The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

[Papa bull]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

As long as you define "profit" in the sense of happiness instead of wealth.

Ask Justin Bieber when he was last happy.

I don't define profit. The standard definition is adequate so I don't need to invent a new one:

Full Definition of PROFIT

intransitive verb
1
: to be of service or advantage : avail
2
: to derive benefit : gain
3
: to make a profit

One might feel that they could make more money working for themselves but feel that the comfort of full time employment profits them more on a personal level. People have to decide for themselves what profits them the most.

 

[grip]

These kind of problems don't lend themselves to private enterprise solutions but they certainly have a role to play. For one thing "business" is an abstraction. There is no such thing. What we have are millions of independent businesses all marching to the same single drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is ok for some local problems but totally inadequate for global systemic problems.

Righties are all driven like lemmings to Reagan's totally irresponsible and unfounded opinion that government is the problem, not the solution. For that statement alone he ought to be relegated to the intellectual landfill of stupidity by folks like Limbaugh and Beck and Trump and Boehner and Norquist.

For problems like the largest project mankind has ever undertaken, really good government is absolutely essential to success. Success being defined as keeping energy adequately available at all times during the transition to sustainable rather than temporary sources despite it's inevitable gross increase in cost.

:rofl The international corporate conglomerates, raiders and investors have become similar to the feudal system of Europe's- Dark Ages, where alliance and loyalty is strictly to the success of your company flag.

It's laughable the partisan political strife and dissociation, when they're fighting over ideologies that have little to nothing to do with what's actually driving the country and global issues. I sincerely believe the real movers and shakers don't want any attention paid to their true motives. I often wonder if even they're aware that money or supposed materialistic wealth is not the answer to all problems or even the most important ones?

 

[PMZ]

:rofl The international corporate conglomerates, raiders and investors have become similar to the feudal system of Europe's- Dark Ages, where alliance and loyalty is strictly to the success of your company flag.

It's laughable the partisan political strife and dissociation, when they're fighting over ideologies that have little to nothing to do with what's actually driving the country and global issues. I sincerely believe the real movers and shakers don't want any attention paid to their true motives. I often wonder if even they're aware that money or supposed materialistic wealth is not the answer to all problems or even the most important ones?

Some like to assume that wealth follows knowledge. It doesn't correlate. In fact in many cases the opposite is true. People accumulate wealth because they aren't all that bright. I cite Trump and Limbaugh and Jobs as Cal Thomas as prime examples.

 

[Papa bull]

Some like to assume that wealth follows knowledge. It doesn't correlate. In fact in many cases the opposite is true. People accumulate wealth because they aren't all that bright. I cite Trump and Limbaugh and Jobs as Cal Thomas as prime examples.

Why aren't you filthy rich, then?

 

[PMZ]

Why aren't you filthy rich, then?

I'm smarter than that.

 

[Papa bull]

I'm smarter than that.

Yep. That must be it. You are just too smart to be rich. .

At least you have a sense of humor.

 

[Slyhunter]

reported on Fox the other day, 85 people hold as much wealth as the bottom 50% hold. We need a wealth tax.

 

[Misterveritis]

"The point of our United States Constitution was to put limits on what the Federal government could involve itself in."

That's why you will never have a job as a teacher. You don't know right from wrong. All you know is what you've been told to believe. By those with a well funded agenda. Money does not make right.

This is a remarkable statement.

According to you I do not know right from wrong. How did you derive that from my statement that the Constitution puts limits on what the Federal government can do?

Do you believe that the state can do whatever it wants?

 

[Misterveritis]

The fascist in PMZ

"It is clear that you desire Marxist socialism here. Why else desire that the government run the economy?
I call you a Marxist because you reveal yourself to be one. Not a big deal really. You could be a fascist or a statist. At each's core they are close relatives.

You see no difference between socialism, an economic system practiced here and by all governments around the world today, and Marxism, a defunct political system.

Marxism is but one strain of socialism. Your words indicate, to me, that you are of the Marxist strain. I do not believe that Marxism was ever a political system. Although the Soviet Union was bit fascinated with Marxism-Leninism. Had they been more honest, they would have admitted to Marxism-Stalinism (like what your senator Schumer seems to like).

You are a fascist.

No. That would be you, actually.

The concept of a statist is a complete abstraction.

You are a prejudice in search of words to describe the opposition.

I believe you show what the garden-variety statists believe. I am not aware of any complete abstractions.

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Fortunately our founding fathers were smart enough to know that times change and therefore they wrote a general outline of bylaws for government with flexible wording and a clear intent to allow amendments to keep up with the times.

They had so many issues and different opinions amongst them that the general was the only thing that they could agree on.

Alexander Hamilton believed as you do.
He was a remarkable man who believed much that leads to tyranny. You too.

 

[imagep]

reported on Fox the other day, 85 people hold as much wealth as the bottom 50% hold. We need a wealth tax.

Taxing all income identically, work, capital gains, inheritence, etc would ultimately have the same effect. Part of the reason that the very wealthy become wealthier at a faster and faster rate is because their income taxes to be regressive in nature. the more one makes, the lower the percent of their income that they pay on things like sales tax, alcohol tax, property taxes, tobacco tax, gas tax, etc. Also, as they accumulate more financial wealth, they get to start taking advantage of the special deal for rich people that we call the "capital gains tax".

It's very difficult to value wealth. Just how much is a Monet or Van Goch worth? It's also easy to hide wealth. it's a lot harder to hide income, so developing a more progressive tax system would basically have the same long term effect as a wealth tax, and it would be more practical.

 

[Federalist]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

I think that you, as an employer, should stop giving your wealth away, and fire all of your employees.

Why would an employer want to do that? Employees transform the employers materials into some other form. The employer wants the materials transformed, which is why he hires the employee to do it.

But your comment does not prove that the employer takes any property from the employee, as you claimed earlier.

 

[PMZ]

reported on Fox the other day, 85 people hold as much wealth as the bottom 50% hold. We need a wealth tax.

That's a global statement. 85 individuals have more money all together than the the, what, 3.5 billion poorest people in the world. It's outrageous.

 

[PMZ]

"The point of our United States Constitution was to put limits on what the Federal government could involve itself in."


This is a remarkable statement.

According to you I do not know right from wrong. How did you derive that from my statement that the Constitution puts limits on what the Federal government can do?

Do you believe that the state can do whatever it wants?

I believe that the Federal Government has followed the Constitution. They have become what they are. That's roughly what's needed. There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The fascist in PMZ

"It is clear that you desire Marxist socialism here. Why else desire that the government run the economy?
I call you a Marxist because you reveal yourself to be one. Not a big deal really. You could be a fascist or a statist. At each's core they are close relatives.

Marxism is but one strain of socialism. Your words indicate, to me, that you are of the Marxist strain. I do not believe that Marxism was ever a political system. Although the Soviet Union was bit fascinated with Marxism-Leninism. Had they been more honest, they would have admitted to Marxism-Stalinism (like what your senator Schumer seems to like).


No. That would be you, actually.

I believe you show what the garden-variety statists believe. I am not aware of any complete abstractions.

You are welcome to want whatever reality that you want. I try to stay in the real world. Reality is that I'm a middle of the road American and you are a right wing extremist. Everybody is left of you.

America has always employed the best economic system for each particular market. There is no evidence to the contrary. America has no Marxist political system.

You are a puppet, pure and simple. Led by the nose.

If you can't think for yourself, there is no other choice.

 

[PMZ]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Alexander Hamilton believed as you do.
He was a remarkable man who believed much that leads to tyranny. You too.

There is tyranny and democracy. I fully support American democracy. You don't.

 

[PMZ]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Why would an employer want to do that? Employees transform the employers materials into some other form. The employer wants the materials transformed, which is why he hires the employee to do it.

But your comment does not prove that the employer takes any property from the employee, as you claimed earlier.

You're the one that doesn't believe that employees do not create wealth. You're the one who believes that only employers create wealth. Have at it.

 

[Federalist]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

You're the one that doesn't believe that employees do not create wealth. You're the one who believes that only employers create wealth. Have at it.

I said that employers take no property from employees and that, in fact, employers actually give property (wages) to employees. You have yet to address or refute my statement.

You keep saying that employers take from employees, but you continue to fail at identifying what specific property of the employee is being taken.

 

[PMZ]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

I said that employers take no property from employees and that, in fact, employers actually give property (wages) to employees. You have yet to address or refute my statement.

You keep saying that employers take from employees, but you continue to fail at identifying what specific property of the employee is being taken.

Employees create wealth. Employers buy it by paying wages, then sell it to customers for enough more to make it worthwhile. It's pretty simple.

 

[Oozlefinch]

One of the roles of government is to incentivize markets for the long term collective good rather than short term personal good which is the only goal of free enterprise.

Why is that Government's job? The market is the market, there is nothing in the Constitution that I am aware of that states this is the job of the Government, other then to stay out of the way and allow free trade and commerce.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Taxing all income identically, work, capital gains, inheritence, etc would ultimately have the same effect. Part of the reason that the very wealthy become wealthier at a faster and faster rate is because their income taxes to be regressive in nature. the more one makes, the lower the percent of their income that they pay on things like sales tax, alcohol tax, property taxes, tobacco tax, gas tax, etc. Also, as they accumulate more financial wealth, they get to start taking advantage of the special deal for rich people that we call the "capital gains tax".

Plus you can't forget the fact that the wealthy tend to put their money into "things", not just stick it into the bank as "money".

The wealthy buy things with their money. Land, condos, jewelry, vehicles, and other things. And quite often, these things gain more value - do their own "wealth" increases. Then you have the working wealthy, who's own efforts in their company makes it more valuable, and increases their own value.

But often times, it is a kind of phantom wealth. My boss in Alabama was easily worth over $1 million. He was the founder and owner of 2 successful businesses (one a motorcycle shop, the other a computer store). He founded both businesses, and worked them himself for many years until he retired. He owned the building that they were both in, and over roughly 30 years had been very successful. However, the vast majority of his "wealth" was tied up in stock.

And I do not mean the stock market, but in the inventory of these businesses. A couple of hundred tires, thousands of motorcycle parts, tools, lifts, and all the other things that go with one. And probably $200,000 worth of motorcycles, either as part bikes in the back, or the few in front for resale. And the same on the computer side, tens of thousands of dollars in stock, thousands in tools, and all the other things that go with such a business.

Yet he and his wife both worked until they were almost 70 (she was the finance manager of a local car lot), because between them and their 2 sons who worked at the bike shop, it did not provide enough income for all of them. This is life for the majority of the "wealthy". Most famers are easily "multi-millionaires", because of the value of the land and equipment they need to farm. Yet they are also constantly 3 months from bankruptcy. A bad crop, a blight, even an overabundance which depresses the crop can (and has) often driven them out of business.

But for some reason the "tax the wealthy into oblivion" all fail to see that.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

I said that employers take no property from employees and that, in fact, employers actually give property (wages) to employees. You have yet to address or refute my statement.

You keep saying that employers take from employees, but you continue to fail at identifying what specific property of the employee is being taken.

Because whatever the employee makes should be theirs. Therefore it is stolen. Is that not obvious?

And don't hold your breath waiting for an answer, he simply avoids anything that is uncomfortable and makes him look bad. I have pegged him as a hypocrite mane times, but he will never admit it.

 

[Federalist]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Employees create wealth. Employers buy it by paying wages, then sell it to customers for enough more to make it worthwhile. It's pretty simple.

Nope. Employers don't purchase (or otherwise take) any property from the employee. The employers transfer property (wages) to the employee on the condition that the employee will perform certain actions.

Again, nothing is taken from the employee. The only transfer of property is from the employer to the employee.

 

[PMZ]

Why is that Government's job? The market is the market, there is nothing in the Constitution that I am aware of that states this is the job of the Government, other then to stay out of the way and allow free trade and commerce.

Government is the only organization available to get things that are important for the pursuit of happiness by all of us, done.

If not government, who?

 

[Federalist]

One of the roles of government is to incentivize markets for the long term collective good rather than short term personal good which is the only goal of free enterprise.

Incentivize markets for the long term collective good? What exactly would that entail?