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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Why do you care how much wealth someone else has?
It has absolutely nothing to do with how much wealth you have.
It does when it comes to zero sum resources like housing. The top getting richer raises housing costs for everybody, since population is growing faster than housing supply, housing is virtually zero sum.
It's why in 2006, the average house in Lynwood, California cost $600,000 even though no one who could afford to buy a $600,000 house would be caught dead living in Lynwood
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Government intervention is the reason for the situation we are currently in. Both healthcare and housing are prohibitively expensive because the government keeps screwing around with them.
I don't buy that for a second, I wasn't born yesterday
It does when it comes to zero sum resources like housing. The top getting richer raises housing costs for everybody, since population is growing faster than housing supply, housing is virtually zero sum.
It's why in 2006, the average house in Lynwood, California cost $600,000 even though no one who could afford to buy a $600,000 house would be caught dead living in Lynwood
Actually the wealthy consume much less as a percentage of their income on housing. Wealth inequality lowers housing prices.
1. They let the labor class produce for them, the. Distribute back their earnings, with the greatest portion going to them. I assume you defended the lords and aristocracts the same way. They owned the capital so they ‘made’ the jobs?
To put it in simple terms so you can understand... No factory = no factory jobs. If you wish to earn an income relying solely on what you yourself own and provide as raw materials, tools, etc., you are free to do so.
Quote:
2. Nope, as written in the 1500s, Robin Hood fought the sherif because he was working for the rich, as the high class were part of the political hierarchy back then.
That’s why socialists and communists praise his work rather than libertarians who want tax cuts for big corporations.
You're exposing your illiteracy. Robin Hood’s modus operandi was not that he took from the rich to give to the poor, but that he took from the tax collector and gave back to the people their own money. THE issue was over-taxation, and Robin Hood was definitely NOT on the side of the "bureaucracy." The ultimate bad guy was Prince John, the very essence of greedy, arrogant central government, and his enabler was the Sheriff of Nottingham, the ruthless enforcer whose collection methods were even more intimidating than that of the IRS.
It does when it comes to zero sum resources like housing. The top getting richer raises housing costs for everybody, since population is growing faster than housing supply, housing is virtually zero sum.
It's why in 2006, the average house in Lynwood, California cost $600,000 even though no one who could afford to buy a $600,000 house would be caught dead living in Lynwood
I'll put it in simple terms for you.
It's not a zero sum game.
There is no "X" amount wealth for anyone to hoard.
If I make $50,000/yr in my job, that in no way prevents you from also making $50,000/yr in your job.....or more.
If I invest 25% if my income for 25 years, that in no way prevents you from also investing 25% of your income for 25 years.
The concept doesn't change because the numbers or investments get bigger.
Other than cases of actual theft or fraud etc, there is not a single person in America that is poor because someone else is rich.
Impose the 70% tax and see how long it takes before the filthy rich move themselves and their money out of the country.
Longer then you might think. Remember, this is on income above 10 million. The VAST majority arent affected, and theres some historical data showing that truly rich people arent as mobile as you think. They also tend to have friends and family. Mind you, im not saying it wont happen at all, but rather that you are vastly overestimating how much of it will occur. Plus there are a variety of ways to minimize it.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Actually the wealthy consume much less as a percentage of their income on housing. Wealth inequality lowers housing prices.
No it doesn't, it creates a drainage effect. Where the wealthiest get the best housing, so the second wealthiest get the second best housing, so on and so forth. It raises prices at all housing levels, to where you get an "expensive ghetto", which would normally be an oxymoron
And you want to arbitrarily set that maximum at 10 million dollars?
Why?
Why not 5 million?
Why not 20 million?
Who's to say that the government won't suddenly decide that that arbitrary amount should be 250,000?
Or 100,000?
Or 50,000?
It's not individuals that shouldn't have that much power.......
It's the government..
You make the mistake of differentiating private and state power as conflicting in nature.
In actuality they both need each other, the former for bailouts, a stable currency, subsidies, access to foriegn markets, and legal protection.
The latter to increase tax revenue, control of natural resources in foriegn land, leverage against other economies in the marketing of new technology, and as increased power to political heads through funding and lobbyist packages.
The question is not why 5 million or 10 million, it is more of a starting point to distribute power away from the hands of a few, which will hurt corrupt politicians and powerful government figures as well.
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.
Robin Hood’s modus operandi was not that he took from the rich to give to the poor, but that he took from the tax collector and gave back to the people their own money. THE issue was over-taxation, and Robin Hood was definitely NOT on the side of the "bureaucracy." The ultimate bad guy was Prince John, the very essence of greedy, arrogant central government, and his enabler was the Sheriff of Nottingham, the ruthless enforcer whose collection methods were even more intimidating than that of the IRS.
