore wealth hoarders, the bankers who ripped off the FDIC with their schemes, et al. <Their number is few, but I do agree we need to correct their behavior. You may have missed my point... I could easily have gone the route of Evil CEO taking advantage of low paid labor... I decided against that route, because it makes me want to puke. Better?> These guys don't make you "want to puke." <Wrong.>The guys who can't find a decent job do. <My issue with the guys who can't find a decent job is that I just don't believe in the concept that a job must be given. Any man worth his salt can start working right now... while looking for better work. When I was in my younger years I always had two jobs. One the one paying a wage and two the job of improving my skills and/or running my own company on the side, etc. building something for the future outside of the paycheck from the man I was currently working for. >


You will if you find yourself up the creek without a paddle. And don't think it can't happen, because it's happened to a lot of men who are just as good if not better than you are.
<No. I have a very close family. If any one of my family looses a job they are welcome in my home while they pick themselves back up. My Brother, Sister, Father, Kids, Aunts, Uncles, First Cousins,... every single one of them work together as a family unit in this way. We have each other's back. I recognize that some people have no family to watch their back. It makes me want to puke to view, forced theft through re-distributions as someone watching my back. The fact that it's not voluntary, the fact that it's progressive, the fact that it's a hand-out... yeah that makes me want to puke.>

The sentiment that taxation equals theft is pure Fox News spin. You claim you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh so who's your guy? Glenn Beck? Sean Hannity?

It is theft when my taxes are taken and given to someone that government deems needs it more than I do.
How is it spin when this happens every day?
Spin is when your team claims that government is watching someone's back.

 

[JoeNormal]

Answers in blue.

The sentiment that taxation equals theft is pure Fox News spin. You claim you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh so who's your guy? Glenn Beck? Sean Hannity?

It is theft when my taxes are taken and given to someone that government deems needs it more than I do.
How is it spin when this happens every day?
Spin is when your team claims that government is watching someone's back.

I thought Auteur expressed my sentiments and covered this topic better than I could in post 865. I don't recall any comments from the defenders of the "taxation is theft" camp. Maybe you can read it and comment on it.

 

[koshergrl]

Taxation without representation (aka government thieving) is exactly what motivated us to become our own country.

We're pretty much there again.

 

[JoeNormal]

Taxation without representation (aka government thieving) is exactly what motivated us to become our own country.

We're pretty much there again.

I'll agree with you that the people aren't getting much representation from their government these days but I would lay the blame for that on corporations and their massive lobbying power. It seems that this thread is headed in the direction of blaming the safety net instead.

 

[RKMBrown]

The sentiment that taxation equals theft is pure Fox News spin. You claim you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh so who's your guy? Glenn Beck? Sean Hannity?

I was talking about personal income tax for the purpose of redistribution. Who's my guy?

If I had to pick one guy... it would probably be James Madison. But for the most part, I'm my own man. I don't listen to the talking heads much if at all.

 

[RKMBrown]

[...]

What is a moderately socialist regulation? What is a moderately socialist policy?

[...]

The Glass-Steagal Act is one outstanding example. It prevented the banks from gambling with their depositors' money. Ronald Reagan went after that and the low-life, self-serving, degenerate sonofabitch, Bill Clinton, repealed it. And the rest (I think) you know.

I have no idea why you think regulating for or against theft is socialist. Projecting maybe? You'll need to be more specific. Which side of the political spectrum, do you think, wants to see their deposits stolen by banks?

 

[Auteur]

Taxation without representation (aka government thieving) is exactly what motivated us to become our own country.

We're pretty much there again.

Actually it wasn't. The British sovereign at the time offered the American colonists representation in parliament, MPs to be present and vote upon taxation and other matters. The offer was refused. Two other major goals of the revolutionaries were seizing aboriginal land to the west, which at the time Britain opposed, and also a dream of capitalism with as few restraints as possible, such as low or no taxes. Sound familiar? It should. As usual, the Hollywood version of history is what tends to be remembered.

 

[MikeK]

[...]My issue with the guys who can't find a decent job is that I just don't believe in the concept that a job must be given.

I find this to be a rather baffling comment. Any job I ever had was given to me by the employer and the same circumstance applies in any situation I'm aware of. The only alternative to being given something, anything, is to take it. So how does one take a job? How did you do it? As far as I know, you ask for it and either it's given to you or it's not.

Any man worth his salt can start working right now... while looking for better work.

If that were true there would be no rationale for unemployment insurance, which exists for the purpose of enabling the job search. And in spite of what you might believe, everyone who collects unemployment insurance is not happy with that reduced income level and most are sincerely looking to replace the income level he/she lost.

I do agree there is, always has been and always will be, a percentage of grifters who will manage to somehow exploit the public dole. Social workers call this category the "two percent." Short of employing totalitarian methods there is no way to eliminate this two percent faction, so rather than adopting KGB tactics we accept the nominal percentage of grifters as one of the annoying aspects of life in a civilized nation. And when you think about it, in the final analysis they are a pathetic lot.

When I was in my younger years I always had two jobs. One the one paying a wage and two the job of improving my skills and/or running my own company on the side, etc. building something for the future outside of the paycheck from the man I was currently working for....]

When I was in my "younger years" the Help Wanted section of the New York Times occupied about twenty pages. Today it's down to two. (Check it out.)

Also, every other premises on both sides of 42nd Street, from 8th Avenue to 6th Avenue (in Times Square) was an employment agency. Today there are none.

Also, there was a place in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, called Bush Terminal, which was an industrial center consisting of hundreds of busy factories. It had its own employment center where one could go to find a day job or full time employment. Bush Terminal has been closed for about ten years. All those jobs have been exported.

So forget the way it was when we were young. It's different now.

 

[RKMBrown]

[...]My issue with the guys who can't find a decent job is that I just don't believe in the concept that a job must be given.

I find this to be a rather baffling comment. Any job I ever had was given to me by the employer and the same circumstance applies in any situation I'm aware of. The only alternative to being given something, anything, is to take it. So how does one take a job? How did you do it? As far as I know, you ask for it and either it's given to you or it's not.

Must be "given" reflects a belief of entitlement. Must be earned, by contrast, reflects a belief that the job will be an honest wage for an honest days work. In a big sense, you have to sell the value of your work to your potential employer. In so doing you are guaranteeing your employer that you will be a good investment.

That said, self employment is another means to earn an income.

My first job (13) was cutting grass, I would find lawns that needed to be cut and offer my services. My second job (15) was bagging groceries. No job was being offered. I wanted to work there... so I convinced the Manager of the store that I would be the best employee he had, he hired me to encourage his people to work harder. I ended up being a manager there (18) working my way through college. My next job was IT at Merrill Lynch. Same thing, convinced them in the interview that I would be their best employee at the service branch. Yeah Employee of the month 6months straight.... blah blah. My next job was software engineer at a start up. Told them I'd work for no salary just a % of sales from the work I did. They asked me to show em what I got during the interview, asked me to do one of their for fee projects for a customer... I ended up finishing the project for them in an hour in the interview, the owner said that I had done more in one hour than their lead had done the previous week. I was hired on the spot. My next job was working for myself. IMO I was never "given" a job... never. I've never been out of work, not even for more than 5minutes. I just can't fathom the concept.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's different now.

Maybe it is in NY. I live in TX. I don't know anyone that has trouble getting work of some kind here. You may have to take a pay cut sometimes. You may have to keep looking to get your dream job. That's life.

 

[Auteur]

[...]

What is a moderately socialist regulation? What is a moderately socialist policy?

[...]

The Glass-Steagal Act is one outstanding example. It prevented the banks from gambling with their depositors' money. Ronald Reagan went after that and the low-life, self-serving, degenerate sonofabitch, Bill Clinton, repealed it. And the rest (I think) you know.

I have no idea why you think regulating for or against theft is socialist. Projecting maybe? You'll need to be more specific. Which side of the political spectrum, do you think, wants to see their deposits stolen by banks?

You toss around words like theft and Marxism, but I suspect you haven't given too much thought to the meanings.

Theoretically, we could do away with all taxes, and contract out government services to the private sector, Tea Party style. What would this look like? We have been given some very strong hints already. When left to their own devices, most tend to look out for their own interests, as it is completely unsure if anyone else will. Without a strong social contract, historically, the most rapacious have tended to rise up, and the more moderate and egalitarian have tended to be trampled down. The Spanish Empire, pre-revolutionary France, Czarist Russia, the Latin American banana republics, places like Somalia today, are examples of the powerful clamoring for the top, while stepping on the heads of any and all about them that might get in the way .

Without an agreement that we all live in a society of laws and social conventions, and there is a funded authority that can and will oversee such laws and social conventions, then it is everyman for himself. Wall Street today is a contemporary example. As regulation of the financial industry has rolled back, problematic and anti-social behavior has increased in lockstep. This culminated in the financial crash of 2008 a vivid example of how the removal of social convention and the rule of law can transform civil society into a Steven King novel. When it is everyman for himself, some will behave very badly. The trick here is to try and dissuade the John Wayne, gun in the waistband image, and foster the image of community. Taxes are essential to this.

Moving everything to some sort of corporate nirvana, would not do away with your need for any the services currently in the public arena. It would at a layer of profit taking, in addition to costs, adding to your bill for such goods. Even doing away with all welfare would not help you. The tiny amount of tax that goes to that area (yes, tiny, in spite of your frantic angst that someone, somewhere, is getting a food stamp for nothing) would be replaced by the costs of the social ramifications of the law of the jungle society that you would have created: more police, more security, more prisons, more guns, more surveillance, etc. There is no free lunch Mr Brown. You'll pay one way or another, the difference is you can try for community and social consensus, or strap on a gun and keep one eye open at night.

The sad thing is, the US is already headed down the road to that law of the jungle. It is almost laughable that you are writing about taxes being theft, when you live in one of the lower tax regimes in the world, and at the same time the "theft" by those at the top of the financial world, and by the power elite of the business community is reaching science fiction proportions.

 

[Gadawg73]

Taxation without representation (aka government thieving) is exactly what motivated us to become our own country.

We're pretty much there again.

Actually it wasn't. The British sovereign at the time offered the American colonists representation in parliament, MPs to be present and vote upon taxation and other matters. The offer was refused. Two other major goals of the revolutionaries were seizing aboriginal land to the west, which at the time Britain opposed, and also a dream of capitalism with as few restraints as possible, such as low or no taxes. Sound familiar? It should. As usual, the Hollywood version of history is what tends to be remembered.

LOL, take a look at the other colonies that were promised things by the British during those times and get back to us with one that they kept 100%.
LOL, you trying to shit us that Parliament would have supported lowering taxes in the colonies? Right, we sure would have a lot of clout across the pond in Parliament.
Geez dude, you are the one with the Hollywood version.
The British were notorious for not backing up on their promises all the way up to the 1960s with their colonial rule.
Look how well we did with low or no taxes. The British opposed expansion because of treaties with other countries at the time.

 

[RKMBrown]

Theoretically, we could do away with all taxes, and contract out government services to the private sector, Tea Party style.
...
The sad thing is, the US is already headed down the road to that law of the jungle. It is almost laughable that you are writing about taxes being theft, when you live in one of the lower tax regimes in the world, and at the same time the "theft" by those at the top of the financial world, and by the power elite of the business community is reaching science fiction proportions.

I've never met someone from the Tea Party that wants to do away with all taxes. Your just making shit up.

Taxes and laws do not guarantee the government will do it's job. Sadly the dirt bag scum we are electing, like Obama, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, ... pretty much guarantee they won't do their job.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Considering what we both know about how great fortunes are created, if you choose to regard progressive taxation as "stealing," my response to that is I have absolutely no problem with stealing from thieves! One good rip-off deserves another. As far as upper-level hoarders are concerned, they could be taxed at the level of billions and it would in no way affect their lifestyles. That fact alone is an almost shameful irony.

If that's not "revenge" motivation, what is?

You say "wealth isn't infinite." The amount of "wealth" we can "invent" is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Just keep adding zeroes. It's not that hard to create wealth.

Rush Limbaugh? Never listened to his show... not even once.

Of course it's not revenge. Progressive taxation is a reasonable principle, even if we were to assume that free markets worked perfectly, and that human nature always saw altruism triumph. It is a way of assigning resources in a way that tend to benefit all, rather than only the narrow interests of a few. Left to individuals to work out, there would be no end of bickering and self-serving. And markets and human nature are far from perfect.

Tax supports government, and government supports civilization. If you think governments role should be limited to things like the military and police, pick up a copy of one of Charles Dickens works. He described such a state of affairs.

Progressive taxation and "assigning resources" is only a reasonable idea if you're stupid enough to believe a relatively small group of politicians and bureaucrats are wise and all-knowing enough to run the economy better than the collective decisions of millions of people going about their personal business.