I agree that people should try to help the less fortunate. And I would also agree that government taxes provide a useful way of balancing personal gains with providing for the common good.
I do strongly disagree with ssj’s statements that the wealthy are somehow oblidged to provide for the less fortunate because they don’t ‘need all that money’.
Well to start with, there is nothing wrong with being lowbrow.
Patriotism used to fanatically support evil is wrong. Patriotism to collect the morale of the people is a good thing.
I agree that lowbrow is cool, and much more fun than highbrow.
But… “collect the morale of the people is a good thing.”? I presume you mean “improve the morale”. When Admiral Halsey said (shortly after Pearl Harbor), “When we’re through the only place the Japanese language will be spoken is in Hell!”, was that good or bad?
So what’s the question? About patriotism?
In terms of “Love of and devotion to one’s country,” particulary in terms of supporting the current political leadership, consider this: is the Wall Street Journal low-brow? I think not. Yet I’m sure the editorial page would like to call themselves patriotic.
Assuming you mean displaying the American flag, I feel a lot of people who consider themselves high-brow are less likely to display it. (Just for fun, consider the definition of flag-waving.)
As for the rich-bashing, only other Americans seem to matter. Lots of people in 3rd world countries would love to trade places with “poor” Americans. All too often, it turns out that “the rich” just means “people who have more money than I do”, and “useless possessions” means “stuff that I can’t afford”.
And as for the rich paying less taxes on their inherited fortune/capital gains, consider this: yes, they may be sitting on their fat butts, but the money is usually invested in companies that create jobs for the rest of us. Less of the fat-cat money to invest = less jobs for us.
So let’s encourage people to invest. Let’s not tax investment or savings at all, so businesses can grow, offering more jobs. That doesn’t mean we’ll have to tax income: instead, here’s an idea: GWB to the contrary not withstanding, let’s tax consumption.
Highbrow has its place too, but fun has little to do with it.
It was perfectly appropriate for Halsey to say this when he did. But imagine Rumsfeld saying it today, it would definitely be wrong. For example, what Lynne Cheney is doing, going around and making a list of “unpatriotic” professors based on things they have said about the war effort (usually supportive and taken out of context) has nothing to do with patriotism, is in fact McCarthyism and definitely fascist.
Boy, am I seeing some different opinions on patriotism. So I will jump right in with mine.
Flying a flag is no sign whatever of patriotism or are flags or posters in your yard.
Patriotism includes checking out candidates for public office and voting for those who support your views.
Patriotism includes backing your government when you consider it right and voicing opposition when you consider it wrong.
Patriotism includes paying your fair taxes.
Patriotism includes backing your government’s soldiers on the field of battle even if you object to your government’s choice of that field.
Patriotism includes backing your opponent’s right to state his opinion while vigorously opposing that opinion. (Slightly reworded from The American President).
Patriotism most decidely does not mean trying to silence any voice raised agaisnt your government’s policy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by msmith537 *
**
You can’t dictate how much i’m going to make. What if i turn out to be some multi-billion dollor entrepreneur? It’s probably unlikely, but it could happen. I bet no one ever thought it would happen to Bill Gates.
Here is a question **ssj_man2k **: If you made 1 billion dollars a year every year, for the rest of your life, how much would you give away? How much would you “need” to have a good life? Who would you give it to? How would you distribute it fairly?
For the purpose of this question, let’s say that there is no inflation, and the world economy stays at 2001 levels.
I don’t think i can answer that.
All i can do is give in. For some reason i was just always thought rich people were all evil robber barons out to get my money and make me misreable. Well, that’s one more ignorant thought eradicated. Thanx.
An interesting response, Kimstu, but one that is not quite up to your usual level of excellence. Perhaps we’re looking at different things here.
I don’t think it’s funny at all to see misguided posters making categorical assertions that are so thoroughly false and invasive of individuals’ rights they bring about piloerection. If there was shock and horror thus far, it was directed at the propagation of ignorance. Let’s see if I can explain why.
Perhaps I stated this somewhat strongly, but the essence of it remains the same: ssj specifically said that rich people don’t need all the money they have, therefore their money ought to be redistributed to the poor. These are not my exaggerations, and I repeat with a slight modification: why should rich people work themselves into the ground to support disproportionately a welfare culture?
Try to redistribute their wealth, thereby removing the concept of monetary reward for hard work, and I assure you that the overwhelming majority of wealthy people will cease their work instantly. It simply makes no sense–why don’t we see all such people working for little or nothing routinely, pursuing their interests instead of money? Instead, they are offered massive incentives like salaries, stock, vacation, perks, etc. Certainly there are those who would work just for the challenge, but they are in the clear minority. I trust that this is evident enough to place the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders!
“Penta-millionaires” who inherited some money (a proportionately paltry sum, if your average figure of 1% of wealth total is correct) paid a tax on that inheritance, on which taxes had already been paid. Other than that, this cite does not invalidate the notion that the wealthy in general worked hard for their cash.
Not sure where you are going, as I don’t think anyone said that wealth is solely the reward of hard work. Even if a certain fraction of millionaires did inherit wealth to begin with, do you then question that there is hard work involved in the production of wealth? Wealth is a reward for success, but it often takes some starting capital to make more money. And it takes hard work to make starting capital. Now, some may have a break by inheriting an amount of cash, but the amounts you mention are, in the long run, paltry unless the money is handled carefully (which entails risks, research, knowledge, skills, work, stress, etc.). A hundred thousand dollars in and of themselves won’t afford anyone that much more over a lifetime with a family to care for and children to send to school. And, it is important to note that taxes on inherited money are paid–twice or more: once when the money is made and then every time it is inherited. According to some that is not enough. Heh. :rolleyes:
That is simply the nature of business, as you point out just after the above. In a country with a sliding taxation scale, the rich are already providing a disproportionately large sum of money to the taxman. The poor are not. In one way or another, even if simply through tax, the rich are already making sizeable contributions to the system. Being involved in the management of a business is frequently extremely difficult; during downward swings of the business cycle, and in many upward ones as well, many companies have to work magic to remain in existence. The people running and investing in these companies are among the wealthy (present or future) you speak of. If they do not perceive an incentive, very few of them will dedicate their money, time, energy to the cause. When that happens your economy collapses.
Heh. I will note that the major knee-jerk here came not from me but from ssj, who opened this can of worms with his indoctrinated assertion. As much as I dislike a number of wealthy businessmen out there, and I have met quite a few, there is no doubt that their ability to make money has to be respected, even if many of their business practices, or personalities even, don’t. Beyond that I fear we would descend into generalizations.
Well, some forms of patriotism certainly do require the figment that being in a position of authority makes one good and benevolent. It seems to me that respecting the ability to accumulate wealth is far more to the point than the wholly unsupported cause of patriotism. After all, those who accumulate vast wealth are far more important to any state than those who do not, for the simple reasons (among others) that they give more to the state, and the earning of sizeable chunks of money helps to stimulate relevant aspects of the economy. So valuable are rich people considered that being wealthy and bringing in money can put you on a fast track when going through naturalization procedures in many countries, including I believe the US and Canada.
A sliding taxation scale that hits the wealthy harder (proportionately) than it does the poor does not suggest that all people are entitled to the same basic rights after all. I say this to point out that these are by no means egalitarian systems (whenever I hear the word “Communism” I just have to laugh).
Simple mathematics will show that a rich person paying, e.g., 25% tax on 500,000 is benefiting the state much more than several poor people paying, e.g., 10% tax on 20,000. In fact, even if all parties were paying the same tax, say 17% as an example, the one rich individual still contributes more than several poorer ones put together.
Add to this that the wealthy have much greater disposable income (to pump into everything from charities to entertainment) and that they may even employ sizeable groups of people, at which point your assertion simply doesn’t stand up. I won’t go into who is or is not “deserving” of vast wealth, and I won’t make any fluffy comments about a perfect world, but I don’t see how it may be said that a wealthy individual contributes no more to society than does a poor one.
Nice sentence, now explain why these ideas are “bizarre in the extreme”! 
I will add that ssj was hardly “mildly anti-plutocratic”, he/she was just uninformed. As for J.C. and communists, well, where would we be if everyone saw it that way? Humans are not cut out for homogeneity, and the wealthy (as well as the poor) are not sheep to be fleeced at the whim of the population or the state.
It’s not plutolatry at all, unless I am missing a step in the logic there. The shock and outrage you mention are part of the fight against ignorance, as well as the results of frustrations that sometimes are not articulated better. You seem to assume that respect for both the abilities and the rights of the rich equals plutolatry (a great word by the way), but I’d prefer to see sounder reasoning before you conclude that.
You keep saying that it’s the rich people who provide most of the tax money and they are most effected by the “sliding taxation scale” and stuff like that. I think you’re forgetting that if it weren’t for the poor laborer, that person wouldn’t have any wealth because he wouldn’t have anybody to hire to work for a cheap price. And also, they wouldn’t have any consumers to sell their products too. So I think they’d better stop complaining and pay those taxes.
Where do you think the jobs come from? You’re forgetting the rich people invest their money in businesses to pay for the jobs. The more of that money you tax, the more you take away from the businesses that need the workers. And if you think the virtuous government is going to give it all to the poor, you’ve got another think coming. The middle class wants a cut, too, not to speak of various lobbies (farmers, frinstance) who band together to make a case of how important they are.
Abe replied to me: Try to redistribute their wealth, thereby removing the concept of monetary reward for hard work, and I assure you that the overwhelming majority of wealthy people will cease their work instantly.
I think we have to be a little more specific about what we mean by “redistributing their wealth”. Obviously, rich people will cheerfully go on working like dogs even with some of their wealth being redistributed via our own mildly progressive tax system. Moreover, there are lots of hard-working wealthy people in other countries with much more progressive taxation. We need harder evidence than your mere assurance before we can conclude that any particular level of wealth redistribution will make “the overwhelming majority of wealthy people cease their work instantly”. I agree that a true equality-of-income total redistribution scheme would remove the incentives that individual wealth now provides, but I haven’t seen anybody here—not even ssj—suggesting that the rich should have all their money, or even “extra” money, taken away from them.
Not sure where you are going, as I don’t think anyone said that wealth is solely the reward of hard work.
In fact, the statistics seem to show that it is very seldom the reward of hard work except among people who already have at least tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to start with. That doesn’t mean that their efforts and industry aren’t admirable; just that it’s unlikely that their efforts and industry would have made them wealthy without the good luck of having substantial assets initially. Many people without such initial assets work hard all their lives without ever becoming wealthy, but that doesn’t mean they’re less deserving.
*“Rich people are just as prone to making such demands, as we see from their efforts to lobby for government bail-outs to threatened industries, or foreign policies that will stimulate their manufactures, or tax breaks that will increase their profits, or repeal of regulations so they can spend less on their workers.”
That is simply the nature of business, as you point out just after the above.*
Right. What I object to is the attitude that thinking other people ought to give you more money or more advantages is automatically despicable if you’re poor but praiseworthy if you’re rich. What should determine our reaction to such demands is a clear-eyed assessment of how beneficial they would be to the nation as a whole. Some advantages for poor people—e.g., education and job training—clearly wind up helping everybody. Some advantages for rich people—e.g., excessive relaxation of environmental or workplace safety standards—clearly make things worse for everybody. We shouldn’t let these evaluations get fogged up with a bias that the rich automatically deserve more because we somehow owe them something.
In a country with a sliding taxation scale, the rich are already providing a disproportionately large sum of money to the taxman. The poor are not.
The rich are also receiving disproportionate benefits from the system that taxes them: the bigger their assets and the extent of their operations, the greater their dependence on the protection and support provided by law enforcement, financial systems, infrastructure, public education, etc. etc. etc. The poor often can (and often do) scrape through life with very little actual benefit from the social contract beyond some minimal means-tested social services. The rich, on the other hand, couldn’t stay rich for a day without the advantages of a stable and prosperous country that our tax system maintains.
The people running and investing in these companies are among the wealthy (present or future) you speak of. If they do not perceive an incentive, very few of them will dedicate their money, time, energy to the cause. When that happens your economy collapses.
More doomsday talk which still doesn’t really address the question (which I didn’t address either, I admit) of exactly how much incentive these people need to perceive in order to keep our economy from collapsing. There are plenty of economies ticking along just fine where the incentives available to the wealthy are much smaller. I am rather dubious about vague forebodings that somehow any efforts at all to increase wealth redistribution will cause the wealthy people to take their marbles and go home.
Simple mathematics will show that a rich person paying, e.g., 25% tax on 500,000 is benefiting the state much more than several poor people paying, e.g., 10% tax on 20,000.
See above; it’s not just a question of what you’re putting in to the system, but what you’re getting out of it, in which case it is by no means so clear that the rich are being unfairly treated. And that doesn’t even take into account the question of their relative capabilities to damage society rather than benefit it: e.g., a rich person has much more power to inflict severe environmental or social damage in pursuit of profit than a poor one does.
The shock and outrage you mention are part of the fight against ignorance, as well as the results of frustrations that sometimes are not articulated better.
This implies that it is somehow obviously ignorant to question how much and in what ways extreme wealth inequalities benefit society. I think that that’s still an entirely open issue, and it is in no way justified to write off such questioning as merely “ignorant”. Liking wealth, or pointing out rational advantages to wealth inequalities, isn’t necessarily plutolatrous, but summarily dismissing opposing viewpoints as automatically discredited is, IMHO.
You called?
I was responding to ssj’s comment. I don’t think his/her statement can be supported any way you look at it.
It’s not just my assurance, it’s basic, simple, common sense. Would you work for no reward? Again, I was addressing ssj’s point here, and it seems to me you are taking it much further down the road than is wise or convenient.
Ssj’s comment was: “We all know that they don’t need all that money, because obviously there are people who don’t make that much and can live. Share the wealth, or else you’re an asshole.”
I let that-- along with ssj’s retraction later-- speak for itself.
Those statistics were not comprehensive, to begin with. Secondly, this is again an issue of common sense. Everyone knows that only a small percentage of people get rich on a salary. People do get rich by using a salary to accumulate starting capital. That’s hard work right there. Then, when you invest your money, when you run the risk of losing the money, when you manage your money or whatever the money has bought you, you stand a chance to make more money. Again, I get the impression you are assuming that simply because one possesses some starting capital (obtained by whatever means, it’s completely irrelevant) one is not conducting hard work.
There I completely agree, but this is not what the discussion is about, or did I get turned around somewhere?
A worthy objection and one with which I concur, but the main problem with democratic forms of government is that the majority rules. There is an unfortunate tendency, characterized by ssj’s comment, for the non-wealthy to entertain certain redistribution ideas concerning the wealthy. Obviously the non-wealthy are in the majority, and given enough time and rein, they probably will eventually obtain their pseudo-communist goal. That is no more correct than the robber baron concept.
Not just that, but you can’t forget the rights of the wealthy. Again, ssj’s statement left little room for doubt, but you have taken a slightly different tack.
Keeping in mind that we are talking about the wealthy here --not necessarily about their companies-- I respond to that with: vice versa.
The rich deserve what they earned, or what their ancestors earned and then entrusted to them.
Those are hardly “disproportionate benefits”, since they are basic rights of all citizens of a state. And I don’t agree that the rich receive disproportionate benefits at all, quite the opposite in fact. And remember we are talking about individuals here, not corporations.
I don’t follow why, since the rich exist in pretty much all states, stable and prosperous or not. Also, in a stable and prosperous country everyone benefits, including the poor; in the US there is indeed a larger than normal gap between the rich and the poor, but I do not think that is the norm in all developed countries.
Again, refer to ssj’s statement. Since flat taxation systems work well in other countries, this is not an argument in favour of the non-wealthy’s rights to dictate what happens to the income of the wealthy.
Given the choice the wealthy would prefer to remain in spot A and suffer, e.g., 45% Taxation rather than move their holdings (and the income to the state) to spot B, with only 17% taxation? Many US companies today are set up in tax-friendly ports like Bermuda and BVI precisely because of tax reasons. An expensive tax specialist can probably set you up with a good tax reduction plan using similar methods.
The argument would be accepted if we didn’t see that flat taxation works well in other countries. As it is, there is no evidence that the wealthy in a sliding taxation scale are draining the resources of the state by any means, quite the opposite: without their support the state would not be possible.
Well that is what laws and the justice system along with the concept of responsibility and accountability are there for, isn’t it? Until you define the problems and damage you mention, this is just a vague doomsday reference.
It is ignorant to assert it as if it were truth.
What is ignorant is the attitude of the “unwashed masses” or “teeming millions” or “rude mechanicals” (or whatever term we use for the average non-wealthy) towards the money that others have struggled (and in some cases been fortunate enough) to obtain. In some countries across the world the development of welfare cultures is a serious problem–certainly in the US and Canada.
Well certainly not everyone can be rich. I’m sure people who are rich have struggled to obtain that money, but then isn’t that lessening the oppurtunity for someone else to gain wealth? I’m probably not being clear, but i guess i’m basically saying that not everyone can be #1. So isn’t welfare a valid thing to help those who maybe do not possess the skills or did not grow up in such an environment that they could become wealthy?
I think i have to add this, even if it doesn’t help my argument:
Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions – it only guarantees equality of opportunity. -Irving Kristol
The opportunity is still there even if someone else already had success before you. After all, that is the concept of competition. Of course, not everyone can be successful, but that is hardly an argument against the system.
Welfare is an extremely valid concept, but I would argue that it exists to help those below the poverty line, not those who are not wealthy. Earlier I was referring to the flagrant abuses of the welfare system I have seen in parts of Canada and the US: people slacking about, not working, and receiving welfare for years on end–in some cases even popping out children because that entitles them to greater welfare payout. Quite irresponsible.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abe *
I think the debate has moved well beyond ssj’s blanket remarks, and you seem to be evading Kimstu’s more nuanced replies.
Obviously, this depends on the situation, but once you have enough money its quite possible to do nothing at all but live off interest. There are many low-risk investments. In fact, using your own logic, where is the incentive to work when someone reaches this level of wealth? Thus I could make a rational argument for 100% taxation at this point – the point at which it would be possible to live off interest (i don’t really believe this – just making a point).
So, the main problem with democracy is… democracy. Actually I think you have little to worry about given my next comment…
Really, given the political clout you’ve ascribe to the underclass, please tell me why most congresspersons are millioinaires? The situation in the US is obviously the opposite of what you describe, given the central role money plays in our elections.
I’m not sure where to start here, except to point out that this is wrong on the face of it. Are you aware of the tax structure in the 1950s? The top rate was 90%. Was the US a psuedo-communist country then, in the age of McCarthy? Since the fifties the tax burden on the rich has been dropping steadily, and under “W” this trend is accelerating.
The first half of this sentence is debateable. Do the heads of tabacco companies “deserve” what they earn? The head of Union Carbide in the 80s, when thousands were killed in India? The second half is basically a justification for welfare – if such reasoning can be applied to a family, why not a whole nation?
Wow. Yeah, there are rich people in third world countries, can you imagine how most of them got rich? Heredity, race, expoitation. Pay close attention, because the third world model seems to be what you are advocating here…
Most of my “rude mechanical” friends pay their taxes, and proudly so. I have nothing but contempt for these corporations/individuals who move their to tax havens. Just another example of the morbid narcissism of our culture, and the wealthy in particular.
What other countries?
This is a far more astonishing quote than anything from ssj. Suffice to say, who exactly does the work that makes so many of the rich wealthy? Are you saying Jack Welch could have made his millions without all those GE employees? I’ve never seen him assemble a jet engine or a refrigerator.
Yeah, and with the repeal of the inheritance tax, that “welfare culture” will only increase.
Yeah, well I think you’re just puffing your chest and strutting around to look big! 
I enjoy discussions with Kimstu, and wouldn’t evade his replies if I thought they were on topic. It seems to me on re-reading the thread that Kimstu slipped sideways in addressing my post to ssj, and may even have misinterpreted some of my comments, at which point I probably slipped further sideways myself in my reply to Kimstu. I think we agree on the general terms of what the discussion has become. I’ll let him comment on that.
Now, Ace face I don’t quite grasp what your point is. Could you please explain it to me? When I look at your post I just see contrarian nitpicking (quite a bit of it incorrect or irrelevant).
In a minority of cases, yes, although you will find interest rates now are pretty poor. Now, what is your point here? The money is still your rightful property, not somebody else’s.
Now this is really obscure. I wasn’t attacking democracy, I was making a point. And if I were attacking democracy, I would expect a better rebuttal.
Where have I ascribed political clout to the underclass? You will not, however, deny that a democratic government functions in theory on the will of the majority? And the majority are not wealthy, which is part of the reason why the wealthy are taxed more? Anyway, again I do not see your point as regards the original discussion. This is not a political debate, although I did use the examples of the US and Canada.
How is that wrong on the face of it? On the face of it it is precisely correct. Notice the word “given”. We were not discussing the unavoidable present or near future. This isn’t even a major point, by the way. I don’t think you feel that the wealthy ought to be squeezed dry by the non-wealthy? I certainly don’t, much as I would like free handouts to help me along the path to riches.
I appreciate that the original argument was not much of a skull cracker, but for you to pull out this is somewhat, hm, bizarre and inappropriate. The nature of the job being done may be disturbing, as in your examples, but as long as everything is done according to the law, the person who earned the money rightfully deserved it and owns it. It’s capitalism.
Do you perceive this whole affair as an attack on your country? I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that poor and unstable countries do not permit honest (as far as the laws of the country go) persons to rise to riches through hard work (and of course the usual perfectly normal pinch of luck, help, etc.).
Why is that narcissism? And, look, there goes another generalization regarding the wealthy.
Please find out–Kimstu probably already knows.
What does that matter??? WHY would it matter unless you are saying that the persons who assemble GE fridges deserve more from their boss than he already pays them? And even then, your avenue is hardly the standard way to go about asking for a raise.
What is your point? You accused me of evading Kimstu’s points, but in fact it looks like you have bashed the discussion completely off course here.