quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I am against that sort of wealth redistribution, at least in the United States. The people we call "poor" live a lifestyle so far above what most human beings on the planet can manage -- much less human beings from earlier periods of history -- that it is just plain wrong to consider them anything but extremely privileged. There is simply no need to provide more for them.

Being in poverty is not relative. It is an actual state. Just because there are others in worse levels of poverty than in America does not mean that the millions suffering in poverty in America don't need any help (or, as you are trying to suggest, that they aren't even living in poverty)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Being in poverty is not relative. It is an actual state. Just because there are others in worse levels of poverty than in America does not mean that the millions suffering in poverty in America don't need any help (or, as you are trying to suggest, that they aren't even living in poverty)

Yes - it's all relative. Whereas I could survive on two dollars a day fairly easily in Malawi, I wouldn't make it a week in the US.

___________________

George, you have it a little backwards. Progress in society is not caused by rich people. People become rich BECAUSE they help society progress. You still seem to have the idea that wealth is a fixed pie, and because one person has more, someone else must have less. This is nonsense. Someone like Bill Gates didn't siphon off his $50 billion from other people...and the world is not a poorer place because he has made so much money. On the contrary, the world much richer due to the innovation of companies like Dell and Microsoft. Making computers and software a mass market item has increased productivity and prosperity for thousands of companies. It has made life easier for millions of people and created countless billions (maybe trillions) in new wealth.

This type of activity would not have existed in the absence of profit-seeking businessmen you seem to detest so much.

LOL, that your highest priority for the election is that they're going to be taxed at 55% again on money they didn't earn, while nearly a sixth of the country has no health insurance and many other people are losing coverage or having to pay out of pocket because their jobs will no longer cver them is pretty f**ked up!

If you really want to go tit for tat on how unfair taxation in America is, there are plenty of tax advantages for people who earn the most that the rest of the country doesn't get: they don't pay social security on 100% of their income (stops at $90K), the capital gains tax is at only 15% (please sparethe BS double taxation arguement), the bankruptcy bill forces people to pay back their debts while the rich can move their assets to trusts in certain states that protect them.


And in any case, there was a time when there wasn't progressive income taxation and the government made most of it's money based on tariffs, it sure did a lot more to keep jobs in this country too, maybe we should bring some o those back.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt George, you have it a little backwards. Progress in society is not caused by rich people. People become rich BECAUSE they help society progress. You still seem to have the idea that wealth is a fixed pie, and because one person has more, someone else must have less. This is nonsense. Someone like Bill Gates didn't siphon off his $50 billion from other people...and the world is not a poorer place because he has made so much money. On the contrary, the world much richer due to the innovation of companies like Dell and Microsoft. Making computers and software a mass market item has increased productivity and prosperity for thousands of companies. It has made life easier for millions of people and created countless billions (maybe trillions) in new wealth. This type of activity would not have existed in the absence of profit-seeking businessmen you seem to detest so much.

I'm not saying the private sector is bad and shouldn't exist, nor am I arguing for a completely nationalised economy. I just cannot stand that rich people (and we're talking millionaires here) have to pay miniscule taxes (in proportion to their wealth and in proportion to everyone else) and what's even worse is the amount they get away with and what could be funded with that money. We have it in my country with non-domiciles who get rich through their businesses in the UK but register themselevs for tax purposes in another country where they don't have to pay much tax. I have no sympathy for any millionaire who is crying because they have to pay their fair share of taxes and even less sympathy for the idiots that stick up for their right not to pay any taxes because they are tricked into thinking that letting the rich elite pay no taxes is good for the economy, little knowing that it is the rich elite themselves that come up with that kind of crap!

Why is it that the English always have an extreme hatred for rich people? No wonder communism began there. pathetic. I come from a really rich family here in Mexico. We pay our taxes. There are benefits and some not so good benefits. For example we really can't enjoy having an expensive car driving it around mexico city unless you want to be kidnapped. The rich who move to England want a better lifestyle that is also close to their native lands. It would be like some rich mexican's moving their families to the US while their businesses are in Mexico.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Why is it that the English always have an extreme hatred for rich people? No wonder communism began there. pathetic. I come from a really rich family here in Mexico. We pay our taxes. There are benefits and some not so good benefits. For example we really can't enjoy having an expensive car driving it around mexico city unless you want to be kidnapped. The rich who move to England want a better lifestyle that is also close to their native lands. It would be like some rich mexican's moving their families to the US while their businesses are in Mexico.

Could've sworn Karl Marx was a German!

Anyway, I have no problem with rich people, just as long as they pay back to society what society has enabled them to acrue over their lifetimes. We live in an economic system that allows people to amass huge amounts of wealth. But that economic system also requires the majority to exist on low levels of income, otherwise those rich people and their businesses would not be able to amass such levels of wealth. We can't all be millionaires can we? So all I'm saying is that those fortunate to have become millionaires should pay back some to society otherwise we end up in a situation, like you describe in Mexico, where society begins to break down because of the vast inequality in wealth.

Sure there will always be criminals who act out of pure greed, but I'd say the majority of crime is committed by people who pretty much don't have other options, whether than is because of a lack of education/training preventing them from getting a job, or that there is no job available, or that they have a job that doesn't pay enough. If you can neutralise those factors by redistributing wealth in the form of social security, free health care, free education etc etc then imo you'd see crime plummet...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I don't think you can say ALL progress our societies have made have been because of rich people!

Where did I specifically say that? You seemed to imply that rich people's only actions serve to "soak up the nation's wealth..." You asked what contributions they've made and I listed plenty (though barely even scratched the surface). Secondly, the wording of your comment about "soaking up the nation's wealth" is very telling. It comes down to the your belief that the wealth belongs to the state and not to those who have created it...A very dangerous path to start going down, George.

quote:

Why can't more of a companies profits be spent on either higher wages or hiring more staff?

What does this have to do with the death tax? This is a topic for an entirely different thread under a completely different heading. The short answer is that public companies are owned by millions of people (rich and poor) who want to see the stock price go up so that they can actually get more wealth for themselves. Stock prices don't go up when companies act to impair their own profitability.

quote:

Would you agree that social inequality is the biggest cause of crime?

Not necessarily. I do believe that criminals are the biggest cause of crime though. Would you agree that food is the biggest cause of obesity? Would you agree that the sun is the biggest cause of sunburns?

quote:

Nope. Think they should spend it on social care and erradicating poverty

It is not the government's job to do this (at least not in my country). You cannot permanently eradicate poverty but you can sure do a lot of damage to a fiscal deficit by throwing money at a problem that will exist through the fullness of time.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley . I just cannot stand that rich people (and we're talking millionaires here) have to pay miniscule taxes (in proportion to their wealth and in proportion to everyone else) and what's even worse is the amount they get away with and what could be funded with that money.

I'd love it if you could elaborate and provide some specific examples with details of how much so-and-so made and how much he/she paid in taxes (and include charitable contributions and other instances where they gave their income away for whatever the cause). Otherwise, what you have here is just a huge, baseless generalization that implies all "rich people" are rich because they somehow have figured out how to avoid paying taxes of any consequence.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'd love it if you could elaborate and provide some specific examples with details of how much so-and-so made and how much he/she paid in taxes (and include charitable contributions and other instances where they gave their income away for whatever the cause). Otherwise, what you have here is just a huge, baseless generalization that implies all "rich people" are rich because they somehow have figured out how to avoid paying taxes of any consequence.

I'm saying they shouldn't argue against having to pay taxes, not necessarily that they are avoiding paying them. However, it does happen in the UK and I'm sure it happens in America - offshore bank accounts etc. Nobody should be arguing for rich people to pay less taxes as it is society as a whole that will suffer...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It comes down to the your belief that the wealth belongs to the state and not to those who have created it...A very dangerous path to start going down, George.

Again, you're having difficulty differentiating between state/government and society

quote:

What does this have to do with the death tax?

Nothing specifically. It was a comment on the general theme of people saying rich people shouldn't have to pay as much taxes

quote:

Not necessarily. I do believe that criminals are the biggest cause of crime though. Would you agree that food is the biggest cause of obesity? Would you agree that the sun is the biggest cause of sunburns?

Well aren't you a clever boy!? I'll take that stupid quote as tacit agreement with what I said about social inequality being the biggest cause of crime

quote:

It is not the government's job to do this (at least not in my country). You cannot permanently eradicate poverty but you can sure do a lot of damage to a fiscal deficit by throwing money at a problem that will exist through the fullness of time.

I'm sorry but that is just rubbish

And it IS the government's job to do this, otherwise only those that can afford social benefits will get them...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley [quote]And it IS the government's job to do this, otherwise only those that can afford social benefits will get them...

Show me where the U.S. Constitution specifically makes such provisions. The government is not a babysitter nor a caretaker.