- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Visit?
Not necessary live....
No, again, severe reading and comprehension issues. GD, TRY THE QUOTE BUTTON IF YOU CANNOT GET MY WORDS ON THE PAGE CORRECTLY.no?.. you didn't just say that you're ok with higher taxes for the "selfish"?....
Ah, actually, it can be referred to in that manner, especially when it is contrasted with a "private club", but then I suppose you could say that is a wooded weapon, like a bat, which is an animal that flies at night......rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!Do you understand the difference between the phrases "public business" and "open to the public"? A business owned by private individuals that is under license to be open to the public is not a public business.
There are ways to determine how charitable a person is, there are means to determine selfishness. Why is this even being debated? If anything I would have imagined you would demand evidence.....I'm so disappointed.
Very Good! Gold Star!!! Now do you need to be reminded that a right can make a situation "more fair"? Did you forget what yer question was? Who said there was (not)? Weird.Um....no, don't see that one in the Constitution.
I get the feeling you forgot what yer original rhetorical question was that I answered......and now yer gonna play the "what if? " game.
That wasn't the point.I consider it none of my business how charitable somebody else is. .
This is the second time you have asked me this, I suggest you refer to my original answer.Where does it say in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that you have the right not to be poor?
But when you are earning all that you are allowed to earn, there is no incentive to improve your product or your service. It is a rare business that survives by being static. You are either working to grow and improve your business and earn more or you will go backwards, possibly to the point you will go out of business. That is the most elementary truth of basic economics.
So yes, there may be more widget makers, but with no opportunity to improve or grow or increase one's holdings, the most likely scenario is a deterioration of product and service to the detriment of all. And there is no incentive to promote or provide prototypes for a better widget.
I do not think we want a society that redistributes wealth, but one that allows for equal opportunity for one's success (or failure!).
As long as all the citizen's have equal access to the institutions and tools required to succeed in life, that's good enough for me.
The homeless guy on the street should have the same opportunity to walk into a courtroom as Donald Trump, and prevail if his case has merit.
I believe in fairness - nothing more, nothing less.
How would you deal with the fact that capitalism has a natural bias for the wealthy? The old adage that "money makes money" is not just a saying, it is a truism. In order to be "fair" there must be ways to correct for that natural bias. More progressive taxes are one way to do that because it limits the amount of money that the wealthy can sock away.
Do we really want to put a cap on how wealthy someone can be?
Is forcibly taking from the rich and giving to the poor American and Democratic values?
Do we really want to pass laws against people hoarding money and not spending it when there are poor who could use that money?
Are we just merely wanting to change what our country is to a socialistic country, thereby changing America from the land of opportunity and the American Dream to being a socialist state where there are no poor and there are no wealthy (except of course for those in power in the government)?
Period? You claimed the definition was something else entirely.
No, again, severe reading and comprehension issues. GD, TRY THE QUOTE BUTTON IF YOU CANNOT GET MY WORDS ON THE PAGE CORRECTLY.
That wasn't the point.
I need no incentive to do good/better work other than getting sufficient business, by word of mouth alone, to meet my needs. If you think that MegaHandyman will do a better job, or charge you less for the job, then by all means hire them. I don't aspire to amass so much wealth that my grandchildren need not work or that I can afford to temporarily do business at a loss just to drive my competitors out of business.
Well, eighty percent of the 1% are first generation, so...
Child's possibility of getting to top 5% of income earners (above $166k), based on parents income level:
Bottom Quintile ($0-30k): 1.1%
Second Quintile ($30-42k): 1.5%
Third Quintile ($42-54k): 1.8%
Fourth Quintile ($54-72k): 5.6%
Fifth Quintile ($72k+): 14.2%
Further, of kids born into the top 5%, 21.7% of them will remain there as adults.
Well.. the problem is john.. can you recognize that part of the reason that we have inequality is BECAUSE of strong government intervention.?
Some ways of "fixing" inequality.. with "strong government intervention" will make things worse.
I see no mechanism in the private sector that tends toward fairness. And that's not just because we aren't doing it right. Government is capable of fixing the problems; it has all the tools and the necessary powers. Just because it hasn't worked perfectly in the past is no reason to give up on it.
BTW, you have never made your point about how government intervention has caused inequality. All you have ever done is point out that we have government intervention at the same time we have inequality. That's not causation.
if Strong government intervention was actually productive, our poverty and "fairness" problems would not exist.... as government has intervened itself in to literally every aspect of our lives...especailly our economic lives.
What is fairness or what you call real fairness? Why put real in front of fairness anyway? Is there a such thing as fake fairness or something?
How do we know when we obtained real fairness? I don't know about you, but I like working of concrete ideals, not undefined ones. Or in other words, I want to know where I'm going before I leave to get there.
You aren't going to agree with anything I say anyway, so I don't know how much time I'm going to waste on this. But in a nutshell, fairness is not allowing those with money to buy their way to either more money or more power. And like I said before, there is nothing about the market that balances anything out. Without antitrust laws, buisness tends toward monopoly. Without employment law, business tends toward exploitation. Without environmental laws, business tends toward consuming the environment to increase profits.
I've already heard your side of the argument - free markets are great! Hooray for free markets! Well, without a strong rule of law and governmental framework, free markets would suck, "bigly."
I still blame business, and here's why: they have the government in their pocket. You get re-elected by getting the backing of big money interests. They contribute most of the campaign funds. They write most of the bills that are introduced. They do most of the lobbying. They produce the advertising. They own the media.
If you are a pro-environment, pro-clean energy, anti-Wall Street, anti-gun candidate, where are you getting your money? What chance do you have, even when the positions you take are popular with a majority of voters? Look no further than Hillary Clinton's campaign to see why you should blame business interests for steering the government where it wants it to go.
I still blame business, and here's why: they have the government in their pocket. You get re-elected by getting the backing of big money interests. They contribute most of the campaign funds. They write most of the bills that are introduced. They do most of the lobbying. They produce the advertising. They own the media.
If you are a pro-environment, pro-clean energy, anti-Wall Street, anti-gun candidate, where are you getting your money? What chance do you have, even when the positions you take are popular with a majority of voters? Look no further than Hillary Clinton's campaign to see why you should blame business interests for steering the government where it wants it to go.
This is the second time you have asked me this, I suggest you refer to my original answer.
I suppose yer not wanting any other examples of "what is fairness"?
We have an economic system, including a tax code, that favors large corps and the wealthy. It is obvious that those with the most get the most from the distribution of wealth in our economic system. Whether Dems or Reps are in charge, as proven by 40 years of steadily growing income disparity, the rich get richer and the middle class gets dropped out. Lowering the cost of higher education, where is the greatest tell of income success, and guaranteeing a living wage, which speaks for itself, and a universal health system, which pays for itself in keeping people in good working condition, are actions that can do the most to balance the scales for the American public to get an even break and be their most productive. BTW, American worker productivity has continued to climb since the early 1970's, but not the wages with it as had been the historical case. That's why NAFTA and other global trade pacts do not work for the average American. They work for large corps and the wealthy, but they keep all the profits and don't share with the workers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?