Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
my point is you froth at the mouth saying ''income inequality...oh my, republican problem""
when the income/wealth gap is increasing in every first world nation...EVEN THE MOST 'SOCIALISTIC" NATIONS
Where did i say republican? The problem is your playing a game with a coin that uses two sides, on a board of capitalism but its the same coin. Capitalism demands that there be a lower class, without it there is no capitalism. Im also not supporting socialism or etc. But maybe its time for us as humanity to evolve past this form of a economic systems?
"The less fortunate get all the breaks!" - Fry from Futurama
Hint: You're not supposed to agree with Fry on that matter.
Having more wealth makes it much easier to acquire still more, and a progressive income tax structure is the only fair system, really, since more income beyond the very basic amount yields diminishing returns.
If I lose 30% of my income to taxes, I can still live perfectly well. If a poor person loses the same percentage, he or she could be out on the street.
Even on a very basic level, having a little more keeps my expenses lower and my lifestyle nicer. For one thing, I don't have to rent my property because I was able to save up a down payment for my house. Renters lose potential net worth growth each month because their rent money goes to someone else and they get nothing in return. (Housing is not itself an asset -- it's abstract, and your landlord probably doesn't lose anything by providing it to you. A house is an asset.) A property owner loses the mortgage payment but gains equity, and even the interest payments are tax deductible. Not only that, but mortgage payments are usually much lower than equivalent rents.
In ten years, my net worth will be a few hundred thousand dollars higher than it would have been had I rented my current house instead of buying it.
That's just one area, though. In the rest of life, I can take more risks because I won't be out on the street if my risks don't pay off. I don't see stress sapping my health away like it did when I was poorer. I am able to build my professional network much faster now, and I have even better opportunities waiting for me in the future. I can start a new business if I want, or I can invest in other businesses. I can acquire more property and take people's rent money every month, all while doing very little work. I don't get sick as often as poor people because I have more time to keep myself healthy and I have better working conditions, but even if I do get sick, I don't lose any money, because I have good insurance, I can take vacation days and/or sick days from work, and I can do my job from home if I really have to. Poor people don't have that. They just get told to work harder, while everyone else profits from their labor.
Seriously, did someone here say that someone working on a convenience store salary should try opening another store as a response to someone pointing out the productivity generated by the workers? That's ridiculous. You need a lot of money to get off the ground, and once you have it, you start making more.
Every business, for example, needs a sales and marketing engine in order to thrive. Getting that off the ground takes considerable resources. Basic digital advertising with a good agency can run $20k per week, and even that is only effective if you've built everything up enough to handle the kind of inventory that the advertising would bring in. My side business, for example, is doing fine, but our biggest obstacle to expanding right now is that we don't have enough employees to get big. Yeah, I can handle a lot of the risk and whatnot (not really that much -- my initial capital investment into the business was nothing I couldn't afford to lose, and if this pays off in the long run, I'm going to be a multi-millionaire -- yeah, that's a bit if....), but it's not possible to grow without acquiring more labor. If I make a lot of money, it's only possible if other people do a lot of the labor for me, because without them, I don't have enough widgets to sell to get rich.
I think that a lot of the people who insist that entrepreneurship is just a matter of being good enough or hardworking enough or having the right idea have bought too much into the rainbow-and-unicorn economy of web applications, where most would-be entrepreneurs have all the starry-eyed idealism and million dollar ideas in the world but none of the infrastructure (including marketing and sales) to make it work.
It's much easier for me to be successful if the rest of society is doing well. Even if I were completely heartless, I'd have an incentive to want others to have good enough lives to afford my products, and I'd certainly want enough bright, educated people around to work with me to make my enterprise successful. I benefit greatly both from the labor of the people with whom I work and from the services that go toward making society as a whole more comfortable and more educated.
The bootstrappy types need to take a look around to see how much their success really depends on other people. If they don't see that, then they're probably trying to run a bad business model.
Where did i say republican? The problem is your playing a game with a coin that uses two sides, on a board of capitalism but its the same coin. Capitalism demands that there be a lower class, without it there is no capitalism. Im also not supporting socialism or etc. But maybe its time for us as humanity to evolve past this form of a economic systems?
I want to say this, it isn't so much that capitalism is by itself evil. "Free-market capitalism" I think is quite a good thing.
The main issue with capitalism, is a problem of "power", and how that power can be used to manipulate to the advantage of special-interests. The United States as a singular entity, uses the world economic system to our advantage. Whether it is the unfair advantages derived from being the "World Reserve Currency", or from being the "petro-dollar". Or for that matter, our ability to pressure governments around the world with sanctions and other extortions. Let alone the ability of our banks to literally print up capital(money) and buy assets at effectively no cost, and thus monopolize world markets through monetary manipulation. That doesn't even include our ability to use our economic power to poach skilled workers from around the world, creating a sort of perpetual "brain-drain", maintain American hegemony.
The same kinds of advantages the United States uses to benefit itself relative to the rest of the world, are used internally as well. Cities use tax-breaks and subsidies to poach business from other cities. Banks use their fictitious capital to buy up assets around the country. And use this creation of artificial capital to "bid up" the value of stocks, and calling it "wealth", which can be converted into "real assets".
All of these huge and powerful corporations and financiers, use their money and influence to control government policy for their further advantage. Making political donations, or influencing the already corporate media(which effectively controls public opinion), is seen as nothing more than an investment. Which can be used to extract exponentially more profit in the future.
Basically, it isn't that capitalism is evil, its that the unfair advantages that seem endemic to capitalism are evil. The "Too-big-to-fail" comes to mind. Or "privatizing profits, socializing costs".
I will say this, I am increasingly persuaded, that it is impossible to remove the evils of capitalism from the positives of capitalism. And that, the evils of capitalism far outnumber the positives. But, by the nature of the power that capitalism produces, it doesn't seem like there will be a real alternative.
The United States might be going to the "left" somewhat. It is actually only going left in ways which benefit big-business. Obamacare benefits Wall-street. And privatizing social-security would also benefit Wall-street. Immigration benefits Wall-Street.
To impose any other form of government than what we have, would either require a total economic collapse, or a revolution.
I don't have to rent my property because I was able to save up a down payment for my house.
I can acquire more property and take people's rent money every month, all while doing very little work.
Seriously, did someone here say that someone working on a convenience store salary should try opening another store as a response to someone pointing out the productivity generated by the workers? That's ridiculous. You need a lot of money to get off the ground, and once you have it, you start making more.
I like your speech friend. But, while its important to look at these costs "as they are", we also need to ask ourselves the question, "Why do these things cost as much as they do?"
For instance, why has the cost of housing gone up far faster than inflation? What causes inflation anyway? What is the mechanism which drives up the cost of housing? Why was there near zero inflation in this country between 1813 and 1913? What role do government regulations(such as building codes and zoning laws)play in the cost of housing? What role do government regulations play in the cost of starting your own business?
How can the stock market go up 5% to 10% a year? Even when overall inflation is only 2%? What role does this inflation of the stock market play in creating "paper assets", which can then be converted into "real assets"?
What role does government play in creating economic and financial climates which drive people into the cities, where housing is so limited that it forces many/most to rent(especially the lower classes)?
I could go on, but my point is, while its easy to talk about the unfairness of the system "as it is". Lets also understand that the system we have, is not "natural", it is completely artificial. But, as a general rule, the government will change nothing, unless that change produces more "economic growth". Thus, our system is fundamentally "working as intended". And what you are advocating, while I completely agree with you that it would be more fair, is never going to happen, because no one can make money off it.
The government doesn't exist to save people money. The government exists to make people money(especially those most adept at making it). And that isn't going to change.
The bottom 50% pays little or no taxes. These people need to start carrying their own weight and stop relying on the rest of us to pick up the slack for them. I didn't suffer through all those years of college just so I could hand over more of my money to cover their portion of the tax revenue. I'm sick of dragging all this dead weight around.
Bailouts. Privatization of profits and socialization of losses. Too big to fail. etc. From 2009 to 2010, not only did Honeywell pay no federal income taxes, it received a $510 million tax refund from the IRS. In 2012, Honeywell stashed $11.6 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Honeywell would owe an estimated $4.06 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance were eliminated.
Wow. And you wonder why your worth to society is so little. That sentence really just says it all.
Now I understand why you just have no hope in life.
Do the math.
If taxpayer A gets a tax break not available to taxpayer B, and if as a result A pays a lower effective tax rate than B, how is that NOT redistributive?
Let's say A earns $25K cash plus $10K (untaxed) benefits, and B earns $30K cash with no benefits.
A receives greater compensation than B, yet pays less tax than B.
Government has redistributed income from B to A.
What is so difficult to understand?
What do you say to B? Pay up, sucker?
Your tax break for A costs B more money than if tax rates were lower for everyone.
The bottom 50% pays little or no taxes. These people need to start carrying their own weight and stop relying on the rest of us to pick up the slack for them. I didn't suffer through all those years of college just so I could hand over more of my money to cover their portion of the tax revenue. I'm sick of dragging all this dead weight around.
They won't. So stop paying for them. Otherwise, stop complaining.
All you have to do is limit your income to the bare minimum you need to survive. The less you make, the less they take. In fact, at some point, you pay zero taxes (at least directly in income tax--you still pay up the wazoo for everything else), yet you still have just enough to live a frugal life. There is a little window in there where you pay no (income) taxes, yet you can still exist (admittedly a rather Spartan existence) completely upon your own earnings. What it takes is for you to realize that you really don't need what you think you do. You don't need 5000 sq ft of living space. You don't need that waste-of-money Lexus. You don't need to be lavishly entertained every evening with expensive electronics and power bills. You don't need to go out to eat every other night. You don't need most of what you have.
Bottom line is, it's possible to get out of being a Revenue Generation Device for the government. Not easy, but possible. For now, at least.
Addendum: and no, I don't feel guilty. Why should I? I helped pay for your underclass for most of my life. At least I work. I just work for myself, not you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
