Switch Theme:

Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

 Desubot wrote:


i mean yeah it sucks have a heiroen addict single mom but why are other people (including people who are suffering them selves) paying to help them?


Because it's about leveling the playing field and encouraging social mobility, the rich don't need help as they already have the most political, social and economic influence.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Cheesecat wrote:
 Desubot wrote:


i mean yeah it sucks have a heiroen addict single mom but why are other people (including people who are suffering them selves) paying to help them?


Because it's about leveling the playing field and encouraging social mobility, the rich don't need help as they already have the most political, social and economic influence.

So... are you saying it ain't "fair"?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.

if everything is supposed to be equal there is no point in succeeding as there will always be hand outs. its the just same thing over and over again.

i also don't really recall the rich asking for the same help poor people need. (mind ya i don't really run around looking)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

 Desubot wrote:
Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.

if everything is supposed to be equal there is no point in succeeding as there will always be hand outs. its the just same thing over and over again.

i also don't really recall the rich asking for the same help poor people need. (mind ya i don't really run around looking)


This isn't about that everything should be equal, as there should definitely be an incentive to improve oneself and be rewarded and also that's not what social mobility is about, it's about allowing for more change in one's social postion.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Ok well that's fair enough. no one should be completely and purposefully barred and shacked to poverty/in influence? blah i cant think of words right now.

Though now the question would be how much help do they need? and at what point does it just become a free pass in life?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 00:16:05


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

In case you haven't considered it, not everyone who benefits from 'handouts' is lazy. In fact, a lot of them end up having to work very hard just to get by. Some people will work incredibly hard but will never get anywhere for it.

There's no such thing as a self made man, and getting help from others does not make people any less. Hell, you wouldn't be where you are today without the job given to you by your mother. You may work very hard for what you have, and I'm in no position to deny your merit. But you got lucky, that was your free pass. Not everyone can be so lucky.

I got lucky too. My parents are financing my entire post-secondary education, and through their connections, I managed to get a great internship for 3 years in a row. I do good work, and I work hard, but there's no denying the fact that I would not be where I am now without the support of people around me. In this case, it's not the state, but I would not want the opportunities I have to be barred from someone who could be similarly talented but not as privileged.

At the very least, people should be given access to proper (post-secondary!)education so that they can at least attempt to aspire to be something.

What's more, it's not like taxing the excessively rich will hurt them. There comes a point where you simply can't reasonably spend it in a reasonable matter, it becomes nothing more than an abstract number. Put that money to use, run it through the economic system that could truly benefit from it.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 00:22:59


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






who said anything about lazy?

also that extra money being spent by the person IS helping the economy. just putting it into the tax system just send the money else where but if you spend the money on things you need or the things you want to grow helps it grow.
that's business as naive as it sounds. Buying those extra cars, home gives business to the mechanics/cleaners/realtors blahblahblahblah. but if those works just demand the money from you then those businesses cant grow as there is no business and they will just lose there jobs. its the most basic way to look at it.

and too that i agree that education is definitely one of those things everyone should have access to.

and to your last point. what is deemed excessively high? and who should make that choice?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 00:26:23


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

 Desubot wrote:
who said anything about lazy?


You mentioned about the possibility of 'not working as hard' due to obstacles in your way in a previous post, while stressing how hard work gets everything. In such a conversation, laziness is bound to apply. If it makes you happy, you could replace every time I mention anything pertaining to laziness or lethargy as 'not working as hard.'

also that extra money being spent by the person IS helping the economy. just putting it into the tax system just send the money else where but if you spend the money on things you need or the things you want to grow helps it grow.
that's business as naive as it sounds. Buying those extra cars, home gives business to the mechanics/cleaners/realtors blahblahblahblah. but if those works just demand the money from you then those businesses cant grow as there is no business and they will just lose there jobs. its the most basic way to look at it.


You're missing the point here. It's not about buying and selling basic material goods. There comes a point where a single person or group of people simply cannot buy more for themselves. The expectation by American conservatives is that the rich will use their vast resources to fund businesses which will then feed the economy by paying in a downward trickle of funds. But that's not how it works, because money is moved to offshore accounts, or simply fed into gaming the markets. The goal of the excessively rich is not to help others, but to maintain and expand on their financial empires, and to do so does not always (in fact, rarely ever does) coincide with the enrichment of the lives of the lower classes.

and to your last point. what is deemed excessively high? and who should make that choice?


On a personal note, I cannot imagine why anyone would need to make more than a million dollars a year, but then again, setting and understanding the importance of those values is not my job, thankfully.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 00:37:05


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






I suppose in the context of what i said it could of been taken as lazy. and i will say that handouts can cause a lack of motivation or "laziness" but no where did i say everyone that takes handouts are lazy.

its a shame really its true that money is going off shores half time but no one seems to want to fix it. but how is taxing them making it any better? one way or another by grabing them by the pants it makes them want to run away faster.

i believe first and foremost, the entire tax system needs to be fixed so that businesses have incentives to stay and invest back into the people that and the rediculuse amount of spending in government needs to be reigned in so we can invest back into the people.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

 Desubot wrote:
I suppose in the context of what i said it could of been taken as lazy. and i will say that handouts can cause a lack of motivation or "laziness" but no where did i say everyone that takes handouts are lazy.


But far more often then not, the people receiving the handouts are not losing their motivation to work, and are already working incredibly hard for scraps. It's the extra bit that's helping them get by. The wellfare queens you see romanticized by politicians are very few and far between. What's more, the supposed handouts can be what it takes to get someone's career or business idea off the ground, and allow them to do better and more impacting work. It's a lot easier to do great things when you're not worrying about survival. We both seem to agree on some level about socially funded education.

It may be anecdotal, but the fact that my education is funded by my parents and not myself has done nothing to hamper my motivation to work for my degree.

its a shame really its true that money is going off shores half time but no one seems to want to fix it. but how is taxing them making it any better? one way or another by grabing them by the pants it makes them want to run away faster.


And people won't stop trying to game the system until you simply give it over to them wholesale,. Just because we can't make everyone follow the rules doesn't mean we should stop trying to make the rules work altogether. So if we can't stop them, we should at least try to make use of what doesn't get stashed away.

i believe first and foremost, the entire tax system needs to be fixed so that businesses have incentives to stay and invest back into the people that and the rediculuse amount of spending in government needs to be reigned in so we can invest back into the people.


And what, do you suppose, is "investing back into the people?" that's typically what taxes and government spending are supposed to do. Social programs provide jobs for people in order to get them done.

The basic idea of social services is that the taxes you pay go into financing them. They're not simple handouts or charity, they're things you paid for through taxes, albeit not directly.
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






It can also be said that if you cant stop them don't give up.

nor do i believe its my way or the highway. i believe enough of both is needed for a happier society.

in my opinion if you want to invest back into the people you should be able to support it directly your self without having the government mandate it directly.

companies and should be able to offer the same if not better social programs such as medical, financial, and education

and people should be able to donate the same.

in which chases they should receive a tax break because they did what the government was going to do with the money anyway. The taxes that you increase for the programs don't always go to the programs that need it and instead get rolled into other things that no one needs like expensive presidential dinners.
in ether cases it can easily be gamed and abused but at least this way i know exactly where the money goes to help.

the short of it all.
fix tax codes no matter how hard it is
let the individual figure out what they want to support.
get government spending under control because there is no way this country can pay for all the slowed amounts of things that the people want in its current condition. i will be far more open to social/financial programs if we could actually justify spending money on it.

it may be naive but its my opinion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator





New York State

Interesting video- I've heard it before, but the visuals sort of underline the difference. Economics isn't really my thing, so I don't have too much to contribute here. But Pediatrician, 86k? Surgeon, 145k? (Both at 1:50) lol. Maybe after Obamacare is through with them (I kid, I kid!), but both those careers should bump you up over the $200,000 mark, at least here in the northeast.

* So sayeth the great BLS.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physicians-and-surgeons.htm#tab-5


Edit- this post came off a bit callous. It's been a long week. But at least some of the numbers cited in that video were way, way off- I'm sure it doesn't have any bearing on the take-home message, but it is interesting nonetheless. Some of those salary quotes are drastically different than reported averages, and I can't help but think it's to create an 'us vs. them' mentality, where 'us' contains everyone from the gravedigger to the pediatricians, and 'them' is nothing but CEOs, Bushes, and Kerrys. But the 2%ers and the 3%ers do pretty well for themselves, too, it's just a bit harder to begrudge them, as they generally spent 10+ years in college preparing for what they do (and, at least for the medical professions often come out of school with $300,000 in debt, thereabouts).

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 02:39:47


   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

 whembly wrote:
Just... no....

What is weath? Some really answer me that...


Extra money you have left over after all your expenses have been covered (like taxes, bills, etc), does not include pension, savings or insurance.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 02:43:11


 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Desubot wrote:
Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.

Social Mobility is unfair? The idea that people can get out of their situation with hard work is unfair?
Also, Think about it this way, I work my ass off at school and my small 18 hour a week job. Without wealth distribution i wouldnt have been given the chance to even go to school and be stuck in a dead end job at age 18. Just because someone is given money doesn't mean that they are given a free ride to wealth. I agree that just giving money to people for not working(other then a temporary method to help people with un expected life problems). But succesful people always have help, that is a fact of life.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Cheesecat wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Just... no....

What is weath? Some really answer me that...


Extra money you have left over after all your expenses have been covered (like taxes, bills, etc), does not include pension, savings or insurance.

aha... there you go!

So, next question: Is it any of your business how much "wealth" a person has?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.

Social Mobility is unfair? The idea that people can get out of their situation with hard work is unfair?


That's meritocracy, social mobility is just about reducing the restrictions between moving up or down the social ladder.
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






You see, I see it this way, people work hard, but ecause of the restrictions life has placed on them(like being born in a poor neighborhood) the work goes to waste without help.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

 whembly wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Just... no....

What is weath? Some really answer me that...


Extra money you have left over after all your expenses have been covered (like taxes, bills, etc), does not include pension, savings or insurance.

aha... there you go!

So, next question: Is it any of your business how much "wealth" a person has?


If I was to ask someone in person then "no" it is not my business, as my parents told me it is impolite to ask how much money someone makes, but it is important to the government, sociologists, economists, etc to know.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 03:14:56


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Cheesecat wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Just... no....

What is weath? Some really answer me that...


Extra money you have left over after all your expenses have been covered (like taxes, bills, etc), does not include pension, savings or insurance.

aha... there you go!

So, next question: Is it any of your business how much "wealth" a person has?


If I was to ask someone in person then "no" it is not my business, as my parents told me it is impolite to ask how much money someone makes, but it is important to the government, sociologists, economists, etc to know.

To "know"... sure...

It's like this fake letter from Bill Gates (yes, it's fake and something you'd see on an email chail, but cool):
BILL GATES' SPEECH TO MT. WHITNEY HIGH SCHOOL in Visalia, California.
Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this!

To anyone with kids of any age, here's some advice. Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.

Rule 1: Life is not fair -- get used to it!

Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping -- they called it opportunity.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you are. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

I 'epecially like rule #11.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Grey Templar wrote:
Not everyone has an equal chance, but that was never promised. Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else.


That's completely wrong.

The US has been declining in social mobility for a century, and now performs worse than most OECD countries.

Your sentence should read "Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else, unless you include all the other wealthy, developed countries, in which case you have a better chance in almost all of those."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
We’re not guaranteed wealth...

Wealth is not a civil right and most definitely not enumerated in the Constitution...

People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...


Sure, and someone would be wrong to claim that per the constitution they have a right to wealth and a comfortable living.

But, you'll also note, there is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing that person gets to keep everything they are paid, and that no-one else can possibly recieve any of it.

As a result, it is just as wrong to claim that a person has a right to keep all of what he is paid, and government has no right to tax the wealthy more heavily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.


That is also completely wrong.

"Their results show that states that have the highest government spending for programs such as Welfare and education spending have the highest levels of intergenerational mobility. They found, overall, that an 84% increase in government spending across all of the states led to a 34.6% decline in intergenerational elasticity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_Study_of_Income_Dynamics


Seriously, giving enough welfare that people have some control over their lives and don't have the pressure to work 60+ hours allows time to study, and it allows the accumulation of some kind of wealth, so a person isn't losing money constantly on rubbish cars and short term loans (being poor is expensive).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 03:32:05


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
We’re not guaranteed wealth...

Wealth is not a civil right and most definitely not enumerated in the Constitution...

People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...


Sure, and someone would be wrong to claim that per the constitution they have a right to wealth and a comfortable living.

But, you'll also note, there is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing that person gets to keep everything they are paid, and that no-one else can possibly recieve any of it.

As a result, it is just as wrong to claim that a person has a right to keep all of what he is paid, and government has no right to tax the wealthy more heavily.

What are you exactly saying?

Because property (aka, wealth) gainfully earned is protected in the Bill of Rights and numerous case laws.

I mean, sure the wealthy can be taxed more at higher rate, because it's accepted. At the same time, we could go to a Flat-Tax system and it'll still be "legal" (whether it's a good idea or not, that's up to debate).

What are you really REALLY trying to say?

Let's pick on Bill Gates... a multi-billionaire. It would be legal to tax him at high rate. But, it'd be ridiculously illegal to say "hey... your first billion, that's enough... anything after that, just give it to the state".

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
THATs theft... no matter how much you're worth.

Paying a tax, that's a civic duty. But increasing the tax rate, just so that the gubmint can redistribute wealth IS theft.


No, it isn't. Theft, by definition, has to be illegal. If a law is passed by the government of the day, it isn't theft.

This is why it's just as silly when the left wing will claim 'property is theft'. Because no, property laws are established by a democratically elected government, and if we're going to accept that anything has legitimacy then we have to accept that the laws of the government, provided they are constitutional, do.

From there, it's clear that it's a nonsense when anyone picks out one set of laws they don't like out of the whole system created by government, and declares that one bit theft. You don't get to look at the contract laws, property laws, corporation laws and all the rest that build a modern capitalist economy, and then declare the one bit you don't like, progressive income tax, to be theft.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
THATs theft... no matter how much you're worth.

Paying a tax, that's a civic duty. But increasing the tax rate, just so that the gubmint can redistribute wealth IS theft.


No, it isn't. Theft, by definition, has to be illegal. If a law is passed by the government of the day, it isn't theft.

This is why it's just as silly when the left wing will claim 'property is theft'. Because no, property laws are established by a democratically elected government, and if we're going to accept that anything has legitimacy then we have to accept that the laws of the government, provided they are constitutional, do.

From there, it's clear that it's a nonsense when anyone picks out one set of laws they don't like out of the whole system created by government, and declares that one bit theft. You don't get to look at the contract laws, property laws, corporation laws and all the rest that build a modern capitalist economy, and then declare the one bit you don't like, progressive income tax, to be theft.

Woah...woah.

I'm not 'splaining myself well here buddy.

Taxation to support a government and the services they provide is fine.

It's when you get into the class warfare to increase taxes just so that you can redistribute wealth is what I take umbrage from... that's all.

And really... this topic is nothing more than a bitch-fest. If we don't like the certain aspects, engage the political process.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Ontario

Policy discussion is engaging the political process.

DCDA:90-S++G+++MB++I+Pw40k98-D+++A+++/areWD007R++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.


Sure, and so the point is to build a system whereby everyone gets as much as possible. When that system tilts too far towards equality for all you lose the incentive to work, and well we all know how that worked out for the USSR. But when you tilt the system too far the other way you get exploitation and wealth concentrated among a very small minority, and well know how well that worked out for Victorian England.

And so the point is to find a balance. And the plain reality of the situation is that anyone who thinks the current system in the US isn't heavily tilted towards the wealthy is, to be perfectly frank, completely delusional.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in au
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




Wollongong, Australia

This is terrible. The top 1% should feel bad about it but they are donkey-caves who move jobs offshore! Give it 20 or so years and America will be that inequal it will be like Tsarist Russia.

 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 BryllCream wrote:
Lack of available capital isn't really holding back our economy. We have a lack of demand, caused by recession and government cuts, while FTSE 100 companies have plenty of cash. Wealth is being redistributed in our economy - one shop shuts and another opens (even if it's virtual). But it's not growing, and that's not because of a lack of money to invest.


Yep, there is trillions available to invest. But when the economy is poor, there is little reason to do so (better to earn 2% and cover inflation, than build a new factory and lose 10% a year).

The point being that as the economy slowly recovers then investment opportunities will open up, and that investment will further encourage the recovery. Just as long as no-one does anything to screw up the recovery.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 04:00:04


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.


Sure, and so the point is to build a system whereby everyone gets as much as possible. When that system tilts too far towards equality for all you lose the incentive to work, and well we all know how that worked out for the USSR. But when you tilt the system too far the other way you get exploitation and wealth concentrated among a very small minority, and well know how well that worked out for Victorian England.

And so the point is to find a balance. And the plain reality of the situation is that anyone who thinks the current system in the US isn't heavily tilted towards the wealthy is, to be perfectly frank, completely delusional.

Delusional? Really?
For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top 1 percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.

Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.

The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households won't pay any federal taxes.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Grey Templar wrote:
Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.


"In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."

Man I love that quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
But, more so, something must be done to "incentivise" more private investiment for job growth... how do you do that?
-Get out of the way for one (meaning relax some regulations).
-Targeted taxs cut


Actually, private investment is one place where I'm very 'private sector knows best'. Let them invest where they perceive the best opportunities, and don't even think about telling them how to do it (especially in the US, your venture capital system is rightly the envy of the world).

When in recession, basically you just have government maintain aggregate demand through its own infrastructure projects. Build roads, rail, bridges. Revitalise port facilities. Whatever. Point being that pumps money in to the economy, and helps maintain aggregate demand to some extent. You also get the added benefit that when you've got lots of unemployed construction workers it's the cheapest time to build new facilities.

In time, as the private sector recovers and economic activity grows the private sector will begin to find more and more decent opportunities and begin to invest again. As this happens government should lay off on its stimulus spending.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 04:09:49


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.


"In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again."

Man I love that quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
But, more so, something must be done to "incentivise" more private investiment for job growth... how do you do that?
-Get out of the way for one (meaning relax some regulations).
-Targeted taxs cut


Actually, private investment is one place where I'm very 'private sector knows best'. Let them invest where they perceive the best opportunities, and don't even think about telling them how to do it (especially in the US, your venture capital system is rightly the envy of the world).

When in recession, basically you just have government maintain aggregate demand through its own infrastructure projects. Build roads, rail, bridges. Revitalise port facilities. Whatever. Point being that pumps money in to the economy, and helps maintain aggregate demand to some extent. You also get the added benefit that when you've got lots of unemployed construction workers it's the cheapest time to build new facilities.

In time, as the private sector recovers and economic activity grows the private sector will begin to find more and more decent opportunities and begin to invest again. As this happens government should lay off on its stimulus spending.

I agree with you there buddy!

The problem now is that most investors are "sitting" on their cash... there's a distinct lack of movement on this front.

Not sure how we can get that moving again.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: