What are you doing? Don’t stop there: you need to pile that shit on if you want your point to have the desired effect. You didn’t even mention his top hat, or his jewel-encrusted walking stick. And what do you mean by “on his way to work every day”? He’s obviously a filthy capitalist, a parasite living off the dividends from his massive stock holdings. He’s never gone to “work” a day in his life! What you meant to say was: “. . . on the way to buy mustache wax.”
Of course, in real life Lib sends his man servant through the corpse-littered streets to fetch his mustache wax, but you can be forgiven a little poetic license.
You are wrong though…because you haven’t factored in foreign car manufacturers who have auto plants here in the US. Auto workers may not have hundreds of places to look for alternative work…but there are certainly more than 3.
First, Iwould like to say I liked your bar setting analogy and the effect it has on the balance of poverty and equality, and I wonder If anyone knows of a successful nation with no form of capitalist/market oriented system (aztecs maybe-“unlike most European empires, it was more a system of tribute than a single system of government. In the theoretical framework of imperial systems posited by Alexander J. Motyl[8] the Aztec empire was an informal or hegemonic empire because it did not exert supreme authority over the conquered lands, it merely expected tributes to be paid”(from wikipedia))?
Secondly, as I started this thread I was interested in how to get to a point where there is a fully level playing field and which form of government (not necessarily a capitalist/market oriented system) can give that with as little drawbacks as possible. And so if anybody thinks that there can be something like ‘fair’ as I am defining it I would like to hear it…
I need to go now, im on my way to get a mustache wax…
Seems to me the best way to accomplish that is through full and equal access to education regardless of financial circumstances.
That alone is not enough, but it’s a step in the right direction. Even with full and equal access to education you still run into such problems as racial, gender and class discrimination in hiring and promotion, and good-old-boy networks that lend credence to the idea that “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”
One way to fight that latter problem is to limit intergenerational transfers of wealth, or at least tax them heavily. (Estate taxes.) Plow at least part of that money back into the education system.
Unhindered intergenerational wealth transfers tend to result in a hereditary aristocracy rather than a meritocracy, it seems to me.
According to my professors, don’t let them starve should be just about the right incentive. I would go a little further and give them a cot to sleep at night, possibly an address (anything more might cause a slum or a depreciation in property). Anything else above is voluntary, organized by the donor, or by a charitable organization.
Define successful? I’m probably wrong in one way or another, but I’ll say the American Indians, assuming they never progress above bows and arrows and tepee living. Any non-market based society is going to need a form of authoritarian government, whether it be a counsel of elders, ruling political party, or tribal leaders. Power tends to corrupt and people tend to not like corruption, which tends to a result in a destruction of society. Progress and technology also tend to expose different skills in people and the concept of value starts the idea of a market. So, any society without a market probably won’t have technology much above subsistence farming. Oh, and I’ll also throw in the Amish. While they do tend to use technology and receive money for their crops, excesses, and do invest in capital equipment and expenditures, they don’t really need to do so, and would get along better than most if they were suddenly transported to the early 1800’s.
I don’t think there is anything like “fair” as you describe it, because then we’d all be robots (or clones, but I like robots better). The best you could hope for, imho, is a (mostly) standardized curriculum, and a minimum standard of teaching abilities. Yes, people with more resources will still be able to afford better and thus better differentiate themselves in the workplace and society, but those other actors in the market looking for resources know that they can count on at least a bare minimum and a more stable price can be set.
How do you think is the best way to accomplish this exactly? I assume you are talking about grade school education, as higher education IS pretty much available regardless of financial circumstances…if not I would never have gone to college myself. But how to accomplish this at the grade school level exactly? We already spend a hell of a lot of money for our public school system…which seems bent on bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator instead of raising everything up to some higher standard. So…what to do? Pour in more money?
It’s basic human nature. You are never going to completely eliminate it as long as humans are humans. You will just shift the focus from one place to another.
That said, I think the US is making pretty good strides already in this regard…and if you think about it we’ve only really been focused on this issue for 4 decades. That’s not a long time for such a fundamental change in collective human behavior. I don’t know how old you are but I can tell you from my own perspective that things are a HELL of a lot better today than when I was a kid…and I expect them to be noticeably better when my children are my own age. In fact, sometimes I find it hard to believe how far we have come…had you asked me when I was a kid if things would be like they are today I would have thought you were crazy. Which isn’t to say that we don’t have a long way to go yet.
Scary. So, you want to shift the discrimination in the other direction and punish people for accumulating wealth? I’m sure THAT will work…
:dubious: (The unintended consequence of course will be that people will find ways to hide or otherwise shield their wealth…or they will move somewhere less draconian. Wonder what THAT will do to our economy, ehe?)
:dubious: What do you base this assessment on exactly? The few generational rich families like Bush and Kennedy? Thousands of people become millionaires each year in the US (ten’s of thousands)…at that rate you’d think all the wealth in the nation would accumulate into just a few hands in a generation or so. Has this happened? If so how do the numbers of people becoming millionaires each year go up instead of dwindle?
This old school covert communist claptrap always gives me the willies to be honest…sort of like a goose walking on my grave. What needs to be done to finally kill this crap off? It’s already dead and buried for the most part…does a stake need to be driven through it’s cold dead heart as well??\
It’s not my notion. It’s called the industry lifecycle. The industry lifecycle is characterized by five phases:
I - dormant stage with low numbers of competitors enjoying high monopoly profits
II - “takeoff” stage with soaring entry and virtually non-existent exit from the market
III - high turnover stage with many firms entering the market and leaving it
IV - “shakeout” stage with mass exit via mergers, bankruptcies, etc.
V - stabilization stage during which a stable oligopoly emerges
Yes, the Big 3 are struggling. They may shake out of the market in a few years if they can’t compete. That is the point.
I’m not talking about economic attrition. I’m talking about how much power an employer can hold over it’s employees. What stops an employer from forcing their employees to do whatever they want or treating them however they want? Why can’t a car company force their employees to work 18 hours shifts or work under unsafe conditions? If your factory is the only game in town, you don’t have much leverage.
Wealth redistribution is not the answer. Why should the fruits of a lifetime of labor be taken away to be mismanaged by the government? All that income was already taxed when it was earned anyway.
I guess the question is whether it makes more sense to try and elevate the lower classes, fix whatever it is in the system that enables people to earn thousands of times what a typical worker earns or both.
So there’s nothing beyond Stage V? Our nation is now dominated by oligopolies that arose after the shakeout stage during the Industrial Revolution?
Again, you don’t seem to grasp that big companies do not turn into oligopolies that last for a long period of time. These companies went through Stage V in the 1960s, probably, and now they are declining as new competition undermines them.
No, you don’t if you only have skills that can be used at one factory. If your skills are so limited that you must put up with ridiculous demands in order to obtain employment, that’s a signal that you need to broaden your skill base. That’s a good thing. That’s how both workers and industries progress. The market signals that certain skills are either not needed or not valuable. People adapt.
And of course “all the wealth in the nation” is not a set amount. The nation’s wealth grows.
Ah, the double taxation canard.
Let’s say I work to earn $1 million dollars, paying income tax along the way. Now I decide to pay Joe Contractor that $1 million to build me a house. Now Joe Contractor has to pay income tax. Double taxation! Double taxation! That money has already been taxed!!!
And when Joe Contractor takes some of his earnings and has some bridgework done, his dentist will have to pay taxes. swoonTriple taxation!!! That money’s already been taxed twice!
Well no. Wealth doesn’t get taxed. Transfers of wealth get taxed.
Richie Rich, Sr. presumably payed income taxes and capital gains taxes as he accumulated his wealth. Now he is dead, and the wealth is being transfered to Richie Rich, Jr., who hasn’t done a damned thing to earn it. Why shouldn’t Jr. be taxed? In fact, why should he pay more taxes than Joe Contractor, who actually worked to earn his money, and created something in the process?
How screwed up are our incentives, when we tax people for producing things through hard work and (if Bush has his way) don’t tax people who receive wealth for doing nothing?
What incentive does the wealthy scion have to use whatever talents he may possess?
And I am not suggesting total confiscation. But estate taxes should be heavy. Much heavier than taxes on earned income. And steeply graduated. If we’re choosing between taxing the working man and taxing the inheritor of wealth to finance our government, I happily choose the inheritor.
Actually, no. I was talking about higher education.
In a perfect world, all education should be merit-based. Get the grades, and you get the opportunities. This happens to some extent, though scholarships. That’s one of the great things about the US. But it is an imperfect system. There are children of the wealthy and connected (like George W. Bush) taking up spaces at the best schools that ought to go to more deserving scholars.
And there are other obstacles. A person growing up in an impoverished area may have to deal with a lot of stresses from which a wealthy kid may be insulated. How to fix that? I dunno.
Also, for the truly impoverished, scholarships covering tuition may not be enough. There are living expenses to pay above and beyond tuition.
And if you want to talk about how to fix grade school education, well, that’s a whole 'nother thread.
Really, a canard is it? Do you employ your family members to be…you know…part of your family? Do you really want to provide disincentives to people from giving their money away, particularly to distribute within the familial unit?
And why does it grow? I’ll get to this later…
Who says he has to? We live in a free society right? While I personally find laziness/do-nothings to be distasteful, that’s their business, meaning more opportunity for me and others like me. The scion still has to eat and still has property to maintain right? It’s not like the money is leaving the economy, hidden under a mattress.
This path will most likely result in a huge disincentive to save. If you think prices and consumerism are high now, this will inflate prices even higher and discourage even more movement of capital, since there is more incentive to spend and enjoy it while alive rather than save so that your kids can have a brighter future. What does this policy say about the future of familial relations? “Sorry, kiddo, but once I’m gone, you’re out on your own.”
But, wait, you want to make it progressive, right? Tax more, on the more they earn, not even set to a standard, which will be meaningless anyway, since people have different needs at those income levels (e.g. a $2M transfer of land is needed to keep the family farming business going, even though, they really only net $45k/year) but, hey, let’s break it up because the owner is dead and screw the rich, right? Yes, that’s fair, let’s punish people for their success. :rolleyes:
In some cases, transfers of wealth are what provides the capital to keep the business going upon the owner’s death. If I transfer my current business, (let’s assume I don’t have any partners) which I barely eke out a profit now as it is, to my heirs, it will be broken up because at current tax levels, it will not be profitable; e.g. in my specific case, my heir would need to take out a loan to pay off the tax, which would probably over draw the revolver I use to keep a steady cash-flow and pay for inventory, which means that the bank will more than likely close down my revolver, but will eventually as the non-profitability prevents its repayment. Without cash, I lose workers and new inventory, and eventually debt mounts and my business is taken to bankruptcy court. What about the other business partners? Are we going to dissolve businesses and their method of earning an income because of the unfortunate circumstances of one of their partners dying?
And if he squanders his inheritance through his sense of entitlement, he or his decedents won’t have that wealth anymore. Wealth is not a fixed ever present and cast in concrete thing…it’s fluid. Rich people become middle class people or even poor people if they squander that wealth.
Sure…and there are more than a few families who have managed to squander their wealth over time, or given large chunks of it away. Again, there is nothing sacred about wealth…it can flow out of a family as easily as it can flow in, especially if the folks inheriting it are stupid about managing it.
Really? How? Is it the good workers and peasants that grow the wealth of a nation…or is it the rich and their capital that have a greater impact?
Are you under the impression that rich folk stuff their money in mattresses or something? I’m not trying to build men of straw…I’m asking a serious question here. What exactly do you think that these evil wealthy families DO with their wealth? How do you think that the successful ones who manage to hang onto their wealth actually manage to hang onto it in the long run??
I have no idea what in this cite (even leaving aside the source) is supposed to be saying wrt my comment. It says that the upper percentile of wealthy are getting more wealthy…it doesn’t speak to the numbers of new families who become wealthy (or who move downward) in any given year, which is what I was getting at.
Straight question here…does the number of families who enter the upper 1% of wealth in the nation grow or shrink over time?
Seriously…how do you think this point is analogous to the one you quoted? I’m not seeing it to be honest. Seems an apples to oranges comparison to me.
The workers and peasants, Comrade XT, are the nation itself. They are the substance, the backbone and the vessel. If they are not deserving of the wealth of the nation, who is?
You don’t make any sense. Your argument that the automotive industry isn’t consolidating is that several of the major automotive companies are struggling. That IS the point. The competition for foreign automakers is only “new” in the sense that they didn’t compete in the same markets prior to the 1970s or so. But now that they are competing, additional consolidation and shakeouts can be expected. Ocassionally new subsidiaries will be created like Saturn or Hummer in an attempt to open up new markets with new types of vehicles, but the general trend is a smaller number of larger companies. IOW an oligopoly.
It doesn’t happen for all industries at the same rate.
No, you don’t if you only have skills that can be used at one factory. If your skills are so limited that you must put up with ridiculous demands in order to obtain employment, that’s a signal that you need to broaden your skill base. That’s a good thing. That’s how both workers and industries progress. The market signals that certain skills are either not needed or not valuable. People adapt.
[/quote]
Then we as a society need to make sure that the opportunities exist for people to develop new skills in order to be useful.
But clearly you have not read much about the history of the American labor movement. Not that I’m pro unions, however I think you are incredible naive to think the worker has as much power as the company in the employer/empoyee relationship. And what happens when the market signals forcing everyone to work an 80 hour week is competetive? Or that hiring child labor or sweatshops?
I disagree Sir 'luci (sorry, couldn’t think of a suitable ‘capitalist’ analogue to Comrade…I’m dead tired, ehe?). I think the nation itself is composed of free citizens, whether rich or poor, who ‘deserve’ what is their’s…regardless of how magnificent or humble.
Sounds like trickle down economics to me. The idea that wealth will eventually make it’s way from the rich down to the poor people. As if that were a good system even if it worked that way.
From what I’ve seen, the wealthy generally use their wealth to gain more wealth producing assets - companies, real estate, etc. Poor people generally are forced to live paycheck to paycheck on their market wages. Maybe it does eventually trickle down to the average working man. But should the average working man feel happy about that?
None of that really responds to the question of whether and how heavily inherited wealth should be taxed. If we’re going to tax people who work to earn their money, shouldn’t we also tax the people who have it handed to them?
You’re saying we should rely on the wealthy to blow their money? The stats upthread show that isn’t the trend.
“Peasants?” You betray yourself.
Joe Contractor is no peasant. And yes, he has created wealth. He built a house. So did the carpenter and the roofer who work for him.
Well I can tell you that I have money tied up in a few pieces of real estate I’ve owned as investments for years. They’ve increased in value substantially over that time.
How have I helped the economy with those real estate investments? Have I contributed to our nation’s wealth? Have I created any jobs?
I tire of this libertarian myth that those with wealth necessarily use it productively.
The ultimate source (if you had read carefully) was the New York Times.
You said earlier that if I were correct, wealth should be accumulating in a few hands. That article shows that it is:
These days, I imagine the number of new families entering that 1% is shrinking. Naturally, for every family that enters the top 1%, one family must leave. (Leaving aside population growth for a moment.) I think the Bush tax cuts (and the Reagan tax cuts before them) have the tendency to stabilize the positions of the families in that top 1%. Makes the club more secure and exclusive, dontchaknow. Keeps out the riff-raff.
Do you contend otherwise? And if so, have you any cites?
I don’t know how to make it any clearer. The same money gets taxed and retaxed every time it changes hands as it circulates through our economy. And we don’t question that. But heaven forbid the money should get taxed when it passes from legator to legatee.
If I hire my son and pay him to work for me, he has to pay income tax on that money, yes?
But if I just bequeath him that money, he pays no tax (at least if Bush has his way).
Why should it be that way? Why should we tax people who work to earn money, but not those who just have it handed to them?
Where is the sense in that? And where are we placing our incentives? And more to the point of this thread, isn’t that just contributing to the accumulation of wealth in a few hands?
I should apologize to the OP. I don’t think the OP was thinking exclusively of the US economy, but I seem to have sidetracked us into that discussion. Sorry about that.
Well, lets assume for a moment that it’s not a good idea. What do you propose exactly?
(BTW, my statement really had nothing to do with trickle down economics…just FTR)
Ok…again, for a moment lets assume your are right and that is what the wealthy do. What do you suppose those ‘companies’ that the wealthy invest in do exactly? Are they simply self contained money generating machines designed solely to put more money in the pockets of the rich?
Leaving aside the ‘forced’ part…where do those paychecks come from that they are living on?
Maybe? Bill Gates is extremely wealthy. If you work for Microsoft you get a paycheck, no? Much of Bill Gates wealth is in fact tied up in Microsoft. Since you are getting a piece of that via your paycheck, I’d have to say that there is no ‘maybe’ about it. No?
Well, I’m unsure about several things here. First off, that the ‘average working man’ doesn’t in fact feel happy about the fact that s/he is trading their labor for that paycheck. I’m an ‘average working man’…I feel pretty happy about the fact that my labor is actually worth something, and that the value of it feeds and clothes my family, and grants us some measure of security and some modest luxuries and such.
Second thing I’m unsure of is…why the ‘average working man’(s) happiness is the responsibility of the rich to ensure. Or the governments for that matter. To me it’s really up to the individual to ensure their own happiness…and part of that is the ability to trade their labor for value…i.e. a paycheck that gives value for value. I know what my worth is…and I trade that worth for equal value from my employer, in the form of what they pay me.
spoke-, I’ll try and reply to your own post asap…but it will be a couple of hours at a minimum as I have a flight to catch.
I get how it works. People invest in companies, the companies create wealth and jobs, the workers share in that wealth, etc. I’m just not so sure how consolidating wealth in a single family is better than accross several hundred thousand shareholders.
Even Warren Buffet, the world’s richest man (or is it Gates?) is concerned about income disparity.
I think I’d feel happier if my a little more of the worth of my labor went to me instead of some guy’s mansion in Greenwich, CT. Your ‘measure of security’ is an illusion. You are only secure as long as you are valuable to your employer. And that value is subject to market fluctuations, economic downturns and the whim of your boss.
So, why do you need equality to have a good society? Set up strong social safety nets that provide a means of surviving for even the poorest and you’re OK. My idea has always been, for someone who won’t work or can’t find work: a room of their own with electricity and a commode. A communal shower. A communal TV set. Access to a communal soup kitchen where they can eat a nutritious meal every day. Access to the internets where they can look for jobs, same with phone, once again a communal thing. Not necessarily in their room.
Frankly, it would be a lot like jail only no guards, no bars, the idea is you should WANT to get out and have the ability to do so. You want a private internet hookup? Find a job. You want a private shower? Find a job. You want to eat something tasty? Find a job. You want to a room you can decorate? Find a job. Everything is free in this place, but if you want anything nicer, find a job. Or start your own business.
Strict no drugs or alcohol policy. If either is found on your person or in your room, you’re out. Want to get a buzz on Friday night? Find a job.
Also access to training classes where you can get the skills needed to find a job. Maybe access to people who can help you start a very small biz that can get you out and living on your own.
I guarantee you, this setup would motivate 99.99 percent of people to look for work. And yet it would mean nobody need starve or sleep in the street.
Oh, yeah, only US citizens could use it. Otherwise it would just become temporary housing for border crossers, at a much better standard of living than they are used to.
(Of course, there’s no reason this setup couldn’t work in Mexico, too. Except for that large families thing. And greed. And stupidity. The usual reasons Mexico sucks, in short.)
