# Do conservatives genuinely not understand the liberal position on wealth? (Fox News oped) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2019, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337 "2019-08-27T21:21:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/221 "2019-09-05T20:24:25Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > Voyager, IMO, Republicans give lip service to ‘spending less’ just like the Democrats give lip service to ‘helping the poor’ > > Both are said to win votes. So they listen to both but at the end of the day, whomever is putting coin in their pocket is getting the nod. I agree that Republicans only care about spending less when they aren’t in power. But Democrats have helped the poor - not as much as they could, certainly but better than nothing. And Republicans are not only giving lip service to limiting voting rights. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/222 "2019-09-06T17:16:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You will not find it by nutpicking. > > [Nutpicking - RationalWiki](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking) > > Swing and a miss again, there is no affirmation on the fable about what you claim here. Some versions (also in the link) do point at the miser’s gold being the result of selling his state (or fortune coming from dubious sources) and for sure, not giving any part to the government So you’re still misinterpreting cites, still not standing behind your own cites, still spouting [del]garbage[/del] pointless clichés and inanities, and still not answering questions directly related to the subject of the OP. Well at least your consistent. Again: _What is the liberal position on wealth?_ Here, let me help you out. Liberals are concerned about the growing inequality between society’s top wealth-holders and bottom wealth-holders. They also dislike the fact that some rich people achieved their wealth through cronyism or corruption. Liberals are concerned that some people are actually the victims of capitalism; people who’ve lost their jobs due to technological change or international trade. They note that some people got rich from those changes. Liberals also recognise that there are inefficiencies in the tax system, and many of those inefficiencies are intentional; essentially they’re corrupt as they’re designed to make taxes less fair, not more. A few liberal politicians have come along and declared that the solution to the above issues is a wealth tax. Many on the liberal bandwagon cheer and shout some version of “Right On!”. They become emotionally attached to the idea. And when people start asking questions about the details behind the wealth tax, and criticising the lack of thought behind it, the liberal response is an emotional one. The politicians cheered them up and the critics are reducing their cheer. The critics therefore are mean people who have no interest in solving the problems listed in the above paragraph. For myself, I’m less concerned about inequality than the typical liberal. I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. They’re actually benefiting society. My concern towards the the poor is that I want people to move out of poverty measured in absolute terms – not measured in relation to the rich. And the elimination of poverty is going to depend on innovation and investment – things spurred on by the rich. Should there be a safety net? Definitely. Should society be investing not only in corporations, but in itself through education and infrastructure? Absolutely. Fund that investment through income taxes. And if some rich person decides to cash in some of their shares or property, that’s income. Tax it. But if someone builds a company with a paper worth of $1 billion, should the government come along and tell them they have to sell a portion of the company worth $47.6 million to pay a wealth tax? No. If there are problems with the tax system, fix them. If there’s cronyism or corruption in government spending, stop it. If the government is underinvesting in society, either move spending from other areas into education and infrastructure, or raise taxes (but gradually, please). But soak the rich because it’s the “Right On!” thing to do? It isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/223 "2019-09-06T18:27:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You will not find it by nutpicking. > > [Nutpicking - RationalWiki](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking) > > Swing and a miss again, there is no affirmation on the fable about what you claim here. Some versions (also in the link) do point at the miser’s gold being the result of selling his state (or fortune coming from dubious sources) and for sure, not giving any part to the government Nutpicking is legitimate when the nuts are polling in the top 5 of the Democratic Party. Warren and Sanders are both either pandering or are legitimately nutty with regards to many of their policies. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/224 "2019-09-06T19:50:44Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Nutpicking is legitimate when the nuts are polling in the top 5 of the Democratic Party. Warren and Sanders are both either pandering or are legitimately nutty with regards to many of their policies. And that only shows that you do not know about the sausage making in congress, virtually nothing extreme ends up coming out, or it will be different even if liberals get to become the majority, simply because… not all liberals think the same indeed. It is more likely that a lot of amendments will be applied to any new laws. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/225 "2019-09-06T20:31:35Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > So you’re still misinterpreting cites, still not standing behind your own cites, still spouting [del]garbage[/del] pointless clichés and inanities, and still not answering questions directly related to the subject of the OP. Well at least your consistent. > > Again: _What is the liberal position on wealth?_ > > Here, let me help you out. Liberals are concerned about the growing inequality between society’s top wealth-holders and bottom wealth-holders. They also dislike the fact that some rich people achieved their wealth through cronyism or corruption. Liberals are concerned that some people are actually the victims of capitalism; people who’ve lost their jobs due to technological change or international trade. They note that some people got rich from those changes. Liberals also recognise that there are inefficiencies in the tax system, and many of those inefficiencies are intentional; essentially they’re corrupt as they’re designed to make taxes less fair, not more. Well thanks for the help, but even if I agree with that it only follows that of course: there is nothing that would convince you otherwise of more moderated solutions since you do have all the answers /s > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > A few liberal politicians have come along and declared that the solution to the above issues is a wealth tax. Many on the liberal bandwagon cheer and shout some version of “Right On!”. They become emotionally attached to the idea. And when people start asking questions about the details behind the wealth tax, and criticising the lack of thought behind it, the liberal response is an emotional one. The politicians cheered them up and the critics are reducing their cheer. The critics therefore are mean people who have no interest in solving the problems listed in the above paragraph. Well that point is a very naive one. You are ignoring that currently there are indeed [mean and miser people](https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-complete-listing-so-far-atrocities-1-546) [controlling government.](https://www.salon.com/2019/07/14/party-of-relentless-bad-faith-how-republican-lies-and-hypocrisy-hit-an-all-time-high/) > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > For myself, I’m less concerned about inequality than the typical liberal. I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. Nope, see the previous links. and this: > **[New evidence shows the safety net reduces Americans’ material hardship by 48...](https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/new-evidence-shows-safety-net-reduces-americans-material-hardship-48-percent)** > > The American economy has seen strong growth and low unemployment, but many families continue to struggle. > [@](#): > > Our research suggests that hardship would be even more prevalent without safety net programs, which have counteracted uneven economic growth over the past several decades. Work is an important element in families’ economic well-being, but having a job—particularly a low-wage job—often isn’t enough to keep families on solid footing. Most SNAP participants work, for example, and this research shows that these added resources lessen family struggles. > > Economic inequality has risen markedly, putting additional strain on low-income families, whose real wages have largely stagnated as the cost of basic needs, such as housing and health care, have risen substantially. Thus, despite economic growth, many economic forces still work against families, which underscores the need to reduce poverty and material hardship. > > Efforts to restrict access to or reduce funding for the safety net, which can lead to Americans losing SNAP or Medicaid benefits, could exacerbate hunger and people’s inability to afford medical care. These restrictions are often proposed as a means to address the federal deficit, but the safety net’s role in reducing hunger and hardship demonstrates the risks of these proposals. These risks are not just borne by today’s struggling families; because these families include children, the risks affect tomorrow’s adults. - There is really no need to guess who are making more efforts to restrict access or reduce funding. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > They’re actually benefiting society. In a grossly insufficient way. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > My concern towards the the poor is that I want people to move out of poverty measured in absolute terms – not measured in relation to the rich. And the elimination of poverty is going to depend on innovation and investment – things spurred on by the rich. Should there be a safety net? Definitely. Should society be investing not only in corporations, but in itself through education and infrastructure? Absolutely. Fund that investment through income taxes. And if some rich person decides to cash in some of their shares or property, that’s income. Tax it. But if someone builds a company with a paper worth of $1 billion, should the government come along and tell them they have to sell a portion of the company worth $47.6 million to pay a wealth tax? No. If there are problems with the tax system, fix them. If there’s cronyism or corruption in government spending, stop it. If the government is underinvesting in society, either move spending from other areas into education and infrastructure, or raise taxes (but gradually, please). But soak the rich because it’s the “Right On!” thing to do? It isn’t. IMHO it will not be needed to be taxed if they had not funded the policies and politicians that benefit them also, nice racket in that they manage to find also people that will support them even if they are conning them about the “suffering” of the wealthy if that takes place. [https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans\_for\_Prosperity](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Prosperity) [https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What\_is\_ALEC%3F](https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F) > **[How Big Money Corrupts the Economy](https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/27/how-big-money-corrupts-the-economy/)** > > If war is politics by other means, political spending is economic war by other means. Runaway campaign spending and lobbying dont just stand in the way of a fair political system. They also stand in the way of an economy... ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/226 "2019-09-06T23:45:58Z")
Thank you for engaging in the debate. While taking shots at the opposition is entertaining, this is supposed to be Great Debates, so let’s get on with it. Wrenching Spanners: > [@](#): > > Liberals are concerned about the growing inequality between society’s top wealth-holders and bottom wealth-holders. They also dislike the fact that some rich people achieved their wealth through cronyism or corruption. Liberals are concerned that some people are actually the victims of capitalism; people who’ve lost their jobs due to technological change or international trade. They note that some people got rich from those changes. Liberals also recognise that there are inefficiencies in the tax system, and many of those inefficiencies are intentional; essentially they’re corrupt as they’re designed to make taxes less fair, not more. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well thanks for the help, but even if I agree with that it only follows that of course: there is nothing that would convince you otherwise of more moderated solutions since you do have all the answers /s What are your moderate solutions to the above problems? I believe you’ve mentioned carrying forward unrealised liabilities on inherited assets to the beneficiaries. That seems like an entirely reasonable proposal. I’d probably support the idea that shares in companies publicly traded on an exchange should be subject to income taxes upon inheritance. I’d like to see exemptions for family owned companies, but I think if a company has gone public, they’ve ceased to be family owned. I’ve got a similar opinion about property, especially farms, which are, of course, businesses. Wrenching Spanners: > [@](#): > > A few liberal politicians have come along and declared that the solution to the above issues is a wealth tax. Many on the liberal bandwagon cheer and shout some version of “Right On!”. They become emotionally attached to the idea. And when people start asking questions about the details behind the wealth tax, and criticising the lack of thought behind it, the liberal response is an emotional one. The politicians cheered them up and the critics are reducing their cheer. The critics therefore are mean people who have no interest in solving the problems listed in the above paragraph. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well that point is a very naive one. You are ignoring that currently there are indeed [mean and miser people](https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-complete-listing-so-far-atrocities-1-546) [controlling government.](https://www.salon.com/2019/07/14/party-of-relentless-bad-faith-how-republican-lies-and-hypocrisy-hit-an-all-time-high/) Your first post has the headline “LEST WE FORGET THE HORRORS: A CATALOG OF TRUMP’S WORST CRUELTIES, COLLUSIONS, CORRUPTIONS, AND CRIMES.” Your second post has the headline “Party of relentless bad faith: How Republican lies and hypocrisy hit an all-time high”. My contention is that liberals are supporting the idea of a wealth tax based on emotional factors, rather than economic reasoning. I believe your two cites support that contention. Wrenching Spanners: > [@](#): > > For myself, I’m less concerned about inequality than the typical liberal. I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, see the previous links. and this: > > [https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/new-evidence-shows-safety-net-reduces-americans-material-hardship-48-percent](https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/new-evidence-shows-safety-net-reduces-americans-material-hardship-48-percent) > [@](#): > > Our research suggests that hardship would be even more prevalent without safety net programs, which have counteracted uneven economic growth over the past several decades. Work is an important element in families’ economic well-being, but having a job—particularly a low-wage job—often isn’t enough to keep families on solid footing. Most SNAP participants work, for example, and this research shows that these added resources lessen family struggles. > > Economic inequality has risen markedly, putting additional strain on low-income families, whose real wages have largely stagnated as the cost of basic needs, such as housing and health care, have risen substantially. Thus, despite economic growth, many economic forces still work against families, which underscores the need to reduce poverty and material hardship. > > Efforts to restrict access to or reduce funding for the safety net, which can lead to Americans losing SNAP or Medicaid benefits, could exacerbate hunger and people’s inability to afford medical care. These restrictions are often proposed as a means to address the federal deficit, but the safety net’s role in reducing hunger and hardship demonstrates the risks of these proposals. These risks are not just borne by today’s struggling families; because these families include children, the risks affect tomorrow’s adults. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > - There is really no need to guess ho are making more efforts to restrict access or reduce funding. It’s a fair point to look at the macroeconomic effects of prosperity and conclude that one of those effects is inflation, which has an adverse effect on minimum wage and low income workers. Therefore, both minimum wages and the safety net should pay attention to inflation. If the minimum wage in the US is below the poverty line for a single, full-time, not in training, worker in normal circumstances, then the minimum wage should be raised. The same applies to couples sharing a residence and having the traditional two kids. However, there’s a big difference between inflation and income inequality. If inflation is flat, and someone worth $1 billion becomes worth $2 billion, how does that hurt the poor? I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. They’re actually benefiting society. Wrenching Spanners: > [@](#): > > I think if a person creates a technological innovation that benefits society, or invests in an emerging market and their investment proves successful, they deserve to be rich. They’re not harming the poor. They’re actually benefiting society. > [@GIGObuster;21845434/](#): > > In a grossly insufficient way. Read up on the use of mobile phones in Africa. For that matter, although it’s hardly a new thing, do you think the Internet is helping the poor in America? There have been anecdotes of people, not necessarily poor people, gaining employment through advice on this message board. My personal belief is that people having access to free, easily accessed information about the job market,and indeed many markets including groceries, utilities, home repairs, public transport, and may others is a good thing. Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners > [@](#): > > My concern towards the the poor is that I want people to move out of poverty measured in absolute terms – not measured in relation to the rich. And the elimination of poverty is going to depend on innovation and investment – things spurred on by the rich. Should there be a safety net? Definitely. Should society be investing not only in corporations, but in itself through education and infrastructure? Absolutely. Fund that investment through income taxes. And if some rich person decides to cash in some of their shares or property, that’s income. Tax it. But if someone builds a company with a paper worth of $1 billion, should the government come along and tell them they have to sell a portion of the company worth $47.6 million to pay a wealth tax? No. If there are problems with the tax system, fix them. If there’s cronyism or corruption in government spending, stop it. If the government is underinvesting in society, either move spending from other areas into education and infrastructure, or raise taxes (but gradually, please). But soak the rich because it’s the “Right On!” thing to do? It isn’t. > [@GIGObuster;21845434/](#): > > IMHO it will not be needed to be taxed if they had not funded the policies and politicians that benefit them also, nice racket in that they manage to find also people that will support them even if they are conning them about the “suffering” of the wealthy if that takes place. > > [Americans for Prosperity - SourceWatch](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Prosperity) > > [What is ALEC? - ALEC Exposed](https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F) > > [How Big Money Corrupts the Economy : Democracy Journal](https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/27/how-big-money-corrupts-the-economy/) So you’ve posted three left-wing links as cites that, sorry if I’m not understanding your point, conservatives are “conning the liberals about the “suffering” of the wealthy if that takes place.” The quick review of your cites is that the Koch brothers are bad people, and there may a need for US election campaign funding reforming. I don’t disagree with the idea that there is a need for lobbying reform in the US Congress. You seem to believe that all conservatives disagree with the idea of lobbying reform. You also seem to believe that all conservatives who disagree with the idea of a US wealth tax are Koch brother supporters. I’m not sure if that’s your actual belief, but if it is, I disagree with it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/227 "2019-09-08T00:35:08Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Read up on the use of mobile phones in Africa. For that matter, although it’s hardly a new thing, do you think the Internet is helping the poor in America? There have been anecdotes of people, not necessarily poor people, gaining employment through advice on this message board. My personal belief is that people having access to free, easily accessed information about the job market,and indeed many markets including groceries, utilities, home repairs, public transport, and may others is a good thing. Of course it is a good thing, so good that it came from the government, if it had been coming from the Bell Telephone company they would had stopped many innovators in their tracts. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > So you’ve posted three left-wing links as cites that, sorry if I’m not understanding your point, conservatives are “conning the liberals about the “suffering” of the wealthy if that takes place.” The quick review of your cites is that the Koch brothers are bad people, and there may a need for US election campaign funding reforming. > > I don’t disagree with the idea that there is a need for lobbying reform in the US Congress. You seem to believe that all conservatives disagree with the idea of lobbying reform. You also seem to believe that all conservatives who disagree with the idea of a US wealth tax are Koch brother supporters. I’m not sure if that’s your actual belief, but if it is, I disagree with it. And that is ok, although one has to notice that you fall for the shooting the messenger fallacy; I mean, if the object is to understand the liberal position, then those cites are relevant. It is not just the wealthy Kochs the ones that thanks to their economic power are also manipulating discussions like this one in government organizations. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/228 "2019-09-08T05:41:37Z")
Whether you earned it or inherited, there ought to be some limit on how rich you can be. We will always have a socioeconomic pyramid – but the top and the bottom have been, and could be again, a lot closer together than they are now. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/229 "2019-09-08T06:27:34Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > Whether you earned it or inherited, there ought to be some limit on how rich you can be. Why? Suppose some guy in Estonia is an Elon Musk style entrepreneur and has Einstein-like insights into nuclear fusion and figures out how to make fusion generators practical. It’s a far-fetched hypothetical, but what limit should be placed on that person’s future wealth? I’m thinking that a solution to climate change and worldwide cheap energy should be worth at least $1 trillion. What limit would you place on the wealth of someone who achieved such a remarkable breakthrough? Some people are rich because they inherited their wealth. Everybody who’s rich is so because they’ve been lucky enough to have circumstances favour them at one time or another. But most people who are rich are hard working, talented people who are at the top of their professions and figured out how to run their businesses better than their competitors. Often, their success is because they’ve had an innovative idea that and were the first person to ever market that idea. I want to live in a world that rewards innovation, and one where tremendously transformative innovation is rewarded tremendously. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/230 "2019-09-08T06:30:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course it is a good thing, so good that it came from the government, if it had been coming from the Bell Telephone company they would had stopped many innovators in their tracts. And a lot of the poor get their internet from libraries - run by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/231 "2019-09-08T07:44:21Z")
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners: > [@](#): > > Read up on the use of mobile phones in Africa. For that matter, although it’s hardly a new thing, do you think the Internet is helping the poor in America? There have been anecdotes of people, not necessarily poor people, gaining employment through advice on this message board. My personal belief is that people having access to free, easily accessed information about the job market, and indeed many markets including groceries, utilities, home repairs, public transport, and may others is a good thing. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course it is a good thing, so good that it came from the government, if it had been coming from the Bell Telephone company they would had stopped many innovators in their tracts. I realise you’re talking about the Internet, but it’s amusing that the first sentence of the paragraph you’re disputing concerns mobile phones. From Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > The advances in mobile telephony have been traced in successive “generations”, starting with the early zeroth-generation (0G) services, such as Bell System’s Mobile Telephone Service and its successor, the Improved Mobile Telephone Service. These 0G systems were not cellular, supported few simultaneous calls, and were very expensive. > > The first handheld cellular mobile phone was demonstrated by John F. Mitchel and Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973, using a handset weighing 2 kilograms (4.4 lb). The reason I’m discussing mobile phones is that that technology, driven by corporations led by rich executives and owners, is transforming Africa, leading to increased progress and prosperity: > [@](#): > > Around one-tenth of Africa’s land mass is covered by mobile-internet services — a higher proportion pro rata area than in India. Mobile development has enabled Africans to ‘leapfrog’ poor landline infrastructure, which has been a brake on progress. Many Africans get their first internet experience on a mobile rather than a desktop computer, using services that revolutionise commerce, farming and healthcare. Almost 18 million Kenyans use their mobiles as a bank account to deposit or transfer money and pay their accounts. > **[The world's fastest-growing middle class - UHY International](https://www.uhy.com/the-worlds-fastest-growing-middle-class/)** > > Investor and philanthropist George Soros has described it as 'one of the few bright spots on the gloomy global economic horizon'. China’s latest GDP forecast? Growth from one of the Asian tiger economies, maybe? No. Soros is talking about Africa.... So yes, I do believe that innovation and investment is bringing people out of poverty, and those innovators and investors should be rewarded, not penalised. As to the Internet, when was the last time there was government led innovation to the Internet? I like [bbc.co.uk](http://bbc.co.uk). They’re quasi-governmental, but they’re hardly innovative. There are lots of government websites. I’ve never noticed any of them bringing something new to the Internet. What I have noticed is the government websites adopting practices started on corporate websites. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is ok, although one has to notice that you fall for the shooting the messenger fallacy; I mean, if the object is to understand the liberal position, then those cites are relevant. It is not just the wealthy Kochs the ones that thanks to their economic power are also manipulating discussions like this one in government organizations. The fallacy is that you’re failing to actually make a point. You’re throwing around cites and leaving it to people on the other side of the debate to try and guess your position. What is the liberal position expressed in the above quote? That the wealthy have too much influence in government? If that is the issue, what’s your proposed solution to that issue? Is it the wealth tax that you brought up back in post #149? Going back to the OP, do you believe people with entrenched wealth “should be the ones who are “punished” by paying a larger share in taxes, whether of their income or wealth”? How do liberals distinguish between entrenched wealth and entrepreneurial wealth? ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/232 "2019-09-08T08:56:10Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > \ Replying to your post as a whole: Global poverty is falling, except in sub-Saharan Africa. Even there, it’s expected to fall somewhat in the next decade. Quick graph from the World Bank: [https://www.worldbank.org/en/understanding-poverty](https://www.worldbank.org/en/understanding-poverty) The global middle class is rising. Indeed as of 2018, more people are middle class or rich than are vulnerable or poor. By 2030, there are expected to be twice as many. > **[A global tipping point: Half the world is now middle class or wealthier |...](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-global-tipping-point-half-the-world-is-now-middle-class-or-wealthier/)** > > Just over 50 percent of the world’s population, or some 3.8 billion people, now live in households with enough discretionary spending to be considered middle class or rich. The primary drivers of the rising global middle class are investment and technology. Here’s a good discussion on the rising economies in Africa: > **[The world's fastest-growing middle class - UHY International](https://www.uhy.com/the-worlds-fastest-growing-middle-class/)** > > Investor and philanthropist George Soros has described it as 'one of the few bright spots on the gloomy global economic horizon'. China’s latest GDP forecast? Growth from one of the Asian tiger economies, maybe? No. Soros is talking about Africa.... Most business owners have the majority of their wealth in their businesses. > **[You Won't Believe Where Millionaires Park Their Cash](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/banks/articles/you-wont-believe-where-millionaires-park-their-cash/)** > > Check out the difference between how millionaires and the middle class store their cash and find out if you could be managing your money better. Some choose to diversify, and when they do, they should and generally do pay capital gains taxes on the portion of the business that they sell. The savings glut you’re referring to is within businesses and investment funds, not in rich people’s personal wealth. It’s based around concerns about the global business cycle facing a downturn, the need for funds to maintain liquidity, and concerns that equities, especially in the US stock market, are overpriced. Here’s the head of the Bank of England discussing the liquidity risk of funds, which also ties into the other two risk areas: > **[Carney warns of $30 trillion threat to global economy from asset managers](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/06/carney-warns-30-trillion-threat-global-economy-asset-managers/)** > > The world economy faces growing risks from $30 trillion of investment that has the potential to boost growth in the poorest countries but also threatens their long-term health if markets freeze or volatility spikes, Mark Carney has warned. If you’re concerned that there’s a lack of research and development or investment within the global corporate market, read up on FinTech. It’s an area with huge amounts of innovation and investment. It’s a widespread area of technology, but it includes subareas such as banking via mobile phones, microinvestment, and web-based equity exchanges, all of which would benefit the lower-middle-class and upwards in impoverished countries. And as those people become better off, they’ll create the opportunities for the people in severe poverty to rise out of poverty as described in the UHY article above. For an overview of FinTech, here’s Wikipedia: > **[Fintech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_technology)** > > Fintech, a clipped compound of "financial technology", refers to firms using new technology to compete with traditional financial methods in the delivery of financial services. The use of smartphones for mobile banking, investing, borrowing services, and cryptocurrency are examples of technologies designed to make financial services more accessible to the general public. Fintech companies consist of both startups and established financial institutions and technology companies trying t Financi... ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/233 "2019-09-08T17:41:35Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Why? Suppose some guy in Estonia is an Elon Musk style entrepreneur and has Einstein-like insights into nuclear fusion and figures out how to make fusion generators practical. It’s a far-fetched hypothetical, but what limit should be placed on that person’s future wealth? I have read (but have no cite – unless [this](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/792:_Password_Reuse) counts) that studies show wealth doesn’t make you any happier once you’ve passed the point where you no longer have day-to-day financial stress. In terms of motivation to achieve – which is the only factor to consider, if we’re thinking in terms of the social benefits of individual achievement – the prospect of becoming a billionaire is probably no more powerful than the prospect of becoming a millionaire. The problem – and it is a problem, see [_Democracy in Chains,_](https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stealth/dp/1101980974/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=democracy+in+chains&qid=1567964413&s=gateway&sr=8-1) by Nancy MacLean – is that billionaires have **political** influence far out of proportion to their numbers in society. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/234 "2019-09-09T04:28:52Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > I have read (but have no cite – unless [this](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/792:_Password_Reuse) counts) that studies show wealth doesn’t make you any happier once you’ve passed the point where you no longer have day-to-day financial stress. [Manslow’s pyramid](https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html). There are three types of exceptions: those who suffer from pathological anxiety (there’s people who have died rich while living hand-to-mouth because they were terrified of spending too much), those who are so bad at finances that they’d manage to have financial stress if they inherited Jeff Bezos’ fortune, and those for whom the chase of more, more, more is a pathological need. Heck, people like me, who are above average financially and refuse to live worse lives in order to make more money, get bombarded with the message that we’re wrong. We’re wrong in refusing to chase for more, we’re wrong in how we organize our companies (I’m a one-person multinational company, sucks to be the economist who tries to analyze me)… I’m part of that fraction who are good at giving that message the finger, but I’ve got coworkers who are always chasing a penny more and I get stressed just from listening to them on the phone. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/235 "2019-09-09T04:44:10Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Heck, people like me, who are above average financially and refuse to live worse lives in order to make more money, get bombarded with the message that we’re wrong. How are you so bombarded? Serious question. Is it just a general cultural _zeitgeist_ thing, that you could get from your penny-seeking subordinates/coworkers, or is somebody actively trying to send you that message? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/236 "2019-09-09T05:18:09Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > So yes, I do believe that innovation and investment is bringing people out of poverty, and those innovators and investors should be rewarded, not penalised. That really has very little to do with the tax situation in the USA, or what had taken place in the USA if a monopoly like the Bell one had been allowed to remain. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > As to the Internet, when was the last time there was government led innovation to the Internet? I like [bbc.co.uk](http://bbc.co.uk). They’re quasi-governmental, but they’re hardly innovative. There are lots of government websites. I’ve never noticed any of them bringing something new to the Internet. What I have noticed is the government websites adopting practices started on corporate websites. You have the history backwards there, it was thanks to government efforts that we got the Internet itself. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > The fallacy is that you’re failing to actually make a point. You’re throwing around cites and leaving it to people on the other side of the debate to try and guess your position. What is the liberal position expressed in the above quote? That the wealthy have too much influence in government? If that is the issue, what’s your proposed solution to that issue? There is a method here, first I do want to see what kind of conservative you are. And one main point I made was that you are trying to get an official liberal position when in reality there is really none, and I want to make special notice at your tactic that really sounds as if nothing will satisfy you. One will have to agree to disagree on your attempt at finding an official “liberal position” this is a case were the process of government will give us the proposal to work and discuss and maybe, just maybe to pass it in congress. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Is it the wealth tax that you brought up back in post #149? Going back to the OP, do you believe people with entrenched wealth “should be the ones who are “punished” by paying a larger share in taxes, whether of their income or wealth”? How do liberals distinguish between entrenched wealth and entrepreneurial wealth? Read the OP again, as I noted I do not agree 100% with it, but that are the parameters for the discussion here. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/237 "2019-09-09T15:34:50Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > How are you so bombarded? Serious question. Is it just a general cultural _zeitgeist_ thing, that you could get from your penny-seeking subordinates/coworkers, or is somebody actively trying to send you that message? I get it from work, family, and friends. Work, because it’s cultural, right; after all, you’re _of course_ you want to be a director some day. Family and friends are a bit different, in particular, the ones with lower income. The difference between my brother’s income and mine is about 100% I’d guess. For some, a 10% pay raise would mean the opportunity to see even more Detroit Tigers games or attend even more Prowlers’ hockey games. This would make him and his wife a lot more comfortable. When I tell him I could spend a weekend working at a plant in Chicago and gross an absurd amount of “bonus” money, and that I don’t want to do it, I’m just crazy. You see, I don’t spend money on sports, cabins up north, boats, etc., and I max out my savings (401(k), Roth for wife and me, 529 for little one), and have very little left over for things he things are fun. If only I’d spend my weekends working, I could have as much fun as he has! Joke’s on me if I die before retirement, though. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/238 "2019-09-09T18:10:28Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > I get it from work, family, and friends. Work, because it’s cultural, right; after all, you’re _of course_ you want to be a director some day. I never got this message. I was an acting second level manager at one point, and decided that spending my entire day on budgets and meetings and not research would be hell, and turned it down, and I never got any grief for it. I also decided that I’d rather have a happy marriage than a promotion, and never got any grief from that either. Stuff I worked really hard at, like conference work, I did because I enjoyed it. I’m sure I could have had some more money in the bank, but I have plenty to live on for the rest of my life, so I don’t regret any of my choices. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/239 "2019-09-11T00:58:25Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I never got this message. I was an acting second level manager at one point, and decided that spending my entire day on budgets and meetings and not research would be hell, and turned it down, and I never got any grief for it. Oh, I don’t mean grief from the people who would promote me. I mean grief from my peers, who think I’m an absolute _idiot_ for not pursuing more. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2019, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337/240 "2019-09-11T12:12:31Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > How are you so bombarded? Serious question. Is it just a general cultural _zeitgeist_ thing, that you could get from your penny-seeking subordinates/coworkers, or is somebody actively trying to send you that message? The pink (economic) section of newspapers, service providers, the penny-seekers and even my own country’s Treasury. The penny-seekers are easy to understand and also easy to ignore, but open the economic section and you get economists (many of whom have never worked outside of academia, much less owned a company/been self-employed) telling the self-employed that we should instead be creating large companies so we’d give jobs to more people; more economists (and the reporters who report on them) telling us the many ways in which we’re doing our jobs wrong; banks, property owners and other service providers telling us that we’re not reliable(1) or denying us services or requiring higher payments/securities than if we were third-party employed, therefore requiring us to have higher amounts of available cash than other people; the Treasury has right now a campaign against any self-employed [del]claiming that they earn less than an amount X[/del] because some civil servant has decided it’s “impossible” that someone will be self-employed and make that little (2); it’s relatives who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong (3)… That, on top of the general social crap. 1: several banks refused to give me a mortgage for being self-employed. I’ve been refused rentals (on one particularly memorable occasion, by the bank which holds that mortgage on which I’ve never missed a payment) or been required absurd deposits for being self-employed. When I tried to get third-party insurance in Spain I couldn’t, because no company providing the type of services I do has ever been sued and insurance companies treat this as “unknown data, therefore unreliable” rather than “hooray, all these man-hours of work and not a blip, gimme your money here’s your policy”: I finally found an agent who got me insurance from the UK. 2: while it doesn’t affect me (I’m on a regional Treasury), many self-employed people are part time workers, specially lots of women. Many female-owned businesses (boutiques, hairdressers, clothing repairs…) are partnerships, with each self-employed partner working part-time; in fact, the ability to work part-time is one of the biggest incentives for those women to become self-employed, because no civil servant from the Treasury is going to take the kids to school and Grandma to the doctor, but hey, anybody who’s making less than an engineer’s entry-level salary and who is self-employed is clearly lying, and anybody who chooses to work part-time to contribute to the family’s pockets while still being able to taxi relatives to and fro is clearly doing it wrong. The del part is because the attack started on anybody who claimed less than a certain amount but for some time seemed to be on track to become a general audit of every single self-employed person under the general Treasury (the current political problems and the screams from the self-employed appear to have stalled it; note that due to a legal requirement, every CEO in Spain counts as self-employed). 3: 1.Bro and 1.SiL finally stopped worrying about my finances (which deserves a long string of snorts) when 2.Bro The Comptroller (International) growled “I’ve seen Nava’s income tax and it’s fine. Any other questions?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-conservatives-genuinely-not-understand-the-liberal-position-on-wealth-fox-news-oped/839337.md?page=13)