Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
There really isn't much to say about this. The guy is making ridiculous comparisons. The Right Wing in this country is pretty strong, so I don't think he has to worry about the Extermination Camps yet.

But the Nazis were also right wing... On the extreme right of the political spectrum to be precise.

This guy's comparisons are wrong on so many levels. I could list all his mistakes, but I think most people here are more than capable of doing that themselves.
It is funny how some people always seem to feel a compulsive urge to compare everything to Nazis.

THe internet didn't bring ideas into existance so much as provided a venue by which those ideas can be expressed. I.E. There is no more hate for the rich now than there was before. Now you just get to hear about it because the guy harping about it over in Maine has a blog anyone can read.

The same thing is true for people who love the rich, of course. If there appears to be a lot of anti-rich sentiment around, perhaps that is because, compared to 10 years ago, the World Economic Crisis has created more resentment. We had the internet back then, obviously.

If the rich want to create the impression they are widely loved, or to fight back against the socialist blogohordes, or something, they could employ people to write pro-rich blogs and stuff like that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's an interesting blog post on it here...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-brittle-grip-part-2

IDK if this blogger is considered right wing, left wing, or neutral.

TPM is a lefty blog.

As to Perkins... he's a nutter imo.

However, if he'd want to have a rational conversation to this topic, be like Thomas Sowell:

What did you think of the TPM argument?

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's an interesting blog post on it here...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-brittle-grip-part-2

IDK if this blogger is considered right wing, left wing, or neutral.

TPM is a lefty blog.

As to Perkins... he's a nutter imo.

However, if he'd want to have a rational conversation to this topic, be like Thomas Sowell:

Well, I think "earned" is the problem word in that sentence. Earned implies compensation in proportion to the work done. That is where people have a problem.

 Steve steveson wrote:

Well, I think "earned" is the problem word in that sentence. Earned implies compensation in proportion to the work done. That is where people have a problem.

Especially in regard to people like Paris Hilton and her ilk who have literally not "worked" a day in their lives, but instead get to live off the actual work their parents did. Guys like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. who did something to build their company's into what they are "deserve" respect.

I appreciate that men and women who build their fortunes are entitled to their reward of their labors. But lets face it. There are people in the world today with so much money they can't spend all of it. Ever. Instead they sit on it until they die and their children promptly throw it all away on junk and legal fees for various felonies and civil torts that they end up getting away with while contributing relatively little to society. That money would be more useful elsewhere (hyperbole).

More seriously, who realistically needs to be earning millions of dollars yearly. It will not destroy their lives or hurt them at all to give even half of that away every april because they're still going to richer than pretty much everyone else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What did you think of the TPM argument?

That the "income inequality" argument is all FUBAR'ed? Good post.

 LordofHats wrote:
I appreciate that men and women who build their fortunes are entitled to their reward of their labors. But lets face it. There are people in the world today with so much money they can't spend all of it. Ever. Instead they sit on it until they die and their children promptly throw it all away on junk and legal fees for various felonies and civil torts that they end up getting away with while contributing relatively little to society. That money would be more useful elsewhere (hyperbole).

More seriously, who realistically needs to be earning millions of dollars yearly. It will not destroy their lives or hurt them at all to give even half of that away every april because they're still going to richer than pretty much everyone else.

There is also the point that people need to pay into the system that provides them with the ways and means of acquiring and protecting their vast wealth.

The fact that we actually hold the "Feth You Got Mine" ideal in high regard here in America is not only scary, its self destructive.

If you rich, congratulations you live in more comfort than 99.8% of the world ever will. This however, does not exempt you from contributing to society.

This however, does not exempt you from contributing to society.

Why not?

To play devil's advocate:
Define contribute. If they give 10% to charity they are contributing by provide funds for charitable relief. If they are spending 10% on hot babes and cool cars (or the inverse) they are dropping 10% into the economy and thus contributing to society.

The only way they ARE NOT contributing to society is if they are hoarding all their money in zinc and stuffing it in a well.

I'm going to come out and say spending huge loads of cash on expensive cars and hot women (while a dream for us all) isn't much of a boost to the economy. The highest end of the luxury industry (Ferrari for example) is really just rich people giving money to other rich people with a marginal benefit to everyone else.

That money could be better used improving the education system (because terrible), amking college educations cheaper, or helping the homeless. Better yet, use that money for something really good like advertising the corruption of the pharmicutical and healthcare industry and lobbying for change.

Buying an expensive car is cool, but it doesn't benefit society much.

Money spent into High wealth industry normally just feeds back into the exact same level of the economy that money came from.


Because I can tell you right now the workers who made that ultra hot cool car ain't getting most of that money.

Taxes are just an efficient way of helping the lower class because said companies making enough money for there top brass to live comfortable somehow cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage.

>Rich business man refuses to pay employees living wages
>Goverment forced to step in so people don't starve
>Rich man is taxed to keep people fed/alive
>Rich man whines about losing money

No matter what, somebodies gotta make sure people don't just die in the streets.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm going to come out and say spending huge loads of cash on expensive cars and hot women (while a dream for us all) isn't much of a boost to the economy. The highest end of the luxury industry (Ferrari for example) is really just rich people giving money to other rich people with a marginal benefit to everyone else.

That money could be better used improving the education system (because terrible), amking college educations cheaper, or helping the homeless. Better yet, use that money for something really good like advertising the corruption of the pharmicutical and healthcare industry and lobbying for change.

Buying an expensive car is cool, but it doesn't benefit society much.

So "benefit" is now only defined as benefitting the homeless or making college education cheaper, or slanderous advertising?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Money spent into High wealth industry normally just feeds back into the exact same level of the economy that money came from.

And?

Because I can tell you right now the workers who made that ultra hot cool car ain't getting most of that money.

Labor is a major expense
Capex and fixed cost are a major if not the major expense
Inventory is a major expense
All these send funds to other companies or the government and hundreds or thousands of jobs

Dividends are usually barely statistically relevant.

Taxes are just an inefficient way of helping the lower class

Corrected your typo

because said companies making enough money for there top brass to live comfortable somehow cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage.

Wait I thought we were talking about high end sports car employees. Have you seen their salaries?

No matter what, somebodies gotta make sure people don't just die in the streets.

"Everybody's gotta die sometime Red"

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The fact that we actually hold the "Feth You Got Mine" ideal in high regard here in America is not only scary, its self destructive.

You see... attitudes like this is destructive. I don't see that.

If you rich, congratulations you live in more comfort than 99.8% of the world ever will. This however, does not exempt you from contributing to society.

In the US, at least... as of 2010, the top 10% of earners paid 70% of the taxes in the US.


Reconcile this chart to your "Feth You, I Got Mine" mentality.

Disclaimer: I do believe we need to update the tax code, but not for "redistribution of weath" reason... more, to even the playing field. (or, at least, fething reclassify what "income" truly is).

 LordofHats wrote:
THe internet didn't bring ideas into existance so much as provided a venue by which those ideas can be expressed. I.E. There is no more hate for the rich now than there was before. Now you just get to hear about it because the guy harping about it over in Maine has a blog anyone can read.

I would argue there is a good deal more hate for the rich now than there was before, as the internet has made the spread of information far, far easier than it previously was. So now when people do ludicrously stupid things like drive drunk, crash and kill 6 people, then walk away with barely a slap on the wrist, more people in more places not just in the US, but in the world, are hearing about it.

Basically, previously the rich could hide their dickish ways for more easily than they can now that information reaches the world in just a few seconds.

On the flip side of the coin, the generosity of the rich is more easily exposed through acts from buying $280,000 worth of toys for poor children, to fighting infectous diseases all over the globe.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The fact that we actually hold the "Feth You Got Mine" ideal in high regard here in America is not only scary, its self destructive.

You see... attitudes like this is destructive. I don't see that.

If you rich, congratulations you live in more comfort than 99.8% of the world ever will. This however, does not exempt you from contributing to society.

In the US, at least... as of 2010, the top 10% of earners paid 70% of the taxes in the US.


Reconcile this chart to your "Feth You, I Got Mine" mentality.

Disclaimer: I do believe we need to update the tax code, but not for "redistribution of weath" reason... more, to even the playing field. (or, at least, fething reclassify what "income" truly is).

You need a personal income of $75,000 to get into the top 10%. If the top 10% had all the money and the rest of you had nothing, the income tax distribution would be even more skewed. It doesn't necessarily indicate anything meaningful.

Wow, Kilkrazy you beat the post I was about to make in a couple seconds


But yeah all your graph shows Whembly is that the burden is in fact on the middle class.

Also the big discussion is about the 1% not top 10%.

So "benefit" is now only defined as benefitting the homeless or making college education cheaper, or slanderous advertising?

Those are just examples of things more beneficial than a super cool gas chugger that money could be put towards. And if it's slanderous to point out that the healthcare industry is corrupt, then just about anyone words uttered by anyone about anyone else is slanderous.

$75,000 doesn't sound an awful lot to me, actually.

Because its not. I wouldn't consider anyone making less than $120k a year to be particularly wealthy. Better of than many certainly, but they're not lighting cigars with benjamins and making hedgefunds for their grand children rich. I don't even know if the people I'm concerned with at even the 1%, they might be the .5%.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$75,000 doesn't sound an awful lot to me, actually.

Depends entirely where you live honestly. In New York City it's not. In Clarksville, Tennessee it is.

The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$75,000 doesn't sound an awful lot to me, actually.

Really dependent on where you live.

Again... I ain't saying it's perfect, but you're awfully dismissive of that chart.

What are we really arguing about.

Spell it out for me.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$75,000 doesn't sound an awful lot to me, actually.

Depends entirely where you live honestly. In New York City it's not. In Clarksville, Tennessee it is.

Most of the time income is proportionally to were you live, so you will find a lot more people making 75k in New York than in Clarksville Tennessee.


I have a relative who's such an utter penny pincher he decided to move to the middle of nowhere Nebraska until his wife made him move back to L.A.

 LordofHats wrote:

So "benefit" is now only defined as benefitting the homeless or making college education cheaper, or slanderous advertising?

Those are just examples of things more beneficial than a super cool gas chugger that money could be put towards. And if it's slanderous to point out that the healthcare industry is corrupt, then just about anyone words uttered by anyone about anyone else is slanderous.

Er...no.
You're arguing an entire industry is corrupt.
You're then arguing spending moeney to say that is a one of your fiew listed benefits to society.

You're arguing an entire industry is corrupt.

Because it is. Anyone who has failed to realize it at this point just isn't paying attention (and you'd think people would jump on it, ACA and all that).

 LordofHats wrote:

So "benefit" is now only defined as benefitting the homeless or making college education cheaper, or slanderous advertising?

Those are just examples of things more beneficial than a super cool gas chugger that money could be put towards. And if it's slanderous to point out that the healthcare industry is corrupt, then just about anyone words uttered by anyone about anyone else is slanderous.

That gas chugger creates hundreds of jobs. What is your metric for societal benefit? Where is the Bureau of Societal Benefit Metrics?

feeder wrote:
I disagree with this. I am old enough to have been an adult before the internet was such an ubiquitous thing, and I have been exposed to much wider spectrum of ideas and points of view since I started sailing the internents on the regular. For example, while I was aware of tin-foil hat crazy leftists, I had never conversed directly with one before. Similarly, I had never encountered a lassez-faire right winger in person who could articulate his ideas clearly before, either.

I could be wrong, but I don't think self-sustaining perpetual motion echo chambers like Huffington Post and DailyKos existed prior to the internet. While the internet has certainly made it easier for people to find information, if they want it, it's also made it easier for people to get together in their little cocoons and feed off of each other's outrage while ignoring anything that contradicts what they wish to believe.

It's all the arguments made over the years about talk radio, basically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Because its not. I wouldn't consider anyone making less than $120k a year to be particularly wealthy. Better of than many certainly, but they're not lighting cigars with benjamins and making hedgefunds for their grand children rich. I don't even know if the people I'm concerned with at even the 1%, they might be the .5%.

So you'd say I don't earn my money?