• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Myths About Capitalism

Opteron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
629
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Good insight. Good insight. Now, here is something that people might misconstrue about my position for an unregulated, free market, and most of this stems from how I use the term regulation. By regulation, I mean an unnecessary law made by the government to benefit the people, when they are in the position of the buyer, arbitrarily. For example, laws against price gauging are a regulation, but I don't consider laws against fraud a regulation, because that's just a necessary law in order to ensure the integrity of the transaction between two people. A contract is only valid, after all, if both parties have full knowledge of what they consent; therefore, laws against fraud should be enforced in all cases. In a sense, I support regulations that a free market imposes by its very nature, and that includes laws against fraud, because, for a free market to work, it requires the facts to be correct and not falsified.

"And also false advertising, the consumer might not know or be able to influence the seller if he lies or does something like that until its too late."

Now, that issue would only be the case, if the transaction would endanger the life of the buyer or seller. If it doesn't, then it would never be too late to garner reparations for fraud through the legal system.
You're right, some people consider a basic set of laws not to be regulation, such as enforcing contracts, no fraud, etc. but then consider anything on top of that done by the government to be regulation. I do see what you're saying. But the thing is to consider that the first set of laws are beneficial for the market, but the second set called regulation are not, is not consistent. Either they both should be beneficial or they both should be detrimental to the market. I believe that they both are beneficial to the market. In previous posts I outlined how a market with laws but without regulation is not good because of monopolies and price fixing, so that's why we need regulation.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Capitalism would not depend on greed -- in fact, greed, if over-the-board, would be detrimental to the corporation or person in which greed was present.
sorrr... having trouble disambiguating that bit... perhaps you could reword it? I used the terms 'greed' and 'socialism' a bit sarcastically. Pursuing one's own wealth (in its original meaning of "well being") is not immoral. Nor is pursuing the well being of our community.
doesn't that mean that greed has a higher affinity with socialism than Capitalism
no, it does not. The early crafters of Capitalism fabricated a myth that they used to justify screwing anyone except those who had the ability to screw them... with these latter folks, they cooperated. Greedy folks DO cooperate when it satisfies their greed. Not greedy people cooperate because it benefits them and everyone else involved.
and doesn't it mean that greed, a bad, tries to distance itself from competition, a good?
no. see above
Wouldn't it then be logical for socialism or regulation to be forsaken by the people, so that the CEOs have to contend with the troubles of Capitalism and competition
no, not if you think that an economic system is best that serves everyone. Capitalism serves those that are willing to take. Those CEO's do not give a fiddler's fart about anyone that does not contribute to their coffers and are willing to take as much from those that do as they are allowed to take.

Do you reject Child Labor Laws?

As someone who has studied Microeconomics, I thought about the subject considerably enough to form my own opinions.

good man. now, think... what is the purpose of economics? why do we have a system of economics at all? What was Smith trying to accomplish when he laid out the framework? And what was the result? Did he miss something?
99% read history? you must know a vastly different class of Americans.
you must know a vastly different class of Americans.

self interest, pursuing one's own benefit is a fundamental element of any living thing. Group interest, the pursuit of the group's well being is also fundamental in most living things. It is not hard to understand - the two frequently depend on one another. The danger is in sacrificing one in favor or the other at the ultimate expense of both. Social Morality is an expression of the degree to which we can succeed in both.

Competition and cooperation are as essential in the success of an economic system as they are in any other human interaction - sports, for example - if only to the degree that we have rules that regulate the interaction to the well being of the whole population. It is the success of the system that determines its value not its abstract purity. the balance between cooperation and competition will shift in response to the practical needs of the participants.

the last 50 years should have demonstrated that even if the prior 200 years had not. we already knew that non-cooperative economics fails. now we know that non-competitive economics fails equally as well. Even such staunch socialist nations as China have embraced capitalist elements. how to maintain that balance is the issue, NOT whether one is better than the other.

geo.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
4,032
Reaction score
489
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Private sector jobs and manufacturing are the backbone of any economy. You substitute government jobs for those "corporate devils" and you begin a trip you do not want to be on.

Obama could have concentrated on the economy: trade balances, revising the tax code, incentives for businesses and manufacturing onshore. Iinstead, he's hell bent on "something else."
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I have no problem with rich people, as long as they understand that they rely on us. I also understand that the wait staff suffer a loss when people cut back going out to eat, since we rely on each other to get by in this world. Working hard in your chosen enterprise should lend itself to rewards; whether it's a comfortable middle class environment or a mansion with lots of hired help. However, there is a need for some regulation to keep the greed in check; otherwise some people will take advantage of others.

It requires a sense of collective responsibility for individuals to have shame enough for them to give back to the community they profit from. However they may view themselves as being more intellectual for being able to sell and charge more for items they paid less then the buyer did. I believe this street smarts view of the world holds pilfering in high regard. Not only did you rip off the customer.. you also ripped off the item seller and did nothing but move the product to market.

When the wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer though the drive goes beyond simply having more and more personal wealth, you already have more then you could have for yourself personally. The drive moves away from more and more money to power .. this is more satisfactory to the person who already has more then they can use.

The moral of the story is to not trust the people with the money. They have it all for one reason or another that typically isn't really all that admirable.
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Private sector jobs and manufacturing are the backbone of any economy. . .
sure. but an economy. like all the rest of the vertebrates of the world, needs more than a backbone. a brain helps. many think a heart pretty important too.
Obama could have concentrated on the economy: trade balances, revising the tax code, incentives for businesses and manufacturing onshore. Iinstead, he's hell bent on "something else."

eh? wazzzat you say? Obama promised he would "create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund" to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies."

according to politifact:
It goes by a different name, but the White House on Aug. 5, 2009, announced $2.4 billion in high-tech manufacturing grants that sound a lot like the "Advanced Manufacturing Fund" Barack Obama promised during the campaign. The grants are geared toward keeping American companies at the forefront of emerging manufacturing technologies.

We consider this a Promise Kept.

so he kept his promise. is it doing any good. hard to say, but how is the manufacturing sector doing?
reports show positive signs that manufacturing is making a strong comeback and leading the economic recovery.

One report released this week by the U.S. Commerce Department, shows orders at U.S. factories rose a surprising 1.3 percent in March with widespread gains in many industries. . . . The increase offers further evidence that U.S. manufacturers are a consistent source of strength driving the recovery.

A second report released by the Institute for Supply Mangement earlier this week (May 3, 2010), shows that economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in April, 2010 for the ninth consecutive month, and the overall economy grew for the 12th consecutive month, say the nation’s supply executives in the latest Manufacturing ISM Report On Business® . A spokesperson for the Institute states, “Manufacturers continue to see extraordinary strength in new orders, as the New Orders Index has averaged 61.6 percent for the past 10 months. The signs for employment in the sector continue to improve as the Employment Index registered its fifth consecutive month of growth. Overall, the recovery in manufacturing continues quite strong, and the signs are positive for continued growth.”
CBIA

well... its a start.

you might wanna try a differnt tack, sailor... the wind has shifted.

geo.
 

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Private sector jobs and manufacturing are the backbone of any economy. You substitute government jobs for those "corporate devils" and you begin a trip you do not want to be on.

Obama could have concentrated on the economy: trade balances, revising the tax code, incentives for businesses and manufacturing onshore. Iinstead, he's hell bent on "something else."

What would that something else be? Gee, something else sure is profound.
 

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
It requires a sense of collective responsibility for individuals to have shame enough for them to give back to the community they profit from. However they may view themselves as being more intellectual for being able to sell and charge more for items they paid less then the buyer did. I believe this street smarts view of the world holds pilfering in high regard. Not only did you rip off the customer.. you also ripped off the item seller and did nothing but move the product to market.

When the wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer though the drive goes beyond simply having more and more personal wealth, you already have more then you could have for yourself personally. The drive moves away from more and more money to power .. this is more satisfactory to the person who already has more then they can use.

The moral of the story is to not trust the people with the money. They have it all for one reason or another that typically isn't really all that admirable.

Life has always seemed like a game of monopoly to me. Much of it can be credited to good rolls of the dice.

One person always winds up owning all the real estate until there are no more players left to pay rent.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am more worried about fighting useless wars in which we win nothing and do not even tax people to pay for it. Instead we cut taxes for the richest.
You think National Security is useless. Thankfully others believed otherwise after we were hit.
In case you were too young or have forgotten, September 10, 2001 was another fine day in America. We were working our way out of a recession, and lower taxes (the John F. Kennedy Solution) was implemented to spur growth.

September 11, 2001 was a sobering moment. Three planes hit their targets, with a fourth aimed at the White House... so the theory goes. In the 911 aftermath we had anthrax attacks on law makers, we had been told there could be scores of sleeper cells waiting to smack us like ticking bombs. We had the kooks of the world watching.

They nailed our financial center and we went from emerging from a recession to emerging from an unprecedented attack on our financial center and emerging from a recession. Raising taxes was not in our interest... not short or long term. See JFK's speech to the Economic Club of NY, 1962.

Hans Blix testified and revealed Saddam could have had hundreds upon hundreds of pounds of WMD. Some weapons grade.
He also stated Saddam wasn't cooperating. This after 12-years.

David Kay stated before the US Armed Services Committee, that we have been lucky, because the chance of a terrorist hooking up with someone in Saddam's regime and passing along WMD was a possibility, and that we may not be as lucky as we think. As 911 proved, the bastards are patient.

Out of it we accomplished a few things:
1. Saddam wasn't a threat any longer.
2. We closed down a Nuke Black Market.
3. Libya was out of the Nuke business.
4. Pakistan sided with the US.

You are not including the faux taxes that most people pay. I am talking about "fees", parking tickets, user fees, tobacco taxes, taxes on booze, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. These have all soared ever since reagan began his trickle down economics shell game.
LOL... Social engineering. Your buddy Obvious Child supports it.
Enjoy!
6) Taxes as a form of social policy isn't inherently a bad idea.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...10-reasons-scrap-tax-code.html#post1057988838

I don't know where this can be found in The Constitution. Taxes as a form of social policy.
Land of the Free, home of the Brave?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Try Mommy Dearest Strikes again... Hey... you smoke too much. Hey... not s much alcohol. WATCH the salt asshole!
(But the Lib wants them drugs legalized. Can't get enuf, of that funky stuff. Of course... it's harmless)
Jumbo Doobie Icon.

You believe in what? Trickle Up?
I'll tell ya, when someone goes to find funding for a project, to hire staff and take a risk... they don't go to the poor to get the funds. If the government hasn't created a compelling environment... those angels are dead. They're looking at other less hostile harbors to put their money... and let it trickle down.

The rich can all afford to hire tax consultants to find loopholes to evade a lot of their taxes.
ROTFLOL... Oh yes they can.
It's a beautiful thing too. Wonderful. That's why Gerhard Schroeder's proposal of a EU-wide tax rate would have been a disaster for the continent. A lot of wealth would have moved out of the EU.

When Obi and other leftists think they're going to soak it to the rich, they find ways to hide their coin... 100% correct Lib Avenger... 100% correct. Just ask John Edwards... he's a master example. http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertNovak/2004/03/01/the_edwards_loophole

And that money doesn't trickle anywhere, if they park it. It sits and grows slowly, or perhaps quickly in another more friendly environment... as the rich are Free to Choose.

Reduce the punitive taxes and watch the cash flow, jobs be created and the government's coffers fill.
JFK knew this. What happened to modern democrats?

That is why we should scrap the Tax Code.
We can take 7% of the economy and create a document that screws even further with our health care delivery system, but we cannot scrap the tax code and provide something very simple... so simple a moron could figure it out? Strange.

Your buddy Obvious Child put it this way... he agreed:
7) Your article is as ignorant as most people here about taxes.

People are ignorant, they shouldn't have to be an accountant to fill out their tax forms, or require hand holders to get their taxes done, wasting countless hours and (m)(b)illions filling out their tax form.

They scrapped the tax codes in many former Communist countries, but we... America and Americans can't have Congress work their way through a new and simple manner of the public paying taxes? Absolute Hogwash.

Even German economist Paul Kirchoff and others sought to reduce their tax forms to the size of a beer mat. But the press, fueled by their neidgesellschaft (Jealousy Society) went ballistic. Their time will come too one day.

Hell.. even Carter agreed.

“Our Income Tax system is a disgrace to the human race.”
—Jimmy Carter, 1976​



It requires a sense of collective responsibility for individuals to have shame enough for them to give back to the community they profit from...

The moral of the story is to not trust the people with the money. They have it all for one reason or another that typically isn't really all that admirable.

What poison.
Americans are philanthropic to a fault, and when government steals their cash and have less to give, they destroy that critical and traditional American fabric.

"Not to trust people with money"?
Bizarro.

.
 
Last edited:

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
22,188
Reaction score
8,843
Location
Venice Beach, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hate to break your little heart Zimmer, but tax cuts in the face of deficits will not spur economic growth as consumers internalize government spending in the wake of increased disposable income from tax cuts.
 

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
You think National Security is useless. Thankfully others believed otherwise after we were hit.
In case you were too young or have forgotten, September 10, 2001 was another fine day in America. We were working our way out of a recession, and lower taxes (the John F. Kennedy Solution) was implemented to spur growth.

September 11, 2001 was a sobering moment. Three planes hit their targets, with a fourth aimed at the White House... so the theory goes. In the 911 aftermath we had anthrax attacks on law makers, we had been told there could be scores of sleeper cells waiting to smack us like ticking bombs. We had the kooks of the world watching.

They nailed our financial center and we went from emerging from a recession to emerging from an unprecedented attack on our financial center and emerging from a recession. Raising taxes was not in our interest... not short or long term. See JFK's speech to the Economic Club of NY, 1962.

Hans Blix testified and revealed Saddam could have had hundreds upon hundreds of pounds of WMD. Some weapons grade.
He also stated Saddam wasn't cooperating. This after 12-years.

David Kay stated before the US Armed Services Committee, that we have been lucky, because the chance of a terrorist hooking up with someone in Saddam's regime and passing along WMD was a possibility, and that we may not be as lucky as we think. As 911 proved, the bastards are patient.

Out of it we accomplished a few things:
1. Saddam wasn't a threat any longer.
2. We closed down a Nuke Black Market.
3. Libya was out of the Nuke business.
4. Pakistan sided with the US.


LOL... Social engineering. Your buddy Obvious Child supports it.
Enjoy!


I don't know where this can be found in The Constitution. Taxes as a form of social policy.
Land of the Free, home of the Brave?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Try Mommy Dearest Strikes again... Hey... you smoke too much. Hey... not s much alcohol. WATCH the salt asshole!
(But the Lib wants them drugs legalized. Can't get enuf, of that funky stuff. Of course... it's harmless)
Jumbo Doobie Icon.

You believe in what? Trickle Up?
I'll tell ya, when someone goes to find funding for a project, to hire staff and take a risk... they don't go to the poor to get the funds. If the government hasn't created a compelling environment... those angels are dead. They're looking at other less hostile harbors to put their money... and let it trickle down.


ROTFLOL... Oh yes they can.
It's a beautiful thing too. Wonderful. That's why Gerhard Schroeder's proposal of a EU-wide tax rate would have been a disaster for the continent. A lot of wealth would have moved out of the EU.

When Obi and other leftists think they're going to soak it to the rich, they find ways to hide their coin... 100% correct Lib Avenger... 100% correct. Just ask John Edwards... he's a master example. Townhall - The Edwards loophole

And that money doesn't trickle anywhere, if they park it. It sits and grows slowly, or perhaps quickly in another more friendly environment... as the rich are Free to Choose.

Reduce the punitive taxes and watch the cash flow, jobs be created and the government's coffers fill.
JFK knew this. What happened to modern democrats?

That is why we should scrap the Tax Code.
We can take 7% of the economy and create a document that screws even further with our health care delivery system, but we cannot scrap the tax code and provide something very simple... so simple a moron could figure it out? Strange.

Your buddy Obvious Child put it this way... he agreed:


People are ignorant, they shouldn't have to be an accountant to fill out their tax forms, or require hand holders to get their taxes done, wasting countless hours and (m)(b)illions filling out their tax form.

They scrapped the tax codes in many former Communist countries, but we... America and Americans can't have Congress work their way through a new and simple manner of the public paying taxes? Absolute Hogwash.

Even German economist Paul Kirchoff and others sought to reduce their tax forms to the size of a beer mat. But the press, fueled by their neidgesellschaft (Jealousy Society) went ballistic. Their time will come too one day.

Hell.. even Carter agreed.

“Our Income Tax system is a disgrace to the human race.”
—Jimmy Carter, 1976​





What poison.
Americans are philanthropic to a fault, and when government steals their cash and have less to give, they destroy that critical and traditional American fabric.

"Not to trust people with money"?
Bizarro.

.

No, I am not too young to remember. I am a vietnam era veteran.

You are wrong and I am always right.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, I am not too young to remember. I am a vietnam era veteran.

You are wrong and I am always right.
Who knew?
With the following quote it sounded like you got out of high school.
Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
I am more worried about fighting useless wars in which we win nothing and do not even tax people to pay for it. Instead we cut taxes for the richest.

That's why I framed it this way:
In case you were too young or have forgotten, ...
Some have forgotten the post 911 environment, all the uncertainties, and the successes.

.
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
funny... to me, the comment "I am more worried about fighting useless wars in which we win nothing and do not even tax people to pay for it. Instead we cut taxes for the richest." sounded EXACTLY like a man who was grown in the years of Johnson and Nixon.

geo.
 

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Who knew?
With the following quote it sounded like you got out of high school.


That's why I framed it this way.

What have we gained from these wars?

Some have forgotten the post 911 environment, all the uncertainties, and the successes.

.

What is it in my comment that you disagree with or think is like a high schooler wrote it?

Did Reagan not cut taxes for the rich? Have we raised taxes to pay for the war? What have we gained from this war?
 
Last edited:

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
What is it in my comment that you disagree with or think is like a high schooler wrote it?

Did Reagan not cut taxes for the rich? Have we raised taxes to pay for the war? What have we gained from this war?

It was the first bit below that hit me like a frying pan in the mug with the sense you weren't around at the time.

The remainder of your post I believe I was largely in agreement with, even though I sensed disdain for the individuals. I don't share the sentiment.

Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
I am more worried about fighting useless wars in which we win nothing and do not even tax people to pay for it. Instead we cut taxes for the richest.
I believed Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary when you look at what unfolded after 911, and when you heard Dems on record.
Hillary with Code Pink sold her inside knowledge.

That we don't have to go into a WWII taxation mentality to fund these wars says a lot about where we are as a country... it's the social Ponzi/Madoff Schemes that are killing us. Actually, we have a tax system that is incredibly penal.
Roughly:
The top 1% pay 35% of taxes.
The top 5% some 55%.
The top 10% some 65%.
The top 50%... 95%.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

It's to the point of killing the goose laying the Golden Eggs.

This Reagan and rich comment about taxation is pure class warfare speak. I don't subscribe to it... and boy I once did with fervor.

Why should the wealthy not keep their fair share? I don't see why they should be unduly penalized; their ingenuity thieved by do-gooders (that don't) in DC? Better to have the money in their hands than in the hands of government. With wealth in their hands they can take risk and create jobs... and because they have more, doesn't have an impact on the guy on the sofa watching tube and sipping suds... none whatsoever.

Reagan cut taxes across the board. The highest marginal rate fell from 70% to 28%. and loopholes closed.

To think, when the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913, it was 3% on income over $800. Now the top 50% carry the freight ... and government still can't get enough of our money.

In 2009, $800.00 from 1913 is worth:
$17,900.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$13,500.00 using the GDP deflator
$76,600.00 using the unskilled wage
$106,000.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$92,200.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$291,000.00 using the relative share of GDP

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

.
 
Last edited:

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Life has always seemed like a game of monopoly to me. Much of it can be credited to good rolls of the dice.

One person always winds up owning all the real estate until there are no more players left to pay rent.

Bah, the game is about getting property from those less fortunate with the dice at the beginning of the game. They are desperate so will trade whatever they need to make a set to charge more.... if they are really lucky everyone will land on their slots and they will have enough to buy out someone in trouble with better property..

Less luck on dice more to do with the deals made after all the property is owned. The real game is in manipulation of others to trade something that isn't worth as much as your getting .. it's basically low level social manipulation.
 

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
It was the first bit below that hit me like a frying pan in the mug with the sense you weren't around at the time.

The remainder of your post I believe I was largely in agreement with, even though I sensed disdain for the individuals. I don't share the sentiment.


I believed Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary when you look at what unfolded after 911, and when you heard Dems on record.
Hillary with Code Pink sold her inside knowledge.

That we don't have to go into a WWII taxation mentality to fund these wars says a lot about where we are as a country... it's the social Ponzi/Madoff Schemes that are killing us. Actually, we have a tax system that is incredibly penal.
Roughly:
The top 1% pay 35% of taxes.
The top 5% some 55%.
The top 10% some 65%.
The top 50%... 95%.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls

It's to the point of killing the goose laying the Golden Eggs.

This Reagan and rich comment about taxation is pure class warfare speak. I don't subscribe to it... and boy I once did with fervor.

Why should the wealthy not keep their fair share? I don't see why they should be unduly penalized; their ingenuity thieved by do-gooders (that don't) in DC? Better to have the money in their hands than in the hands of government. With wealth in their hands they can take risk and create jobs... and because they have more, doesn't have an impact on the guy on the sofa watching tube and sipping suds... none whatsoever.

Reagan cut taxes across the board. The highest marginal rate fell from 70% to 28%. and loopholes closed.

To think, when the 16th amendment was ratified in 1913, it was 3% on income over $800. Now the top 50% carry the freight ... and government still can't get enough of our money.



.

There is a lot a chicken and egg stuff here.

There is no golden goose involved. It is the sweat and labor of the workers that create wealth.

The rich should pay more because they make more. It helps to level the distribution of wealth among the people.

When riches go beyond a certain point it is not about money. It is about power. It''s king of the hill stuff.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
4,032
Reaction score
489
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Because humans are involved in both systems, capitalism and government, neither pure form of system will result in the best overall good for society. Humans are by nature greedy and controlling, and will find ways to take advantage of the system to make sure they take advantage of those less resourceful and with less ingenuity or ability to bring their ideas to the forefront.

Thus an environment that provides the greatest benefits to society is one where hard work is incentivized, but cheating or being driven largely by greed or desire to conquer is penalized. Our capitalistic economic system, with checks put in place to plug up the loopholes where negative motivations have been exploited, has been enormously successful.
 
Top Bottom