The Rich are Robbing the Poor Blind

jet57 · Sep 22, 2018

JohnfrmClevelan said:
That depends on what you think the government is there for: is it there for the benefit of the people, or is it there for the benefit of businesses?

This is one of the few countries where a large chunk of the electorate, right or wrong, would answer that "what is good for businesses is good for America, and therefore good for the people." And under some circumstances, it does look that way; we were on top of the economic world in the mid-20th century, and labor, being in high demand, did pretty well. Companies paid us enough to live well, they paid for our health insurance, and some of them were philanthropic.

But those days are gone. What remains is an oligarchy, and enough suckers that still believe that businesses will again save the day, if only we deregulate/lower taxes/erect tariffs/etc.

The only thing that makes Americans say that "taxation is theft" (or words to that effect) is nostalgia. Europe, especially post WWII, saw things from a different angle, and didn't build their societies around the business world. It's not an illegitimate way to view the role of government at all. I'd say it's the better way.

That depends on what you think the government is there for: is it there for the benefit of the people, or is it there for the benefit of businesses?

That of course depends upon which side of the political isle you're on and that has been the history of 'people's general welfare' and free markets since our founding. The monied interests in this country have done two things: first they changed the paradigm; they got a new generation to think of nothing except being a CEO and their portfolios. While that was going on, they changed the rules by which the monied interests had to operate. This is exactly how the plantation class of the Antebellum south did and how they explained away slavery and pitted people against each other "in the name of The Constitution and Liberty"... Please be very weary these days of the phrase "economic liberty. We know how the Antebellum south worked out and as we've seen of late it's going that way again. As the monied interests like to say, "nobody's going to give to you, you have to take it". They need to study Lenin on that account.

The new right-wing are confederates; don't kid yourself.

jimbo · Sep 22, 2018

jet57 said:
No, that is the nature of how you are kept out their game.

Who's kept out of what game?

ttwtt78640 · Sep 22, 2018

JohnfrmClevelan said:
That depends on what you think the government is there for: is it there for the benefit of the people, or is it there for the benefit of businesses?

This is one of the few countries where a large chunk of the electorate, right or wrong, would answer that "what is good for businesses is good for America, and therefore good for the people." And under some circumstances, it does look that way; we were on top of the economic world in the mid-20th century, and labor, being in high demand, did pretty well. Companies paid us enough to live well, they paid for our health insurance, and some of them were philanthropic.

But those days are gone. What remains is an oligarchy, and enough suckers that still believe that businesses will again save the day, if only we deregulate/lower taxes/erect tariffs/etc.

The only thing that makes Americans say that "taxation is theft" (or words to that effect) is nostalgia. Europe, especially post WWII, saw things from a different angle, and didn't build their societies around the business world. It's not an illegitimate way to view the role of government at all. I'd say it's the better way.

Most still get their income and health insurance from their employer and require no "safety net" assistance. What the OP wants is to tax "the rich" more - not for employers to pay employees more or to grant them more fringe benefits. To the contrary, he wishes the government to play that role through expanded "safety net" programs funded by increased taxation of others.

One of the reasons that employers need not offer higher wages/benefits to attract qualified (low skilled) labor is that the "safety net" will make up the difference. If one requires $X/month in order to meet their living expenses then how much of that $X is from their meager paycheck and how much is added or made unnecessary by the many "safety net" programs makes little difference.

jimbo · Sep 22, 2018

jet57 said:
That of course depends upon which side of the political isle you're on and that has been the history of 'people's general welfare' and free markets since our founding. The monied interests in this country have done two things: first they changed the paradigm; they got a new generation to think of nothing except being a CEO and their portfolios. While that was going on, they changed the rules by which the monied interests had to operate. This is exactly how the plantation class of the Antebellum south did and how they explained away slavery and pitted people against each other "in the name of The Constitution and Liberty"... Please be very weary these days of the phrase "economic liberty. We know how the Antebellum south worked out and as we've seen of late it's going that way again. As the monied interests like to say, "nobody's going to give to you, you have to take it". They need to study Lenin on that account.

The new right-wing are confederates; don't kid yourself.

Contrary to what liberals would have you believe, general welfare does mean redistributing wealth. It means building the roads, airports, parks, we all use.

jet57 · Sep 22, 2018

jimbo said:
Who's kept out of what game?

:roll:

jet57 · Sep 22, 2018

jimbo said:
Contrary to what liberals would have you believe, general welfare does mean redistributing wealth. It means building the roads, airports, parks, we all use.

I never mentioned the "redistributing wealth" meme did I.

JohnfrmClevelan · Sep 22, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Most still get their income and health insurance from their employer and require no "safety net" assistance. What the OP wants is to tax "the rich" more - not for employers to pay employees more or to grant them more fringe benefits. To the contrary, he wishes the government to play that role through expanded "safety net" programs funded by increased taxation of others.

Employers only cover about 55.7% of Americans. And not all of that insurance is adequate, either. Those days are clearly coming to an end.

The government should provide benefits, especially since employers are either unable or unwilling to do so. That only worked under terrific economic circumstances. If the government provided healthcare and more robust SS payments, then employers would be freed up to better compete.

ttwtt78640 said:
One of the reasons that employers need not offer higher wages/benefits to attract qualified (low skilled) labor is that the "safety net" will make up the difference. If one requires $X/month in order to meet their living expenses then how much of that $X is from their meager paycheck and how much is added or made unnecessary by the many "safety net" programs makes little difference.

The reason employers pay so little is not because of any safety nets, but because the labor market stinks. If labor was in high demand (and don't even bother bringing up today's unemployment numbers, they aren't reflective of what is really happening), Walmart and the rest would be forced to pay higher wages. Take away the safety net, and Walmart isn't going to bump up wages, because somebody is waiting in line even for those crappy jobs.

jimbo · Sep 22, 2018

jet57 said:
I never mentioned the "redistributing wealth" meme did I.

So what do you mean by "peoples general welfare"

I've never heard that term.

ttwtt78640 · Sep 22, 2018

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Employers only cover about 55.7% of Americans. And not all of that insurance is adequate, either. Those days are clearly coming to an end.

The government should provide benefits, especially since employers are either unable or unwilling to do so. That only worked under terrific economic circumstances. If the government provided healthcare and more robust SS payments, then employers would be freed up to better compete.

The reason employers pay so little is not because of any safety nets, but because the labor market stinks. If labor was in high demand (and don't even bother bringing up today's unemployment numbers, they aren't reflective of what is really happening), Walmart and the rest would be forced to pay higher wages. Take away the safety net, and Walmart isn't going to bump up wages, because somebody is waiting in line even for those crappy jobs.

If that (bolded above) assertion was correct then Greece would be very competitive.

JohnfrmClevelan · Sep 22, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
If that (bolded above) assertion was correct then Greece would be very competitive.

Greece is no longer in control of their own currency. It is more correct to look at the EU countries as U.S. states, and then without the benefit of a federal government to backstop their banks and redistribute/add to their income. Greece is Mississippi, while Germany is California. Just as net dollars move from Mississippi to California, net euros move from Greece to Germany.

ttwtt78640 · Sep 22, 2018

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Greece is no longer in control of their own currency. It is more correct to look at the EU countries as U.S. states, and then without the benefit of a federal government to backstop their banks and redistribute/add to their income. Greece is Mississippi, while Germany is California. Just as net dollars move from Mississippi to California, net euros move from Greece to Germany.

Fair enough but when the US is comapred to Europe, on a GDP per capita basis, then how do things look?

US GDP per capita by state vs. European countries and Japan, Korea, Mexico and China and some lessons for The Donald - AEI

Anarchon · Sep 22, 2018

calamity said:
The Rich are Robbing the Poor Blind

Unfortunately however, you don't understand how that's being done. It's being done via government...and you want more of it.

cpwill · Sep 22, 2018

calamity said:
...by stealing their future.

It's really disgusting to see what this country has become.

Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018

So, while senators and their betters live to 90 and beyond, the plebes will all begin dropping dead by 60 again. That's one way to control costs. I guess.

Of course, demanding that the rich begin to pay their fair share is out of the question. They insist that getting richer is their right. And, none of the Republican politicians have the stones to deny them that...nor are they motivated to do so.

I still do not understand the incredible sense of entitlement that must precede the logic that not to give someone something is to steal it from them.

TurtleDude · Sep 22, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... is your definition of robbery simply not getting a 'fair share' of what someone else earned? Why rely on government to take what is rightfully yours?

beggars should not be choosers not whiners

jet57 · Sep 22, 2018

jimbo said:
So what do you mean by "peoples general welfare"

I've never heard that term.

Read the US Constitution.

ttwtt78640 · Sep 22, 2018

TurtleDude said:
beggars should not be choosers not whiners

Thieves should not rely on the government to help them.

jimbo · Sep 22, 2018

jet57 said:
Read the US Constitution.

I have. Several times.

There is no "peoples general welfare" anywhere.

What if...? · Sep 22, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... is your definition of robbery simply not getting a 'fair share' of what someone else earned? Why rely on government to take what is rightfully yours?

Because the men with guns work for THEM.

What if...? · Sep 22, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? The fact that you wish that the federal income tax code was different does not mean that those who follow that law are cheating the poor out of their 'rightful' handouts. Do you, personally, pay more to the US treasury each year to help the poor or do you only wish that others would be forced to?

They spend 53 million on each congresscritter to get what they want.

ttwtt78640 · Sep 22, 2018

What if...? said:
They spend 53 million on each congresscritter to get what they want.

Yep, and we the sheeple put up with it and leave them in office over 90% of the time.

Nap · Sep 22, 2018

What I find hilarious about all of this talk of tax cuts for the rich, if the US were to implement something like Canada which taxes corporations even less, they would literally blow a gasket.

JohnfrmClevelan · Sep 22, 2018

jimbo said:
I have. Several times.

There is no "peoples general welfare" anywhere.

Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

JohnfrmClevelan · Sep 22, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Fair enough but when the US is comapred to Europe, on a GDP per capita basis, then how do things look?

US GDP per capita by state vs. European countries and Japan, Korea, Mexico and China and some lessons for The Donald - AEI

In a country of 100 people, one guy could earn $10 million, while the other 99 earned nothing. GDP per capita would be $100,000.

Take that same country, and give the other 99 $5 million ($50,000 each). The rich guy is still filthy rich ($5 million), GDP per capita is still $100,000, but now he's surrounded by a healthy middle class, instead of being surrounded by beggars. I'd rather be the rich guy in scenario 2. And that is closer to Europe.

Our economy obviously produces plenty. It's just not distributed well.

ttwtt78640 · Sep 22, 2018

JohnfrmClevelan said:
In a country of 100 people, one guy could earn $10 million, while the other 99 earned nothing. GDP per capita would be $100,000.

Take that same country, and give the other 99 $5 million ($50,000 each). The rich guy is still filthy rich ($5 million), GDP per capita is still $100,000, but now he's surrounded by a healthy middle class, instead of being surrounded by beggars. I'd rather be the rich guy in scenario 2. And that is closer to Europe.

Our economy obviously produces plenty. It's just not distributed well.

It's hard to earn $10M when nobody else in your country is working at all.

jimbo · Sep 22, 2018

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Article 1, Section 8

Peoples general welfare.

The Rich are Robbing the Poor Blind

jet57

jimbo

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

jimbo

jet57

jet57

JohnfrmClevelan

jimbo

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

JohnfrmClevelan

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Anarchon

Resident Voluntaryist

cpwill

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

jet57

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

jimbo

What if...?

What if...?

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Nap

JohnfrmClevelan

JohnfrmClevelan

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

jimbo

The Rich are Robbing the Poor Blind

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Resident Voluntaryist

warrior of the wetlands

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency