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.
Yes, but the relevant part were the words immediately preceding that. Go back and read my post #275. But here is the copy and paste from it (although I have now italicized it for clarity, and I bolded and underlined the relevant part):
"But, to ask my question again (albeit in a different way) -- what if people cannot afford to buy the things that they need and are now provided by taxes, and they are without relatives who are able to help them? Are you willing to have them literally die in the street, starving and homeless? To just name one example, have you heard of the Irish potato famine? There was almost no government or private aid, and approximately one million people died."
Anyway, I am through with debating with you since you obviously have no compunction about taking words out of context just to try to make your point. Consider yourself "ignored" from me from now on!
Comprehension is not your strong suit - go read my post I included the part you think was missed. There is no one that is supporting having people dying on the streets. You continue to bring up as an example the Irish potato famine of 1845 that happened 174 years ago IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. The US took in millions impacted by this back then and provides basic support currently. But again, you do not explain what you want done other than prevent what NO ONE ALIVE was impacted by or had any role in. You are failing to make your point.
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Income is not the same thing as abilities.
Different abilities yield different income levels. The more rare and in demand one's abilities, the higher their income. I've explained that time and time again even giving an example using concrete imagery to help people that seem to be slow to catch on to understand... The reason wages are unequal is because the abilities and skills sets people possess aren't all the same. A graphic representation of this would be a pyramid. Those with the most rare and in demand abilities and skills sets are at the top, and those who are low-education and no/low-ability and skill sets are at the bottom. Since there are a huge number of those at the bottom compared to the very few at the top, the labor value of those at the bottom is low, as there's a glut of such persons. One's wages increase as one's skill sets become increasingly less common and one moves up the pyramid.
Regarding Adam Smith's "in proportion to," seems you, too, need to learn what proportions are. It's 9th grade math:
Quote:
Example: Rope
A rope's length and weight are in proportion when 20m of rope weighs 1kg, then:
yes make it fair..stop the discriminatory practice of unfair taxes at different rates
tax everyone at an equal and fair rate
let's say 20%
the guy making 40k has a tax (before deductions) of 8k
the guy making 400k has a tax of 80k
Pay for performance is a compensation strategy (typically for CEOs & upper management, etc.). S'alright in theory however in reality may cause CEOs to focus on short-term performance &/or to manipulate numbers to meet targets.
Consider the real economy v. financial markets (aka as casino).
Different abilities yield different income levels. The more rare and in demand one's abilities, the higher their income. I've explained that time and time again even giving an example using concrete imagery to help people that seem to be slow to catch on to understand... The reason wages are unequal is because the abilities and skills sets people possess aren't all the same. A graphic representation of this would be a pyramid. Those with the most rare and in demand abilities and skills sets are at the top, and those who are low-education and no/low-ability and skill sets are at the bottom. Since there are a huge number of those at the bottom compared to the very few at the top, the labor value of those at the bottom is low, as there's a glut of such persons. One's wages increase as one's skill sets become increasingly less common and one moves up the pyramid.
Regarding Adam Smith's "in proportion to," seems you, too, need to learn what proportions are. It's 9th grade math:
Unlike some of his followers (specifically the free market fundamentalists), Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free market:
Quote:
Whenever there are "externalities"—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have long understood environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research. (The government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and many bio-tech advances.) But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always. Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third "sector" – governmental non-profit organizations.) Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place.
Because the poor build the infrastructure that enables their businesses to flourish and the poor tend to be the ones going to war to protect the monetary interests of the rich.
Because the poor build the infrastructure that enables their businesses to flourish and the poor tend to be the ones going to war to protect the monetary interests of the rich.
The poor benefit from that. How do you think food, clothing, etc. gets to the stores? Infrastructure. How do you think their public assistance benefits cards (EBT) get reloaded every month? Infrastructure.
And in regards to the latter, there hasn't been a draft since 1973. Enlisting in the military is a voluntary choice.
A famous bank robber, when asked why he kept robbing banks, replied, "Because that's where the money is!"
Liberals (in both parties) want "The Rich" to pay more, for the same reason.
The only differences between the liberals and the bank robber are:
* The bank robber honestly admitted he was committing robbery;
* The bank robber never tried to pretend that he was making society a better place by robbing the bank;
* The bank robber never pretended that his victim somehow had a duty to hand over his money.
Yes, but the relevant part were the words immediately preceding that. Go back and read my post #275. But here is the copy and paste from it (although I have now italicized it for clarity, and I bolded and underlined the relevant part):
"But, to ask my question again (albeit in a different way) -- what if people cannot afford to buy the things that they need and are now provided by taxes, and they are without relatives who are able to help them? Are you willing to have them literally die in the street, starving and homeless? To just name one example, have you heard of the Irish potato famine? There was almost no government or private aid, and approximately one million people died."
Anyway, I am through with debating with you since you obviously have no compunction about taking words out of context just to try to make your point. Consider yourself "ignored" from me from now on!
Socialism is an awesome way to let people die en mass.
Socialism actually produced famine and starvation, starving over 50 million people to death, during modern peacetime! Nothing beats that achievement.
That’s on top of the great feat that socialism murdered tens of millions.
When Democrats say the rich should pay more than their fair share, it really means the middle class.
Democrats have this entitlement issue, where your money is theirs, too.
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.
