Political & Elections

winchester · Guru

RE: Here's what I don't understand: what do millionaires DO with their money that stimulates the economy?

winchester · Guru

Today, any poverty in the world is caused by an absence of capitalism, not the existence of capitalism

The Poor

catahoula · Guru

1. Charity is inefficient, and not nearly enough. Donations and foreign aid, already too little, are mismanaged and don't solve the real problems.

Compared to the mismanaged foreign aid, charity is not ineffecient. And the word you were looking for is "stolen", not "mismanaged". Usually, anyway.

Besides... the fact neither have solved the problem doesn't support your premise.

Two facts: (1) There are many people with far more than they need for life; (2) there are many more people with far less than they need for life. I propose that rather than allowing group 2 to starve to death or die for want of other necessities (as they do now), excess wealth should be taken from group 1. I see no adequate reason why some argument about theft (of property they have no explainable right to) is more important than the lives of fellow human beings.

Has this ever worked before? Anywhere?

2. There can be oppression from more than one front; a government and a foreign corporation can oppress the same person.

If you're villifying corporatations, then you'll need to find a better alternative.

3. China's worse than the US for living conditions, but not as bad as much of the world. The starving children remark (as yet unanswered) was not aimed at China, as the government redistributes enough so that everyone has basic necessities, though of course those in power have much more. I was primarily speaking of other parts of Asia, Africa, and some parts of Latin America.

China's worse in more ways than living conditions but when we've finally exported enough jobs and lawyers their way, we'll see.

Starving kids do tug at the heartstrings, even if they are the product of their parents rather than I, but: why is it always the starving kids that are front and center in these arguments, the ones that never seem to age? Why don't we talk about their parents instead, before we have to start looking in the eyes of the next generation of starving kids?

4. Also, while starvation is not a particular problem in the US, homelessness and death from lack of medical coverage are problems. If we are to hold that all humans have the "inalienable right" to life, and just government must be formed to protect that right, I see no reason why homelessness and lack of medical care should be allowed to persist.

Given the size of the US safety net, homelessness is simply a personal choice for many of them. Even with meds, counseling, whatever, it persists and sometimes identifying a problem doesn't mean you can do anything about it. If throwing more of someone else's money at it has worked anywhere else, I'm not aware of it.

-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 16th of August 2011 09:52:08 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 16th of August 2011 09:53:37 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

" I propose that rather than allowing group 2 to starve to death or die for want of other necessities (as they do now), excess wealth should be taken from group 1"

And how might you propose getting whatever you deem "excess wealth" from group 1 over to group 2? As you say, " Donations and foreign aid, already too little, are mismanaged and don't solve the real problems." And, "Why do you keep thinking I'm saying we should give the money to those third world governments?" So how do you intend to transfer the money? Unless you have aspirations to be God (and maybe you do), I'm not quite sure how it's going to happen.

As far as, "Those governments shouldn't exist, nor should our own, nor should US currency; only a world, classless, stateless society wherein the means of production are controlled by all in collective can mean true equality." I am quite interested how you intend to change the entire world, with all their different forms of government and lack of cohesiveness. You think people in the US are divided, try the Arab world who are divided by country, by religion, by tribe, by family. Good luck coercing or forcing everyone in the world into your system. Perhaps you have an alien ship with its weapons trained upon the entire world, ready to destroy it unless they all agree to submit to your will?

I'm really not being sarcastic. I just don't see any other way.

And as far as dodging the important question of, "Could you look those starving children in the eye and say "You don't get to live, because you don't have enough money"? which I actually didn't dodge because I thought it was a theoretical question. I don't go to third world countries. I purposefully avoid certain areas that I could travel to because it bothers me to see the children. I give them money and get swarmed, it depresses me. Though I do give to certain organizations that I believe are worthy charities that spend most of their money doing the work, not paying big salaries to CEO's. But I think the answers to their plight are more practical ones than the alien ship theory.

It is virtually impossible to change people. You can try everything, and in the end you can convince them of very little. It's hard enough to effect tiny changes in the people who love you, and trying to change the hearts of the entire world (though an admirable thought) is absolutely impossible.

Billy · Senior Member

catahoula wrote:
These starving children you speak of, Billy - because anyone starving in the US is really in need of psychiatric help, rather than a hot meal - these must be the kids of the third-world oppressed, right?
Ignoring the charitable efforts of individuals, church congregrations, and the US taxpayer towards feeding these kids, and ignoring the significant outlays spent towards teaching the idea of family planning and contraception to the parents, we seem left with assigning blame to the capitalist by default.
Those Chinese peasants for one, the same being held down by US industrialists, rather than the Tiananmen Square crowd... they aren't seeing their standard of living improve naturally, by dint of the manufacturing jobs that have come their way?

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 15th of August 2011 08:12:20 PM

1. Charity is inefficient, and not nearly enough. Donations and foreign aid, already too little, are mismanaged and don't solve the real problems. Two facts: (1) There are many people with far more than they need for life; (2) there are many more people with far less than they need for life. I propose that rather than allowing group 2 to starve to death or die for want of other necessities (as they do now), excess wealth should be taken from group 1. I see no adequate reason why some argument about theft (of property they have no explainable right to) is more important than the lives of fellow human beings.

2. There can be oppression from more than one front; a government and a foreign corporation can oppress the same person.

3. China's worse than the US for living conditions, but not as bad as much of the world. The starving children remark (as yet unanswered) was not aimed at China, as the government redistributes enough so that everyone has basic necessities, though of course those in power have much more. I was primarily speaking of other parts of Asia, Africa, and some parts of Latin America.

4. Also, while starvation is not a particular problem in the US, homelessness and death from lack of medical coverage are problems. If we are to hold that all humans have the "inalienable right" to life, and just government must be formed to protect that right, I see no reason why homelessness and lack of medical care should be allowed to persist.

catahoula · Guru

These starving children you speak of, Billy - because anyone starving in the US is really in need of psychiatric help, rather than a hot meal - these must be the kids of the third-world oppressed, right?

Ignoring the charitable efforts of individuals, church congregrations, and the US taxpayer towards feeding these kids, and ignoring the significant outlays spent towards teaching the idea of family planning and contraception to the parents, we seem left with assigning blame to the capitalist by default.

Those Chinese peasants for one, the same being held down by US industrialists, rather than the Tiananmen Square crowd... they aren't seeing their standard of living improve naturally, by dint of the manufacturing jobs that have come their way?

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 15th of August 2011 08:12:20 PM

Billy · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:
It is obviously illogical to have an argument with someone who truly belives that money is a zero sum game. That if someone has accumulated alot of it, therefore it must be at the expense of many others. That if money is just taken from those people who are taking up all the resources and given to others who need them that all would be perfect in the world. Do you not think that the Bill Gateses of the world have contributed, though massive innovation and jobs for many, many people, and intelligent targeted charities to erradicate disease, far more than they consume? That a person who is spending billions on actually making a difference in the world every year, who is planning on leaving almost all of his fortune to the charitable trust....would be far more useful than denying that individual the opportunity to create, invest and direct where it is his billions go. Far better to have not allowed him to accumulate or profit in the first place, or to confiscate his ill gotten gains and give it to those trustworthy third world governments to dole out for loaves of bread.

I'm sure that what I spent on that glass of good red wine I had last night, and your tasty draft beer or marijuana or whatever your treat of choice is, probably cost some kid in Africa or China his life. Just think, what we spend on those few simple pleasures could feed a starving child for a year. And here we are so heartless to continue to do so. I'll try to make sure I don't enjoy it, to feel better about myself.

Your views are passionate, but way too simplistic.

Why do you keep thinking I'm saying we should give the money to those third world governments? Those governments shouldn't exist, nor should our own, nor should US currency; only a world, classless, stateless society wherein the means of production are controlled by all in collective can mean true equality.

I neither drink nor smoke, though I'm sure I could eat simpler, as I usually try to. But we must eat, and it's not like there's a lot of non-corporate sources of such things.

You have dodged the important question, so I shall repeat:

Could you look those starving children in the eye and say "You don't get to live, because you don't have enough money"?

busdriver11 · Guru

It is obviously illogical to have an argument with someone who truly belives that money is a zero sum game. That if someone has accumulated alot of it, therefore it must be at the expense of many others. That if money is just taken from those people who are taking up all the resources and given to others who need them that all would be perfect in the world. Do you not think that the Bill Gateses of the world have contributed, though massive innovation and jobs for many, many people, and intelligent targeted charities to erradicate disease, far more than they consume? That a person who is spending billions on actually making a difference in the world every year, who is planning on leaving almost all of his fortune to the charitable trust....would be far more useful than denying that individual the opportunity to create, invest and direct where it is his billions go. Far better to have not allowed him to accumulate or profit in the first place, or to confiscate his ill gotten gains and give it to those trustworthy third world governments to dole out for loaves of bread.

I'm sure that what I spent on that glass of good red wine I had last night, and your tasty draft beer or marijuana or whatever your treat of choice is, probably cost some kid in Africa or China his life. Just think, what we spend on those few simple pleasures could feed a starving child for a year. And here we are so heartless to continue to do so. I'll try to make sure I don't enjoy it, to feel better about myself.

Your views are passionate, but way too simplistic.

Billy · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:
So do you think that confiscating the wealth of whomever has, "excess wealth" is the answer, and you can trust some specific person or group to take care of the honest redistribution of this "excess wealth" and all will be fixed? And that the oppressed in Africa, Latin America and China, who are they oppressed by? The rich people in the world, or their corrupt and brutal governments? Whom is Bill Gates oppressing (besides my son, who didn't hire him for an internship this summer...that cruel man, we would have really appreciated that).

The poor of the third world are being oppressed by both the despots of their countries and the rich of the world; indeed, the US often props up those dictatorial regimes, out of business interests.

Who is Bill Gates oppressing? Well, let's see where he gained his wealth... Computers, right? I wonder where all the hardware is made... And he has around 60 billion dollars, right? That money represents a large portion of the finite resources of this planet, no? So, by having so much (say, enough to buy 20 billion loafs of bread), he limits the ability of others to have enough, since the Earth's resources are not being divided equally.

busdriver11 wrote:
Why would you not want to be wealthy? You could then take care of yourself and your family completely, without depending upon the mercy of any government or individual. You could donate your wealth to any cause you felt worthy, using it to do great things or change people's lives directly.If you want your, "fellow man to eat, to drink, to have a home, to be healthy, to be safe, to have equality, to own his labor, to have dignity," how does it benefit them for you not to have money? Obviously it doesn't. It benefits them the most if you make as much as you can, take care of your family, and then use your money to help others. Desiring to be poor doesn't purify you in any way, it doesn't help anyone.

Being a revolutionary might, though. A single person, even generating wealth in a manner dependent upon oppression, cannot hope to end human poverty or starvation by charity. Oh, sure, charity seems reasonable enough, until you realize that right this moment, thousands of our fellow human beings are starving to death, while others live a rich and lavish lifestyle.

I hold that it is right to take from the millionaire to give to the starving. What would you do, if presented with the choice of either "redistributing the wealth" by taking from the wealthy and giving to the starving, or just letting the world's poor starve to death? Would you take from the rich, or would you simply let your fellow humans suffer and die?

Could you look them in the eye and say "You don't get to live, because you don't have enough money"?

busdriver11 · Guru

"Sure, there's 300 million people in America, and the upper and middle classes can be discounted for any revolutionary purposes, though there may be some following in labor. But then, there are 580 million in Latin America, over 1 billion in Africa, a couple billion oppressed Chinese peasants, another billion and a half economically oppressed Indians, and so on. Seems to me that if the rest of humanity gets it into their heads that the world needs to change, the relatively small upper class would be in danger. Sure, they have a lot of power, and there'd be a great fight of it, but there's a chance, and isn't that where it always starts?

Personally, I'm not out to "gain more." The last thing I want is excess wealth; if I wanted it, I'd enter my university's business program, "ranked" as one of the best for the salaries of graduates. I find excess wealth to be wrong, however, and its accumulation to be immoral. My ideals and goals derive from one simple desire: I want my fellow man to eat, to drink, to have a home, to be healthy, to be safe, to have equality, to own his labor, to have dignity. That's it; otherwise, I could think of much more"

So do you think that confiscating the wealth of whomever has, "excess wealth" is the answer, and you can trust some specific person or group to take care of the honest redistribution of this "excess wealth" and all will be fixed? And that the oppressed in Africa, Latin America and China, who are they oppressed by? The rich people in the world, or their corrupt and brutal governments? Whom is Bill Gates oppressing (besides my son, who didn't hire him for an internship this summer...that cruel man, we would have really appreciated that).

Why would you not want to be wealthy? You could then take care of yourself and your family completely, without depending upon the mercy of any government or individual. You could donate your wealth to any cause you felt worthy, using it to do great things or change people's lives directly.If you want your, "fellow man to eat, to drink, to have a home, to be healthy, to be safe, to have equality, to own his labor, to have dignity," how does it benefit them for you not to have money? Obviously it doesn't. It benefits them the most if you make as much as you can, take care of your family, and then use your money to help others. Desiring to be poor doesn't purify you in any way, it doesn't help anyone.

Billy · Senior Member

SamuraiLandshark wrote:
That's my point, exactly, Billy.
Communism or Marxism/Leninism, if you would prefer - is a flawed ideology. Most of them are, but honestly, can't think of a less realistic one or one that anyone would want to live in. Sure, it's just my opinion, but it also happens to have been the one of political refugees over the course of decades during the Cold War.
All it takes is for one in power to corrupt it - take more from their comrades - for the ideology to be over, and the reality to begin. Humans are notoriously greedy - for good and bad reasons. But what is truly greedy? Taking an extra slice of bread? Expecting to have your own home?
I can set aside food to care for my family in an earthquake or natural disaster. But what is fair? Should I give more of my food to the poor than I already do? It's a totally human response to want to take care of one's loved ones.
Some people need more medical care than others. What is fair? Should our medical system focus on preemies and the elderly, or should everyone get the same? There are only an infinite amount of resources on the planet. Should everyone get the exact same amount?
Ism's like communism and socialism are flawed. You can say capitalism is flawed, too - but it is just about the only system that breeds innovation, which helps allow more resources to come out of less. You think you can develop the next best pharmalogical cure in a communistic state run health system? Perhaps in a socialistic one - if the drug is considered appropriate for the masses and useful for everyone.

But what if you have a rare disorder? You are waiting on an organ transplant or for a new innovative treatment in a communistic medical system - do you really think you are going to get the most innovative care or even treated? What if you care required exorbinant costs? Would the system allow it?
What if you are disabled and can't care for yourself? Have you seen that documentary on the mentally ill and how they are treated in the Cuban health care system. Appalling.
Most things in theory sound better than they do in ideology. You are definitely welcome to preferring that system, whether practical or not.
Gotta ask, Billy - what do you do for a living?

You keep referencing the Cold War and Cuba, yet those have nothing to do with communism, beyond propaganda. Should we decry republics, as well, because they also claimed to be those things? Communism has a clear definition; in discussing such things, using these facts is helpful.

And it was Marx who said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It seems fairly obvious that people should receive the amount of medical treatment they need, and not the amount a large corporation says they should receive, based upon how much cotton-fiber paper they have. Such things should not determine who lives and who dies.

Yes, communism has the potential to collapse, revolutions fail or are taken over by greedy individuals, human failings creep into all systems, the potential for tyranny is always there. It is important to always remember that, so as to watch for it. However, the potential for failure or corruption is not sufficient cause not to act against current failure and corruption.

People say that humans are greedy, perhaps innately so, yet it is not necessarily greed that stands in human nature, but a desire to seek out the conditions most suitable for life. That is the basic instinct, and that can be met with human equality and rights. Mankind once lived in primitive communism, in tribes, so why is it less possible for there to be modern communism, in modern communes?

Of course it all sounds best in theory, and of course there are great challenges in implimentation, but that's no reason to leave a downright unacceptable status quo. Oh, perhaps it doesn't seem so unacceptable to the top 1% of the world, but most people live pretty messed up lives in this world, and it's because some want more, even when others have too little.

What do I do for a living? Well, I'm a student, and my job doesn't come close to fully supporting me, so the answer is really just "student." I thought you were aware that I was a student?

busdriver11 wrote:
"But you misjudge my meaning; I do not intend to merely be poor, from guilt, I intend to effect a change. And when a system is rotten and corrupted, what must be done? Why, it is torn down, and built anew."

And how does one do that? How does one take down a system that most people may not think is utopian, but is better than just about any other system in the world (look around you, the majority of the world has lived in poverty, oppression and corruption, far before the US and British imperialists came about). How are you going to enforce the will of a few to destroy the lives of the majority? People don't desire to give up their freedom for someone else's vision of justice. Plus, you tear down a system and it can be hard to predict what comes after, it is often worse.

You can't change human nature. It's always about power, and those who speak about "revolution" and "for the people" are always trying to use the malcontent and the idealists purely to gain more.

I wonder... are most people in the world content with the way things are?

Sure, there's 300 million people in America, and the upper and middle classes can be discounted for any revolutionary purposes, though there may be some following in labor. But then, there are 580 million in Latin America, over 1 billion in Africa, a couple billion oppressed Chinese peasants, another billion and a half economically oppressed Indians, and so on. Seems to me that if the rest of humanity gets it into their heads that the world needs to change, the relatively small upper class would be in danger. Sure, they have a lot of power, and there'd be a great fight of it, but there's a chance, and isn't that where it always starts?

Personally, I'm not out to "gain more." The last thing I want is excess wealth; if I wanted it, I'd enter my university's business program, "ranked" as one of the best for the salaries of graduates. I find excess wealth to be wrong, however, and its accumulation to be immoral. My ideals and goals derive from one simple desire: I want my fellow man to eat, to drink, to have a home, to be healthy, to be safe, to have equality, to own his labor, to have dignity. That's it; otherwise, I could think of much more enjoyable ways to live my life.

busdriver11 · Guru

"But you misjudge my meaning; I do not intend to merely be poor, from guilt, I intend to effect a change. And when a system is rotten and corrupted, what must be done? Why, it is torn down, and built anew."

And how does one do that? How does one take down a system that most people may not think is utopian, but is better than just about any other system in the world (look around you, the majority of the world has lived in poverty, oppression and corruption, far before the US and British imperialists came about). How are you going to enforce the will of a few to destroy the lives of the majority? People don't desire to give up their freedom for someone else's vision of justice. Plus, you tear down a system and it can be hard to predict what comes after, it is often worse.

You can't change human nature. It's always about power, and those who speak about "revolution" and "for the people" are always trying to use the malcontent and the idealists purely to gain more.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

That's my point, exactly, Billy.

Communism or Marxism/Leninism, if you would prefer - is a flawed ideology. Most of them are, but honestly, can't think of a less realistic one or one that anyone would want to live in. Sure, it's just my opinion, but it also happens to have been the one of political refugees over the course of decades during the Cold War.

All it takes is for one in power to corrupt it - take more from their comrades - for the ideology to be over, and the reality to begin. Humans are notoriously greedy - for good and bad reasons. But what is truly greedy? Taking an extra slice of bread? Expecting to have your own home?

I can set aside food to care for my family in an earthquake or natural disaster. But what is fair? Should I give more of my food to the poor than I already do? It's a totally human response to want to take care of one's loved ones.

Some people need more medical care than others. What is fair? Should our medical system focus on preemies and the elderly, or should everyone get the same? There are only an infinite amount of resources on the planet. Should everyone get the exact same amount?

Ism's like communism and socialism are flawed. You can say capitalism is flawed, too - but it is just about the only system that breeds innovation, which helps allow more resources to come out of less. You think you can develop the next best pharmalogical cure in a communistic state run health system? Perhaps in a socialistic one - if the drug is considered appropriate for the masses and useful for everyone.

But what if you have a rare disorder? You are waiting on an organ transplant or for a new innovative treatment in a communistic medical system - do you really think you are going to get the most innovative care or even treated? What if you care required exorbinant costs? Would the system allow it?

What if you are disabled and can't care for yourself? Have you seen that documentary on the mentally ill and how they are treated in the Cuban health care system. Appalling.

Most things in theory sound better than they do in ideology. You are definitely welcome to preferring that system, whether practical or not.

Gotta ask, Billy - what do you do for a living?

Billy · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:
If you live in Ethiopa and don't have any resources, perhaps you shouldn't have kids? Why should you be able to take money from someone in America because you are living beyond your means?

They aren't living "within their means" because they have no means. Do you propose that they all simply roll over and die?

busdriver11 wrote:

I doubt that all the people in India working in the call centers feel highly exploited, but lucky to have the job. And the programmers from foreign countries that the tech companies hire are fighting to get the jobs. Even people who work at miserable factory work prefer to do that at foreign factories instead of starve or work for an even worse local company(take China for example, whom you can try to blame their troubles on the western exploiters, though they certainly have control over much of everything, as they own us anyways).

This attitude sounds like a mental disease that will make life hard for you in the future, if you display it to your employers. Perhaps the best thing you can do to alleviate your guilt over your good fortune to be born in the country founded by exploiters, prospering on the suffering of others, is to spend some time in a country where you can be at one with the miserable masses who are persecuted by their government....and when they beat you and throw you into prison for daring to express your views, maybe you'll realize this freedom thing isn't such a bad deal after all. Even if some people have the fortitude and desire that leads them to success and others don't. Freedom may not lead to ultimate fairness (ie we all suffer and are miserable together), but lack of it does not lead to, "food, water, shelter, safety, health" for all.

Being poor is not a noble thing. And very often, in this country, it is a choice, though certainly not always. Being wealthy is not dishonorable nor is it honorable. Ensuring that you are poor to assauge your guilt helps nobody. Consider working to become wealthy so you are not a burden on others, can take care of your family, and donate the excess to whatever cause you desire.

Why would they feel "lucky to have the job"? Because of the lack of decent jobs? Because of the economic state of their country? Because of the mass of political, social, and economic ills facing them due to a combination of colonial British oppression and neo-colonial capitalist corporate oppression? Yes, they may find the jobs better than no jobs, no food, and no life, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

And oh, those foreign countries lack freedom, too? Yet I'm sure you're perfectly fine living in your great country, while they starve and suffer. Because you don't have to see it, right? And if a charity occaisionally shows a commercial about them, you avert your eyes and send a check and think you're doing good. Is that about it?

Ah, "very often" these welfare queens and lazy poor people are that way by choice. Way to fall back on the conservative talking points. But you misjudge my meaning; I do not intend to merely be poor, from guilt, I intend to effect a change. And when a system is rotten and corrupted, what must be done? Why, it is torn down, and built anew.

busdriver11 wrote:
To add onto that, Billy, I would like to ask you what country and what point in time did these Marxist theories actually work? Was there ever a utopian place and time where these theories, put in practice, created a society where these theories prevented poverty and oppression? Or did they merely serve as a means for the government to practice complete control over people's lives, at the point of a gun, through fear, torture, imprisonment and murder?

Humanity has never lived in communism, but that's hardly an argument in your favor. Before the first democracy, humanity had never lived in democracy, yet that did not render it impossible, simply as of yet unrealized. Communism has never been put into practice in a country (nor could it be, in only one country). It has been used as a piece of propaganda, but all those who have falsely claimed to be Marxist have falsely claimed to be democracies, too. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was as socialist as it was made up of republics; the Communist People's Republic of China was/is as communist as it was/is a people's republic. It seems downright silly to buy into one half of their propaganda but not the other.

SamuraiLandshark wrote:
Theory and ideology do not mesh with reality, particularly when you discuss the haves and the have nots. I appreciate the idea of it, Billy, but it is never, ever going to happen.
Just ask anyone who lived in Communist Russia. I would be happy to put you in touch with one who left with nothing more than the clothing on their backs and no jobs to come to this country. Her family and friends that stayed behind nearly starved to death.

The USSR was another example of a society in which the powerful exploited and oppressed the weak. See my above explanations; claiming an ideology for propaganda purposes does not make it so.

Unless you think 18th century, slave-owning America, when only rich white men who owned great deals of land could vote, was the paragon of liberty and democracy that it claimed to be

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Theory and ideology do not mesh with reality, particularly when you discuss the haves and the have nots. I appreciate the idea of it, Billy, but it is never, ever going to happen.

Just ask anyone who lived in Communist Russia. I would be happy to put you in touch with one who left with nothing more than the clothing on their backs and no jobs to come to this country. Her family and friends that stayed behind nearly starved to death.

busdriver11 · Guru

To add onto that, Billy, I would like to ask you what country and what point in time did these Marxist theories actually work? Was there ever a utopian place and time where these theories, put in practice, created a society where these theories prevented poverty and oppression? Or did they merely serve as a means for the government to practice complete control over people's lives, at the point of a gun, through fear, torture, imprisonment and murder?

busdriver11 · Guru

I doubt that all the people in India working in the call centers feel highly exploited, but lucky to have the job. And the programmers from foreign countries that the tech companies hire are fighting to get the jobs. Even people who work at miserable factory work prefer to do that at foreign factories instead of starve or work for an even worse local company(take China for example, whom you can try to blame their troubles on the western exploiters, though they certainly have control over much of everything, as they own us anyways).

This attitude sounds like a mental disease that will make life hard for you in the future, if you display it to your employers. Perhaps the best thing you can do to alleviate your guilt over your good fortune to be born in the country founded by exploiters, prospering on the suffering of others, is to spend some time in a country where you can be at one with the miserable masses who are persecuted by their government....and when they beat you and throw you into prison for daring to express your views, maybe you'll realize this freedom thing isn't such a bad deal after all. Even if some people have the fortitude and desire that leads them to success and others don't. Freedom may not lead to ultimate fairness (ie we all suffer and are miserable together), but lack of it does not lead to, "food, water, shelter, safety, health" for all.

Being poor is not a noble thing. And very often, in this country, it is a choice, though certainly not always. Being wealthy is not dishonorable nor is it honorable. Ensuring that you are poor to assauge your guilt helps nobody. Consider working to become wealthy so you are not a burden on others, can take care of your family, and donate the excess to whatever cause you desire.

soccerguy315 · Guru

If you live in Ethiopa and don't have any resources, perhaps you shouldn't have kids? Why should you be able to take money from someone in America because you are living beyond your means?

Billy · Senior Member

You are, sadly, blinded by the system in which you live. The dictator's exploitation of his people is blunt (perhaps to all but his own people), but the capitalist's exploitation of the poor must be more subtle, lest it draw their ire. One who makes a great deal of money in the US does so because of the wealth and prosperity of their country; said wealth and prosperity derives from the neo-colonial exploitation of the third world by the first. Someone who invests or runs a company that manufactures items (anything from toys to shoes to shirts to soda to computers) may become successful due to its profits; profits generated by paying foreign workers an unlivable wage for their labor, and having them work in horrid conditions not legal in the US. One who makes a great deal of money by offering services to people with money are also profiting from this, as they profit only because their clients profit (from the toil of underpaid, overworked laborers). So too can we see the wealth generated from the selling of resources ravage continents for the capitalist's profits. Buying blood diamonds is more profitable than setting up good working conditions, so that is done. Overthrowing democratically elected Marxists to replace them with pro-US dictators stands to make our country profit, so we do that too.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the rights and liberties of mankind. If you hold that all ought to have the right to life, and all that entails (food, water, shelter, safety, health) and that is is our duty to look after our fellow man, than it is my system. If, however, you hold that anyone should be allowed to profit at the expense of others, and that children may starve and die so that others may live in luxury, then it is your system.

Marx was among the men to contribute to theories of the liberation of the poor; I described none of them as admirable, but I find that their theories are, especially in contrast to those of poverty and oppression.

busdriver11 · Guru

That was well written and impassioned, but honestly didn't make much sense to me. First, this thread is about millionaires, not billionaires. If you end up making a great deal of money in the future, whether it is through hard work, circumstance of fortune, or heredity (sure, we can only wish for that one), will it be because of you that millions are starving, you are taking the food out of the mouthes of babes by your success? Unless you are a dictator of a poor country, ravaging the country of its resources, I don't think so. If you choose to become a doctor (in a highly paid specialty), pay hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of taxes on your income of say, $600K, being a helpful and positive member of society, are you part of the, "sheer decadence of their exploiters, the rich?"

You are talking completely different issues. There are many countries where what you're talking about actually happens. This ain't one of em, for the most part. If you must talk about billionaires, look at the evil exploiter, Bill Gates, who has done more for those kids in Africa to erradicate disease and poverty than any country can claim to. And he actually makes people account for the money, only donates to what actually works...unlike what our idiotic government does by passing money to the government of another county, enhancing those exploiters you're talking about, only allowing a miniscule amount to trickle down to the needy.

Billy, what you're talking about makes perfect sense in reguards to dictatorial leaders of impoverished nations. But it doesn't make sense in a conversation about what millionaires do to stimulate the economy.

And is the admirable man whom you are quoting Karl Marx? Who let four of his own children starve to death while he was, "writing and formulating his theories about the nature of society and how he believed it could be improved, as well as campaigning for socialism?" I believe he would have been more admirable to actually work for pay instead, allowing his children to live.

Billy · Senior Member

Presumably, in such a system as I describe, money and the state would not exist in the same manner, so you wouldn't have to worry about making X amount too much or little money and there wouldn't be a state taking money in taxes. It would also preclude a market economy.

And the philosophy was written by men who had worked their whole lives, so attacking it by saying I'm young is hardly helpful. It's not based on my own desires (or "jealousy") at all, as I'm quite sure I could make large sums of money, but rather upon the sufferings of billions of people, the millions of children starving to death, the oppressed workers, the world's poor, contrasted with the sheer decadence of their exploiters, the rich.

It's the philosophy of one who hates suffering, who despises inequality, who thinks that all men should eat, should have a home, should be tended to in sickness, should be empowered by knowledge, should have dignity, should own their own labor.

It is not the philosophy of one who feels entitled to more because they "earned it," when that term can mean most anything (the billionaire may have "worked hard," just as a thief may be "working hard" to make money). It is not the philosophy of one envious of the rich, for it holds that no man should have so much, while others have so little.

You don't want "your money" "confiscated," but can you tell me why you should own it? Trace it all back to birth; if you were born to starving parents in Ethiopia, you never would have had the chance to "earn" the money. The money is a stake in an economy that is too much for too few, and it is part of the problem.

We live in a screwed up world. Maybe you can justify your views within the context of this 4% of the world, but I choose to be a part of all humanity, and once you level the playing field and provide for the "inalienable rights" of all human beings, then you'll find there are not enough resources left for some to be billionaires.

busdriver11 · Guru

"They mainly hire poor people for barely livable wages and call it economic stimulation. Technically, it's a little more than if they had just put the money in a big pile, but far less than if they simply weren't allowed to have so much in the first place."

We personally rarely hire anyone to do work on our property because it is not cheap. Unless you're willing to go to Home Depot and hire an illegal, which we are not willing to do, it is expensive. I'd love to have a maid, my husband would love to have a gardener, and they charge big bucks. Sure, many of the owners of these businesses take a good portion of the profits and pay their workers low wages, but to me the consumer---I'm paying alot of money to do something that we could do ourselves, no matter whom we pay, a company or an individual.

And how does that work there, simply not allowing people to not have so much in the first place? You make too much in income or save too much in your bank account, the government just confiscates it (for us whom earn money by the paycheck, that's pretty much happens anyways). So me and my husband earn an hourly salary, based upon how much we work. If, in your system, they are only going to allow us to make X dollars, and then they confiscate the rest, what are the chances that we make X dollars for the year, and then just go on vacation? About 100%, I'd say. I don't know many people who would work for free, so whom does that help anyways? Will that help stimulate the economy? If I can only make X dollars, then I'm sure going to spend alot less. I'm not working one minute for free, or just to indulge the governments excess spending habits. The job isn't that much fun.

That philosophy sounds like that of someone who has not yet had the experience of working hard and getting many years of education, doing what it takes to get a well paying job and then reaping the benefits of decades of perserverence. It sounds like jealousy from someone who expects they should just be entitled to the money of some other hard working souls, whether they do anything or not. No offense, but wait and see how life can change your stance after you've busted your ass and taken the harder road for many years than you could have. And you might decide that you want your tax dollars going to people in dire situations to help them through their tough circumstances, or people who cannot take care of themselves, basic services, military,etc.... but not confiscated merely because of some idea of "fairness".

soccerguy315 · Guru

how many "not wealthy people" should the wealthy people hire? who sets that number? the people who run the businesses hire the right amount of people so they make the most money.

i'm not really sure what your second response is getting at...

longprime · Guru

soccerguy315 wrote:
they also hire plenty of not poor people and pay them very well

Is being "not poor people" a result of being paid by wealthy person?

If the wealthy are taxed more, will they still be wealthy?

IF the "not poor people " are tax less, will they still be "not poor people"?

longprime · Guru

soccerguy315 wrote:
they also hire plenty of not poor people and pay them very well

but not enough of them being hired and paid well enough Because this group, although is much bigger than the millionaire group, still constitute a minority of the wealth and pays a fraction of the taxes although at a higher tax rate. evileye

soccerguy315 · Guru

they also hire plenty of not poor people and pay them very well

Billy · Senior Member

They mainly hire poor people for barely livable wages and call it economic stimulation. Technically, it's a little more than if they had just put the money in a big pile, but far less than if they simply weren't allowed to have so much in the first place.

longprime · Guru

I would be guessing. evileye

Many are no longer millionaires. Only the millionaires in the 3+ digits are not greatly affected.

The value of their properties is now +40% less than it was 2007. If they are lucky to buy in 1998, they are about even.

The value of variable life insurance (a business owner tax benefit) is totally flushed. They should've bought term ins like poor people do.

If they are dependent on interest from savings and bonds; They are selling bonds and will eventually extingish their holdings.

If they are in equities- they are now Democrats; Having witnessed 2x how policies of the conservative party screwed them. bleh

winchester · Guru

the tax code in the US is way too complicated. it's ridiculous.

Amen.

soccerguy315 · Guru

the best part about higher taxes is that congress critters can then give tax breaks to the people who give them lots of money.

the tax code in the US is way too complicated. it's ridiculous.

winchester · Guru

Re: Taxing the rich, here’s Thomas Sowell today:

Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise.

As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.

How was that possible? Because high tax rates drive investors into tax shelters, such as tax-exempt bonds. Today, as a result of globalization and electronic transfers of money, "the rich" are even less likely to stand still and be sheared like sheep, when they can easily send their money overseas, to places where tax rates are lower.

Money sent overseas creates jobs overseas - and American workers cannot transfer themselves overseas to get those jobs as readily as investors can send their money there.

All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax "millionaires and billionaires" is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/28/ideals_versus_realities_110742.html

longprime · Guru

R's are being pressured by smaller schools and online schools

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

RE: Here's what I don't understand: what do millionaires DO with their money that stimulates the economy?

longprime · Guru

Re; our student loans ~$100,000 that I we took out 2002-2006; I estimate that the Taxpayer will have paid out, in the 5 years since DS graduation, $25,000 to the bank that gaves us the loan and in financing the guaranteed interest profit to the bank, which our US Dept of Education did not have save by selling government IOU's.

I got another 20 years left to pay DS education.

The Morals:

Accept anything that's guaranteed from the Government

Accept anything that's subsidized by the Government

Accept anything that's both political parties wanted

Accept anything that's wanted by the banks.

Accept anything that's deductible.

Do what the Millionaires do. They got to be millionaires for doing things that makes them money and gets them keep more of it, regardless of the tax rate.

Does anyone really think that Wealthier Classes, want to lose their advantages. evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 14th of July 2011 11:08:23 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 14th of July 2011 11:14:09 PM

soccerguy315 · Guru

If the government spends $3.6 trillion, and only brings in $2.2 trillion in revenue, then in order to balance the budget by raising taxes, you will have to raise taxes by what... 64%?

winchester · Guru

High-Earning Households Pay Growing Share of Taxes

By this measure the U.S. tax system is more progressive than the others.

longprime · Guru

2+2=3

catahoula · Guru

RE: Here's what I don't understand: what do millionaires DO with their money that stimulates the economy?

soccerguy315 · Guru

longprime wrote:
Re: tax code needs to be simplified and flattened.
Maybe, but simplifing and flattening the tax rates effectively means a tax increase. and mostly affecting the wealthy.

sure. So why don't the politicians support it? they can lower the tax rate and get more money...

longprime · Guru

The Tax Foundation

longprime · Guru

Here's what I don't understand: what do millionaires DO with their money that stimulates the economy?

longprime · Guru

Re: tax code needs to be simplified and flattened.

Maybe, but simplifing and flattening the tax rates effectively means a tax increase. and mostly affecting the wealthy.

longprime · Guru

by -315 <If you look at the table here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html you will see that the richest 10% of taxpayers in the US have a bigger tax burden (vs. income earned) than any other OECD country.

Here's the money quote: "Interestingly, countries with top personal income tax rates that are higher than in the U.S., such as Germany, France, or Sweden, have ratios that are closer to 1 to 1. Meaning, the share of the tax burden paid by the richest decile in those countries is roughly equal to their share of the nation's income. By contrast, we prefer to have the wealthiest households in this country pay a share of the tax burden that is one-third greater than their share of the nation's income."

>

again your statistic is not as dire as you/taxfoundation would suggest. If your country's employment level decreased by 20 million, the remaining employed/wealthy will have the bigger share of the tax burden, Even though the employed/wealthy pays not a dollar more in taxes.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Tom - I agree that there can be a graduated scale.

But the bottom line is that the deficit issue cannot be solved by going back to the Clinton tax rates on the "wealthy"...

The federal government brings in $2.2 trillion dollars, and spends $3.6 trillion.

IMO the tax code needs to be simplified. There is no reason it should be thousands of pages. If you just raise the tax rate, the rich people will still hire accountants to arrange their money so they don't pay much in taxes. It needs to be simplified, and the rate will be able to be lower while bringing in more money.

It is also important to realize that the budget was "balanced" under Clinton in part due to a huge internet bubble that was unsustainable.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security account for roughly 90% of federal government revenue. With those programs, we cannot even fit our interest payments, or our defense requirements.

And before you blastoff about cutting defense, I agree that it can be cut in some places. But realize what the Constitution says the federal government should provide.

If you look at the table here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html you will see that the richest 10% of taxpayers in the US have a bigger tax burden (vs. income earned) than any other OECD country.

Here's the money quote: "Interestingly, countries with top personal income tax rates that are higher than in the U.S., such as Germany, France, or Sweden, have ratios that are closer to 1 to 1. Meaning, the share of the tax burden paid by the richest decile in those countries is roughly equal to their share of the nation's income. By contrast, we prefer to have the wealthiest households in this country pay a share of the tax burden that is one-third greater than their share of the nation's income."

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Tuesday 12th of July 2011 08:12:20 PM

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

Zmom- good to read you! I enjoyed reading your real-life, easy to understand example of just what 1 wealthy person does with their money. They do indeed stimulate the economy in many, many ways. Trickle down effect in full force.

busdriver11 · Guru

"soccorguy- I do not think you should consider only income tax. A fair analysis is total tax burden as a percentage of total income. I also wonder if a clearer picture is total tax as a percentage of income over some baseline amount to provide for basic living costs."

Is that an argument for people to not pay medicare or social security tax if their income is below a certain level? If, by the time they have turned 65, never earned enough income (at whatever level is designated as "fair"), still collect on it anyways, until the day they die? A rather likely scenario would be those who have never earned more than lower income wages would be those who would be the least likely to take care of themselves, to eat and exercise properly, to smoke and drink to excess, therefore costing the others who actually pay the costs, more for that individual.

The social security program has always been presented as a supplement to retirement, not a welfare program. Why someone is now instantly eligible for low cost medical care, wealthy and poor alike, purely because they have turned 65, has always been a mystery to me.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

soccorguy- I do not think you should consider only income tax. A fair analysis is total tax burden as a percentage of total income. I also wonder if a clearer picture is total tax as a percentage of income over some baseline amount to provide for basic living costs.

zoosermom · Senior Member

My boss makes $2 million a year, give or take. He is rich. He has a housekeeper, is currently paying a lot of money to an architect, a designer and contractors to work on his home. He pays tutors for his kids and puts them in hugely expensive activities, which employ staff. He eats out a lot, giving generous tips to his servers and supporting restaurants. He patronizes the arts in a big way, he provides money and his $800 an hour time to the poor and needy. He, and his partners, have recently been investing in their firm's infrastructure and staff. They have added about 10% of new staff members, which creates more employed people who can patronize businesses and pay taxes, along with the largest class of new associate attorneys this firm has ever hired. I got a generous bonus and raise this year, which I have used to pay a contractor to do some needed repairs on my home. My contractor thanks my firm! I'm sure you all know that the legal industry has been contracting in recent years, so this firm's growth is a wonderful thing and all made possible by the commitment and bucks of the partnership, which is made up of individual human beings. He also pays a LOT of taxes.

longprime · Guru

Oh, buy more gasohol. I am trying real hard to drive more so that I can get the income taxpayer to subsidize its production.

I imagine Brazil is trying to get as much corn based ethanol on tanker ship (FOB) before July 30. That's subsidized too. Brazil used to produce ethanol at $1.00 cheaper than we can and do it from sugarcane, but the illegal tarrif we placed on Brazil's ethanol made importation too expensive. Now their cane fields are being converted to soy and maize production for export to China; Brazil is enjoying the benefits of US income tax payers.

-- Edited by longprime on Monday 11th of July 2011 10:12:27 PM

longprime · Guru

@315

high interest credit from DS student loans. Don't even need to itemize to get this one. And we were a full-fare family who got lucky in the stock market. evileye

What I don't understand was that Pres. Bush W, had a "mandate" to change entitlements in 2004-2005. THe R's with the majority in both Houses of Congress, didn't even bring it to committee. He gave a lot of speeches to The Base. What happened?

Do you remember the details of his plan?