Balance of Wealth

[billvon 2,435]

>Also, the real robbers are the government officials who are rediculously
>rich off of our hard work.

Exactly. All those politicians and DMV workers getting rich while oil company executives have to eat Ramen noodles! It's a travesty I tell ya.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>Also, the real robbers are the government officials who are rediculously
>rich off of our hard work.

Exactly. All those politicians and DMV workers getting rich while oil company executives have to eat Ramen noodles! It's a travesty I tell ya.

The difference is the politicians can legally use guns to enrich themselves.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 2,435]

>The difference is the politicians can legally use guns to enrich themselves.

Of course. Who can forget the recent government raid of the Exxon coffers? Over a thousand people were killed, if I recall correctly.

[robskydiv 0]

Obviously this thread will continue. Moderator, it's your world. I apologize for exercising your function. This subject is a touchy one. It just seems to me like the middle class is being squeezed out. There goes your tax base that you were talking about Bill. Paul, you were correct about the companies who stand on the shoulders of the workers. They should thank the workers. I was just being thankful to them for initially providing job opportunities. We all know what happened and why this country needed labor unions. Unadulterated & unchecked greed will ruin this nation. Finally, I can see George's point. Some of us don't make alot of money, but we are not starving, waiting in a line just to buy our necessary staples. Where are we going? Not everyone can become a nurse, soon this market will be flooded as well. I live in a soldier town and i wonder what those men and women are going to do when they get out of the Army. Anyhow, Thanks again for all of your input. Sincerely, Harry

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

It just seems to me like the middle class is being squeezed out.

do you have some data to back this up? i hear this statement all the time from both the right and the left, but i've never actually seen any proof of it. if the middle class is shriking, who the fuck is buying all of the flat screen tv's and new cars? (not currently, but in the big picture, such as the last decade as compared to a decade in the 40's or 50's).

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Darius11 12]

I think the first problem is when any one assumes there is one answer to all the problems. It seems Capitalism or socialism has become a religion to some. When you think of any thing in absolutes you lose focus on facts, and rational thought.


I think what upset me is not people who have money, or got it from their parents, or won the fucking lottery I don’t care. If I had money that I made I would want control over it. Maybe I worked 80 hr weeks just so my kid does not have to.

Who are you to step in and take what’s mine? How is that someone who has never worked such hours and shown such commitment deserves the same advantages that I can give my family?

That’s not logical.

The problem I have is that the rules seem to not apply the same. That’s where the problem is for me. It seems money is able to bend the rules and give site top lady justice. I don’t like that huge corporation have more say in our government then the people.


Is capitalism the answer to every thing? NO
When there are issues of morality and the profit model is set up in inverse of service we have problems. You sacrifice what’s best for the people for profit. That’s to me is the opposite of capitalism.

Capitalism is great because it serves the consumer, and encourages competition.

However when prisons are run on that model the way they profit is by having more inmates. Problem

When you talk about healthcare the profit of the companies providing insurance increase the less service they provide. Problem.

News: When profit and the number of viewers is more important then substance. Problem


I think it’s absolutely idiotic to treat any economic theory as a religion. Life is not black and white neither are the solutions to our problems.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[robskydiv 0]

TrophyHusband, when your computer breaks down and you call the service line, someone from another country will likely talk you through it. The Acme Boot Company that used to employ Clarksvillians is now in Puerto Rico. These are couple of examples. I think that this coupled with ever increasing income tax is a contributor to squeezing out the Middle Class.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

George Russia & KBordson, Knock it off with the personal attacks.

I have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Please show me where I posted a personal attack?

If you mean my true and well felt outrage over the obscene comments about women with personal trauma... yeah, there was disgust. But it wasn't a personal attack.

So show the personal attacks.

[TrophyHusband 0]

i've heard about the shrinking middle class for decades, but if the middle class were really shrinking, there would be no one left to buy cars, computers, flat screen tv's, and tons of other shit that people have been steadily buying. poor people can't afford them and there aren't enough rich people to keep sales up. its possible that the middle class is shrinking now, but i would like to see some actual data on it, not just examples of jobs moving overseas.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[TheBachelor 5]

Quote

No millionaire ever got that way without the help of a LOT of people. They are the ones that should drop to their knees and be thankful for the support they've already received.

Define "the help of a LOT of people."

I am a multi-millionaire, and I think I did it pretty much on my own. During high school, I also took a full load at the local college (which I paid for). I left home at age 18, with a grand or two that I saved from working a minimum-wage job from age 13. I took out loans and worked full time to afford a private college.

A year out of college, I quit my "permanent" job, and went into consulting. I was taking a big risk with no sure paycheck. I worked my butt off -- long hours, and no vacations for years.

I don't have any "loopholes" to get out of paying taxes. Between federal and state last year, I paid about $150,000. And that's after giving $25-$30K to charities.

I'm not lamenting my position, but it pisses me off when I'm told I need to pay more. As it is, each additional dollar I make is taxed at more than 50% between fed, state, and "deduction reductions."

There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

[TankBuster 0]

Capitalism is the only economic system conducive to individual liberty. It's not a religion as much as a philosophy. When we evolve to the point where we realize that our individual lives are an end unto themselves, that's when all society will be at its best. Utopia can exist, but not through the initiation of violence, as Karl Marx and others in our own nation, to a lesser degree, suggest. My life is mine to live, making whatever decisions and transactions with others that I see fit, as long as I don't tread on the rights of any others. If I have something to offer and you want it, great, we have a voluntary sale. If not, go on your way and find it. If I want to work for you and we agree on a wage, great, if not I'll keep looking and I'll exhaust the reaches of my ability and intellect. There will always be someone with more of each, but my challenge is to learn and to become better than I am, not better than someone else. When disputes arise, we should have a system of courts. When a person or a nation threatens we have police and military to counter, not initiate violence. Those are legitimate functions of government, and while they require funding, the impact would be miniscule compared to the monster we have.

I should have sole ability to dispose of my income as I see fit, including charity. To me, the greatest gift to give someone is total freedom and responsibility. They will learn more, live a fuller life, and become much more if that opportunity isn't taken from them by a nanny state. I've been glad to give to some who need a helping hand, but rest assured it won't happen often if you prove you expect it and aren't willing to do for yourself.

We must distinquish economic power and political power. Economic power comes through nonviolent free negotiation and productivity. Political power - that wielded by any government, is by nature enforced by punishment or threat of violence, so among free people in a free society that power should be kept to an absolute minimum, as our founders established it.

Hopefully, when America is long gone because it too, is headed down the slow path to socialism, some group of great people will once again try to establish a nation where government is limited and any policy errs on the side of individual liberty. No social security, no universal health care, no welfare, and certainly no inheritance tax.

Think of it capitalism as the ability to eradicate the initiation of violence among free people. Are we for that or against it?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 2,435]

>Capitalism is the only economic system conducive to individual liberty.

Oh, I think you'd find you dislike some of the freer forms of capitalism a great deal. In some of the "purer" forms there's no state; the justice system is funded (and therefore owned) by private contributors. The market regulates everything; you can sell your labor, your body, your kidneys or your children if you choose. You might even think they are LESS conducive to individual liberty.

And yes, there are people who believe quite strongly that this is a good idea, and that that's the only way we can be "free." Most people think that some degree of government regulation (say, enforcement of laws against slavery, child abuse etc) is a good thing.

> When a person or a nation threatens we have police and military
>to counter, not initiate violence.

>I should have sole ability to dispose of my income as I see fit, including
>charity.

Those two statements sorta conflict. Any "optional miltary funding" scheme will quickly result in there being no military, due to simple human greed (which, of course, is what capitalism is based on.)

I suspect you are saying that you would prefer less, rather than no, government funded by any sort of mandatory tax. And that's a good idea, one I agree with. However, to get there, you have to decide what to cut - and inevitably you're going to get as much of an argument from others as you will give them when your favorite government program is threatened with cuts. That's the problem.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

No millionaire ever got that way without the help of a LOT of people. They are the ones that should drop to their knees and be thankful for the support they've already received.

Define "the help of a LOT of people."

I am a multi-millionaire, and I think I did it pretty much on my own.

Cool. You didn't attend a public high school or grade school, you never drove on a public road or visited a public library, never crossed a bridge paid for by the public, never benefitted from any knowledge generated in a National Lab or public university or funded by the DoE, NSF or NIH. Never used municipal
water or sewer systems, never benefited from the existence of a police department, never flew on an airline using ATC services...

I'm impressed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Oh, I think you'd find you dislike some of the freer forms of capitalism a great deal. In some of the "purer" forms there's no state; the justice system is funded (and therefore owned) by private contributors.

I would dislike that. There should be limited government to protect rights.

Quote

The market regulates everything; you can sell your labor, your body, your kidneys or your children if you choose. You might even think they are LESS conducive to individual liberty.

Sell your body, it's your choice. Sex, kidneys, fine with me. Keep in mind your rights end where mine begin, so don't do it in the street or in sight of my children. After that, have at it. Everyone is free to destroy themselves as they see fit. Children have rights, you can't sell them. (You shouldn't kill them either, but that's another argument)

Quote

And yes, there are people who believe quite strongly that this is a good idea, and that that's the only way we can be "free." Most people think that some degree of government regulation (say, enforcement of laws against slavery, child abuse etc) is a good thing.

As I do. Slavery infringes someone's rights. Child abuse, obviously.

Quote

> When a person or a nation threatens we have police and military
>to counter, not initiate violence.

>I should have sole ability to dispose of my income as I see fit, including
>charity.

Those two statements sorta conflict. Any "optional miltary funding" scheme will quickly result in there being no military, due to simple human greed (which, of course, is what capitalism is based on.)

When a person or a nation threatens we have police and military to counter, not initiate violence. Those are legitimate functions of government, and while they require funding, the impact would be miniscule compared to the monster we have.

You missed a bit.

Quote

I suspect you are saying that you would prefer less, rather than no, government funded by any sort of mandatory tax. And that's a good idea, one I agree with. However, to get there, you have to decide what to cut - and inevitably you're going to get as much of an argument from others as you will give them when your favorite government program is threatened with cuts. That's the problem.

Yippee. Bill and I agree. That's exactly my point, although I'll bet my government is much smaller than yours. We've had the "favorite program" discussion before. I'll say this - I'd rather all of them get cut - including any I use - rather than keep them. Let the free market rule. Initiate a "Use Tax" for roads and airways, for example, would be much more efficient. Hell, I don't use the airspace system much anyhow. Gliders and aerobatics are VFR for the most part.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

George Russia & KBordson, Knock it off with the personal attacks.

I have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Please show me where I posted a personal attack?

If you mean my true and well felt outrage over the obscene comments about women with personal trauma... yeah, there was disgust. But it wasn't a personal attack.

So show the personal attacks.

He can't. You were very polite.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 2,435]

>Those are legitimate functions of government, and while they require funding,
>the impact would be miniscule compared to the monster we have.

So what you meant above was that "I should have sole ability to dispose of MOST of my income as I see fit, including charity." Make that change and I'd agree.

> Initiate a "Use Tax" for roads and airways, for example, would be much
>more efficient.

While I agree, that's in effect just shifting taxes from one area to another. It is considerably more fair, but does not get you closer to your ideal of smaller government. You could also go the libertarian route of just selling the land to a developer and hope that he keeps the freeway open (perhaps by having a big toll to use it) but there are serious monopoly issues there.

A hybrid there would be to allow private operation of roads with heavy regulation (i.e. have to keep the road open, toll limits, one private cop per 10 miles, have to have guard rails etc.) You'd still have considerable government involvement, but less than you'd have if the government did it all.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


People moved here because they wanted a less authoritarian government.

------------------


Yea, and look what they got.

Just one snip from your reply, but my overall impression is this:

Liberty is a bad thing.

The USA has too much individual liberty, and that is what has caused the problems we have. We'd be better off with more enforced collectivism.

Also, from your posts you seem to believe that the USA is generally a bad place to live, where the people are overall, mean-spirited, greedy, and unhappy generally.

And that people who live under socialist governments are happier & happily cooperate together.

These are not facts, but your opinion. I happen to disagree with them. I believe that in fact, Americans are generally pretty damn happy, and that the USA is overall, a pretty great place to live, and am thankful I live here.

This is not mindless flag-waving patriotism, I actually do look around & see that the majority of people seem to be happy. (and no, I'm not rich!)

And I have heard from people who have lived under socialist countries, that often when you live under a government that controls the distribution of wealth too much, that people are LESS helpful on a personal business. It goes along with the whole "I gave at the office" attitude, or more accurately, "let the government do something about this, it's not my responsibility!"

Regardless, it is clear that your overall impression of life in the USA is vastly different than mine, you see it as a generally unpleasant, unhappy place to live, whereas I think it is a pretty good & generally happy place.
Yeah, we've got economic downturns from time to time, these things happen, but even still it's a pretty good place to live overall. Just my subjective impression compared to your subjective impression.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

So what you meant above was that "I should have sole ability to dispose of MOST of my income as I see fit, including charity." Make that change and I'd agree.

Actually, income shouldn't be involved at all. A consumption tax is all we need. (Dare we go there?)

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 2,435]

>Actually, income shouldn't be involved at all. A consumption tax is all we need.

OK. It's still money you cannot avoid giving to the government. (And yes, I agree that a consumption tax is a viable alternative to income tax, with a few caveats.)

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No millionaire ever got that way without the help of a LOT of people. They are the ones that should drop to their knees and be thankful for the support they've already received.

Define "the help of a LOT of people."

I am a multi-millionaire, and I think I did it pretty much on my own.

Cool. You didn't attend a public high school or grade school, you never drove on a public road or visited a public library, never crossed a bridge paid for by the public, never benefitted from any knowledge generated in a National Lab or public university or funded by the DoE, NSF or NIH. Never used municipal
water or sewer systems, never benefited from the existence of a police department, never flew on an airline using ATC services...

I'm impressed.

Wow thats total BS! Those services did not help him become wealthy They do make life easyer for all of us but your way off base!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

OK. It's still money you cannot avoid giving to the government. (And yes, I agree that a consumption tax is a viable alternative to income tax, with a few caveats.)

Ah but much more compatible with freedom. Actually, if I were a young man, able to earn a lot, and didn't have to spend much, I could take a few years and stash away a great rainy day fund and then begin to consume - boats, airplanes, houses, whatever. So early on, could pay very little tax. Or at any time I felt it necessary. But no worries for funding the military. There'll always be plenty of consumption.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 2,435]

>Those services did not help him become wealthy

Of course they did.

Try becoming a website designer without Arpanet (or more accurately its offspring the Internet.) Try running a successful trucking company without roads. Try running a factory without public utilities. Try opening a new wireless service without the FCC.

That's not to detract from his accomplishments; that level of accomplishment is impressive no matter what services you use. But the idea that "I did it ALL MYSELF with no help whatsoever!" isn't true in 99.99% of the cases.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

But the idea that "I did it ALL MYSELF with no help whatsoever!" isn't true in 99.99% of the cases.

You can't really "prove" that belief. (whether you say 90%, 99% or 99.999999999999999999999%.) You can just say "prove me wrong"... which is not the same as being right.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

> If you look at the last 4 presidents, maybe more, there is a direct
>inverse relationship between outlays and taxes. So to think if everyone
>was self-sufficient then outlays would fall and taxes would follow hasn't
>happened since at least Reagan, perhaps back to Eisenhower.

You are equating government spending to personal prosperity. They are not the same thing. The government can spend money whether or not most people are rich or poor.

Of course that's true, I'm just addressing the notion that as gov outlays fall, taxes have risen over the last 28+ years. So the perception by rich people that if everyone was self-sufficient that taxes would fall, which I agree they share, is likely false in application as history hasn't shown that.

Quote

The government can spend money whether or not most people are rich or poor.

I agree and that's my point; taxes and gov spending, personal welath, etc have no correlation or if they do they seem to be inverse, which is irrational but true.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yeah, whatever. Look the info up or don't, I don't really give a fuck.

As I stated, I look at your data as meaningless for the rare occassions that you post data as you don't cite your source. If you had just looked it up you could post it via looking thru your history. Let's face it, the data is incorrect.

I posted mine, a very objective source, you claimed an objecctive source and failed to cite that source. I would love to see your cite, otherwise I dismiss it as factually irrelevant and unfounded.