whats your solution for poverty

[Heebie Jeebie]

So you can find no polls that can support your position. Got it!

I suppose I could find hundreds that supported my position if I was so inclined. But I'll keep it simple because of who I am responding to.
Do people support raising THEIR taxes or someone elses?

 

[imagep]

No, her merit is in how she spends the money she won or even if she doesn't spend it but puts it into an investment. That money continues to work for the economy and helps prosperity.

But what if someone else had won the money? the money would still be in the economy, whether it was invested or spent. Only the face would have changed. I believe it isn't ones wealth that creates, it's work that creates wealth. If one does not directly personal produce, then any income that they receive, regardless of if it is welfare/dividends/capital-gains, is simply a transfer of wealth from someone who is working and producing.

 

[imagep]

Only if you put it in your mattress and don't spend or invest it.Get real! Outlandish hypotheticals are just so much rubbish.You have a very strange outlook on economics.

they are only outlandish, when you realize that they don't support your argument.

 

[imagep]

Unless he put his money in a mattress or dug a hole and buried it that money did in fact become available for entrepreneurial purposes.

It doesnt matter who owns the money, as long as the money exists. The fed can supply every penny of money that is needed for businesses to grow. Thus, rich people are not necessary in our economy. And once again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have rich people, or that the investor has no place in our economy, but we shouldn't put the wealthy investor or bank depositor on a pedestal as if he was the only possible source of money for business creation and expansion.

The point that I am making is that in our modern economy, rich people aren't really the "job creators" that many conservatives like to claim that they are. Job creators are people who put an entrepreneurial effort into creating or expanding businesses, and the customers who chose to buy the products. Without sufficient entrepreneurs (regardless of if they are rich or not) and without sufficient consumer demand, we wouldn't have an economy at all, regardless of how rich the rich may be.

 

[imagep]

I suppose I could find hundreds that supported my position if I was so inclined. But I'll keep it simple because of who I am responding to.
Do people support raising THEIR taxes or someone elses?

People often support raising their taxes.

If you are implying that the masses vote only to raise the taxes of the elite, think about what our tax system would look like if they actually did that. The vast majority of voters are regular middle class folk. Only the top 1% or so are truely rich, and those at the very bottom almost never vote. Wouldn't the masses have only voted for taxes on the poor (who rarely vote) and the rich (who are a tiny minority)? So why does every middle class person pay taxes (not only income tax, but ss tax, medicare tax, state and local taxes, gas tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, etc)?

In my state we have state and local referendums on taxes. the middle class frequently votes for tax increases on themselves when they see a need to do so.

Myth busted.

 

[Dezaad]

People often support raising their taxes.

If you are implying that the masses vote only to raise the taxes of the elite, think about what our tax system would look like if they actually did that. The vast majority of voters are regular middle class folk. Only the top 1% or so are truely rich, and those at the very bottom almost never vote. Wouldn't the masses have only voted for taxes on the poor (who rarely vote) and the rich (who are a tiny minority)? So why does every middle class person pay taxes (not only income tax, but ss tax, medicare tax, state and local taxes, gas tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, etc)?

In my state we have state and local referendums on taxes. the middle class frequently votes for tax increases on themselves when they see a need to do so.

Myth busted.

Perfectly articulated.

 

[Catawba]

Actual debt went up! Check it out. Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

So did revenues.

 

[Catawba]

I suppose I could find hundreds that supported my position if I was so inclined.

:lamo

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

People often support raising their taxes.

No most people do not support raising their taxes or cutting any program they get a benefit from. All you need to do is look at the polls, if those are to be your yardstick. Most people support raising taxes on the top 2%, wow imagine letting someone else foot the bill how unusual. No one support raising taxes on the poor or middleclass so saying the majority support raising taxes is just so much BS, the majority supports having a minority of people pay more taxes not raising taxes in general.

When is the last time you have actually voted on raising the sales tax or the gas tax or the junk food tax or the soda tax? These do not have the support of the majority of people which is why they are rarely put to referendum where the people actually get to have a say. They are passed in the legislature without the people having any say. When they are voted on by the people they usually fail and in some cases are premanently restricted from being raised. Because people don't want to pay taxes themselves, they want other people to pay them.

 

[imagep]

No most people do not support raising their taxes or cutting any program they get a benefit from. All you need to do is look at the polls, if those are to be your yardstick. Most people support raising taxes on the top 2%, wow imagine letting someone else foot the bill how unusual. No one support raising taxes on the poor or middleclass so saying the majority support raising taxes is just so much BS, the majority supports having a minority of people pay more taxes not raising taxes in general.

When is the last time you have actually voted on raising the sales tax or the gas tax or the junk food tax or the soda tax? These do not have the support of the majority of people which is why they are rarely put to referendum where the people actually get to have a say. They are passed in the legislature without the people having any say. When they are voted on by the people they usually fail and in some cases are premanently restricted from being raised. Because people don't want to pay taxes themselves, they want other people to pay them.

About 5 years ago our sales tax went from 5% to 6%, the people voted on it. I didn't personally vote for it, I am totally against taxing trade, that is counter productive. But I would support an increase in gas tax right now, for several reasons, one being that the gas tax in my state is the lowest in the country.

The reason that polls show that most people support increasing taxes on the top few percent is because it is simply good economics in our particular economic situation. We have a huge deficit and national debt, and all the harping on this debt scares people, so they think that we need both tax increases and spending cuts. They don't want to increase taxes on the middle class because that would reduce demand, and destroy potential job growth which is the last thing that we need during a time of high unemployment. Anytime that we shift the tax burden from those with the highest propensity to spend to those with the lowest propensity to spend, we end up with more spending (demand), business expansion and more jobs. While that wouldn't be a good idea if there was shortage of funds to support business expansion, we actually have a record amount of cash sitting on the sidelines and/or inflating the price of the stock market, so if there is ever a good time to shift tax burden, now is the time.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

The reason that polls show that most people support increasing taxes on the top few percent is because it is simply good economics in our particular economic situation.

It also probably doesn't effect them. It is always easier to have someone else bear the burden. No poll on raising taxes shows any support whatsoever for raising taxes on the middle class, it's always the top 2% or 5% or some other small percentage that people think taxes should be raised on.

 

[Masada]

It also probably doesn't effect them. It is always easier to have someone else bear the burden. No poll on raising taxes shows any support whatsoever for raising taxes on the middle class, it's always the top 2% or 5% or some other small percentage that people think taxes should be raised on.

lol....ya, then liberals like Bill Maher come out and say that liberals could lose him on the tax issue. Rachel Maddow was on his show, and they were talking about California taxes, and even the UBER LIBERAL donor Bill Maher pushed back on Maddow and said taxes were "ridiculous", and that he could possibly consider moving from California because the taxes are too high.

Tiger Woods left Cali because of taxes long ago, along with an estimated 650,000 other Californians over the last 3 years. Let's face it, liberals will not be happy until they are taxing incomes in the top 5% of earners at 95%. But guess what, it won't solve the problems they are trying to solve, it will only exaccerbate them further. Why they can't learn lessons from the past is unknown to me??? Take California for example, the rich are fleeing faster than you can say "oh please stay", and moving to places like Florida and Texas. I suppose Cali is happier seeing those rich people leave the state, than they are seeing them pay just a little lower tax rates.

In short, California's motto should be this: "100% of NOTHING is so much more progressively cool than 40% of SOMETHING"

 

[imagep]

lol....ya, then liberals like Bill Maher come out and say that liberals could lose him on the tax issue. Rachel Maddow was on his show, and they were talking about California taxes, and even the UBER LIBERAL donor Bill Maher pushed back on Maddow and said taxes were "ridiculous", and that he could possibly consider moving from California because the taxes are too high.

Tiger Woods left Cali because of taxes long ago, along with an estimated 650,000 other Californians over the last 3 years. Let's face it, liberals will not be happy until they are taxing incomes in the top 5% of earners at 95%. But guess what, it won't solve the problems they are trying to solve, it will only exaccerbate them further. Why they can't learn lessons from the past is unknown to me??? Take California for example, the rich are fleeing faster than you can say "oh please stay", and moving to places like Florida and Texas. I suppose Cali is happier seeing those rich people leave the state, than they are seeing them pay just a little lower tax rates.

In short, California's motto should be this: "100% of NOTHING is so much more progressively cool than 40% of SOMETHING"

Bill Maher is a left libertarian. He's not really a traditional liberal.

I really don't think that most liberals want an outragously confiscatory tax rate on the wealthy, they just want higher taxes on the wealthy and more government services.

All I want is a system where all income classes gain in after tax income at about the same rate. That hasn't happened for nearly 35 years.

Eliminating all income tax for the bottom 99% would be a good start, and taxing all income identically, regardless of source, which exceeds $400k/yr/worker would be my second step.

My third step would be to reform social security and turn it into a true old age insurance program as it was origionally sold as (reducing or eliminating ss tax in the process).

My fourth step would be to consolidate all of the current funding for various health care expenditures that all levels of government currently do (about $1.2 trillion), and use that money to purchase high deductable major medical policies for every citizen from private insurance companies.

My fifth step would be to eliminate all means tested welfare.

My sixth step would be to eliminate corporate income tax and to require all corporations to issue dividends on a regular bases.

My seventh step would be to establish a full employment policy (a combination of pro-business policy, reductions in permanate government employees, the establishment of a "government employment as a last resort" program, and the elimination of unemployment benefits and taxes).


If we did this we might not even have a need to increase the top tax rate to have a balanced budget, roughly equal after tax income growth between all income groups, and ample jobs for everyone who is willing to work.

 

[dnsmith]

It doesnt matter who owns the money, as long as the money exists.

The mere existence of money serves no purpose. It must be circulated even if only deposited in a savings account.

The fed can supply every penny of money that is needed for businesses to grow.

The fed can use monetary policy to help, but it takes the existence of money in circulation to do the job. The fed is not in the business of giving money to prospective businesses.

to Thus, rich people are not necessary in our economy. And once again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have rich people, or that the investor has no place in our economy, but we shouldn't put the wealthy investor or bank depositor on a pedestal as if he was the only possible source of money for business creation and expansion.

The point that I am making is that in our modern economy, rich people aren't really the "job creators" that many conservatives like to claim that they are. Job creators are people who put an entrepreneurial effort into creating or expanding businesses, and the customers who chose to buy the products. Without sufficient entrepreneurs (regardless of if they are rich or not) and without sufficient consumer demand, we wouldn't have an economy at all, regardless of how rich the rich may be.

The people who put an entrepreneurial effort into creating and expanding a business to serve demand must get the money to do so.

It all goes back to money. You can work your butt off but without remuneration you have accomplished nothing.

But I agree, putting rich people on a pedestal is a waste of a good pedestal.

 

[imagep]

The mere existence of money serves no purpose. It must be circulated even if only deposited in a savings account. The fed can use monetary policy to help, but it takes the existence of money in circulation to do the job. The fed is not in the business of giving money to prospective businesses.The people who put an entrepreneurial effort into creating and expanding a business to serve demand must get the money to do so.

It all goes back to money. You can work your butt off but without remuneration you have accomplished nothing.

But I agree, putting rich people on a pedestal is a waste of a good pedestal.

I agree that money has to be circulating to have a purpose. But it doesn't particularly matter who owns the capital that businesses use. When businesses are seeking out money for expansion or business creation, they don't care if it came from one rich person, or a thousand middle class folk, or the fed (with private commercial banks as the middle man). My point is that the conservative theory that we HAVE to have rich people because they are the only ones who can supply capital simply doesn't hold water.

The fed can indirectly be the supplier of all business capital by lending to private commercial banks which determine which businesses are the best credit risks, and who then fund those worthy businesses. The advantage of this system is that private banks assume the risk, and the profit or loss from such risk, not the tax payer. That said, I'm not suggesting that all business capital should be supplied by the fed, or that we shouldn't have rich people, we just shouldn't seek to further enrich the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

Anyhow, thanks for being a reasonable moderate.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Cprrect!Since wealth is not finite it is irrelevant how much the wealthy make as it does not distract from what the less wealthy make.

Obviously wealth is finite. Infinite has a very definite meaning and wealth doesn't meet it.

Besides, as I've said before, all wealth is relative and there is only 100% of it. If the wealthy have 80% of it today and 81% of it tomorrow then, yes, the wealthy have taken 1% of the wealth from the less wealthy, which would actually represent 5% (1/20) of their previous wealth.

That isn't run away capitalism. So long as you said, "The rich do not necessarily take away from the less wealthy when they increase their wealth," it is not runaway capitalism.

The rich do not get more wealthy if their share increases by the same or less percentage over time as the less wealthy. If it does increase more, then they do get more wealthy and the less wealthy lose.

So basically what you are saying is, you don't like people to make a lot more than you do.

Wrong!

How quickly people of your elk jump on the Envy Wagon. You and TD should found a club. :lamo

 

[dnsmith]

Obviously wealth is finite. Infinite has a very definite meaning and wealth doesn't meet it.

Wrong! During any one period of time the less wealthy can increase their wealth without regard to what the wealthy make.

Besides, as I've said before, all wealth is relative and there is only 100% of it. If the wealthy have 80% of it today and 81% of it tomorrow then, yes, the wealthy have taken 1% of the wealth from the less wealthy, which would actually represent 5% (1/20) of their previous wealth.

There only can be a reckoning of how much wealth there is AFTER the period of accumulation.

The rich do not get more wealthy if their share increases by the same or less percentage over time as the less wealthy. If it does increase more, then they do get more wealthy and the less wealthy lose.

There is no such thing as a share of wealth as it is being accumulated thus a rich man's increase in wealth does nothing to reduce the potential increase of wealth for the less wealthy. There is only an after the fact determination.

Wrong!

How quickly people of your elk jump on the Envy Wagon. You and TD should found a club. :lamo

I envy no one for their wealth, because I made what I did as best I could. Some have done better and the more power to them. No one kept me from making more; I chose to stop increasing my wealth when I felt comfortable with my own achievements and chose not to pursue more wealth at a relatively young age. In addition no one else's wealth was negatively affected by my wealth.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Wrong! During any one period of time the less wealthy can increase their wealth without regard to what the wealthy make.

That doesn't make wealth infinite. Like I said, infinity has a definite meaning and total wealth doesn't meet the test. At any given point on a road trip you can't know how far you've come unless you stop the car because by the time you've figured out how far you've come you've moved farther. That doesn't mean you've gone an infinite distance or that you can't get pretty darn close to your actual miles traveled.

There only can be a reckoning of how much wealth there is AFTER the period of accumulation.

Because there's simply no way to count it while the numbers are changing :shrug: but that doesn't stop the economists and Wall St eagles from making damn good guesses. It's not like we're groping around in the dark because we don't have the numbers down to the penny.

There is no such thing as a share of wealth as it is being accumulated thus a rich man's increase in wealth does nothing to reduce the potential increase of wealth for the less wealthy. There is only an after the fact determination.

See above. You don't need a down-to-the-penny accounting to get damn close. By random chance it should come up short as often as it comes up long. For over 40 years it's come up not just long but damn long. That's not chance, that's the rich continuing to take a bigger chunk than they had before.

I envy no one for their wealth, because I made what I did as best I could. Some have done better and the more power to them. No one kept me from making more; I chose to stop increasing my wealth when I felt comfortable with my own achievements and chose not to pursue more wealth at a relatively young age. In addition no one else's wealth was negatively affected by my wealth.

I doubt you made enough to have a negative effect on someone else --- but I could be wrong. No way to know without getting into details that I don't want to know.

 

[tosca1]

i wanna know what everyones solution is.

I'll give you not only the solution to poverty, but also the solution to all the chaos in this world.


CHRISTIANITY.


If everyone in this world is converted to become TRUE followers of Christ - please take note of all those underlined words - meaning, those who sincerely and faithfully try to abide by the teachings of Christ, you get UTOPIA!

 

[tosca1]

Actually, let me add to that post above. The key to the solution is for everyone to TRULY accept Christ as his/her Saviour - and that Christianity as the only religion in this world. No other.

 

[dnsmith]

That doesn't make wealth infinite. Like I said, infinity has a definite meaning and total wealth doesn't meet the test. At any given point on a road trip you can't know how far you've come unless you stop the car because by the time you've figured out how far you've come you've moved farther. That doesn't mean you've gone an infinite distance or that you can't get pretty darn close to your actual miles traveled.

The fact that wealth is not finite does not suggest that it is at any given time infinite, rather it tells us that the wealthy do not detract from the potential wealth of the less wealthy.

Because there's simply no way to count it while the numbers are changing :shrug: but that doesn't stop the economists and Wall St eagles from making damn good guesses. It's not like we're groping around in the dark because we don't have the numbers down to the penny.

Effectively it is irrelevant what the "total" numbers are at any given moment because what X has does not affect why Y can accumulate. Discerning that one has more than another is just a means of describing class envy.

See above. You don't need a down-to-the-penny accounting to get damn close. By random chance it should come up short as often as it comes up long. For over 40 years it's come up not just long but damn long. That's not chance, that's the rich continuing to take a bigger chunk than they had before.

The "chunk" the rich get does not relate to the lesser chunk the less wealthy get. It is the less wealthy who decide effectively what they want and are willing to do what it takes to get it.

I doubt you made enough to have a negative effect on someone else --- but I could be wrong. No way to know without getting into details that I don't want to know.

I absolutely have not made enough to have a negative effect on someone else. Neither has Mitt Romney, or Bill Gates. In fact, because of the Mitt Romneys and Bill Gates more people have increased their wealth that would have without them.

Its like asking a woman if she will sleep with you for a million dollars. Once the answer is yes one can dicker a reasonable price.

 

[MoSurveyor]

The fact that wealth is not finite does not suggest that it is at any given time infinite, rather it tells us that the wealthy do not detract from the potential wealth of the less wealthy.

Wealth is not infinite at any time.

Rather, you make up your definition of what infinite is to promote your beliefs.

Effectively it is irrelevant what the "total" numbers are at any given moment because what X has does not affect why Y can accumulate. Discerning that one has more than another is just a means of describing class envy.

Ah, the envy card comes out again! How disingenuous of you! :lamo

The "chunk" the rich get does not relate to the lesser chunk the less wealthy get. It is the less wealthy who decide effectively what they want and are willing to do what it takes to get it.

Of course it does. The total can only be 100% of what exists.


Sorry, even if everyone had Ph.D's we would still need janitors and file clerks who wouldn't get paid for having their Ph.D. As usual, you draw an illusion, not reality.

I absolutely have not made enough to have a negative effect on someone else. Neither has Mitt Romney, or Bill Gates.

If the percent of wealth has moved upward then there is a negative effect. The percent of wealth in America has been slowly getting bigger at the top for decades and there is no controversy over that fact.

In fact, because of the Mitt Romneys and Bill Gates more people have increased their wealth that would have without them.

The total wealth of America has increased because of capitalism, yes, and certainly the tech industry has been a huge part of that recently. (IDK what Mitt Romney has to do with it. Jobs or Zuckerberg would have been a better example.) I never denied this. What you seem to misunderstand of my perspective is that capitalism is a good thing when regulated properly. However, allowing an increasing accumulation of economic power at the top is not a good thing, especially for a democracy of any kind. Given enough time on this course the masses will have no economic power left - it'll all be in the hands of the wealthy few.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Wealth is not infinite at any time.

Rather, you make up your definition of what infinite is to promote your beliefs.

Ah, the envy card comes out again! How disingenuous of you! :lamo

Of course it does. The total can only be 100% of what exists.

You two need to define what wealth means, mostly. Are we talking about useful tangible resources or are we talking about paper and digital representations of wealth?

Sorry, even if everyone had Ph.D's we would still need janitors and file clerks who wouldn't get paid for having their Ph.D. As usual, you draw an illusion, not reality.

A great reason why some people are being quite stupid to suggest the taxpayer fund people's overpriced college educations. On that note, no one is paid for having a PhD. They're paid for doing work that only PhD's are trusted to know how to do well.

The total wealth of America has increased because of capitalism, yes, and certainly the tech industry has been a huge part of that recently. (IDK what Mitt Romney has to do with it. Jobs or Zuckerberg would have been a better example.) I never denied this. What you seem to misunderstand of my perspective is that capitalism is a good thing when regulated properly. However, allowing an increasing accumulation of economic power at the top is not a good thing, especially for a democracy of any kind.

In a way I think you're exactly right. Especially nowadays, a loosely regulated society that is as advanced as ours could lead to extreme power imbalances, which naturally may cause political destabilization.

What I will add, however, is that many politically liberal ideas inadvertently preserve this power imbalance by pacifying the needy and continuing to protect the power elite. The harsh reality is that maybe capitalism SHOULD destabilize itself, rather than allow a quasi-socialist, quasi-capitalist, mostly-corporatist hydra of a bureaucracy to simply pacify us into ignorance and complacency.

 

[MoSurveyor]

You two need to define what wealth means, mostly. Are we talking about useful tangible resources or are we talking about paper and digital representations of wealth?

It could be one or the other - or both, if you don't add something like real estate and personal property to the paper and digital representations.

A great reason why some people are being quite stupid to suggest the taxpayer fund people's overpriced college educations. On that note, no one is paid for having a PhD. They're paid for doing work that only PhD's are trusted to know how to do well.

Correct, no one is paid for a Ph.D. - and I didn't really mean it that way. I tried to make it more clear with "we still need janitors and file clerks", neither of which required a Ph.D.

In a way I think you're exactly right. Especially nowadays, a loosely regulated society that is as advanced as ours could lead to extreme power imbalances, which naturally may cause political destabilization.

What I will add, however, is that many politically liberal ideas inadvertently preserve this power imbalance by pacifying the needy and continuing to protect the power elite. The harsh reality is that maybe capitalism SHOULD destabilize itself, rather than allow a quasi-socialist, quasi-capitalist, mostly-corporatist hydra of a bureaucracy to simply pacify us into ignorance and complacency.

The politically conservative ideas also preserve the power balance by protecting the elite. What pacifying the needy does is avoid - or at least delay - violent reprisals and revolt/revolution thereby giving the system more time to level out in a passive way. If that doesn't happen then violence WILL be the end result but at least liberal policy is an effort to avoid violence and radical destabilization, which I believe is a good thing.


I should note that I do not agree with all liberal policies but I agree with most of their base tenets. Education, teaching people how to think for themselves, is paramount in a democracy. There's a big difference between making people think for themselves and forcing people to work 60 hr/wk to make ends meet.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Wealth is not infinite at any time.

If it is not infinite then the amount can be calculated. Perhaps you can tell us how much there actually is?