Well, Obama’s “spread the wealth around” comment leads me to believe that he is more interested in throwing money at the poor, than in employing the poor.
The dems perennially campaign for increasing the minimum wage. In my opinion, when a fry cook makes X dollars per hour, the restaurant will charge X dollars per burger. Net benefit to the poor: zero. People who could only get minimum will still only get minimum. People who could get 1000 times minimum will still be able to get 1000 times minimum. Changing the minimum wage does not change anyone’s bargaining power relative to the rest of the players in the economy.
The dems are friendly to labor unions. Most of my work-related headaches are caused by my co-workers. If they had a union rep protecting them, the company slackers would be even less reliable than they are now. And I would have to work even more overtime covering for the bums.
As well as to those whose experience is that cooperating and getting things done means following orders and putting your convictions aside (whether in the service or a civilian job). This is bound to make you feel that standing up for your own beliefs just leads to selfishness and chaos, and decays the common social-moral fabric. It’s a fundamental difference in what a good society means.
Why? Where in that comment does it say anything about the poor?
Further, what is the opposite of “spreading the wealth”? Isn’t it “consolidating the wealth”? Is that a good thing, in your opinion? How will it be better for America to have increasing consolidation of wealth?
Because it will be at the top, where a) it will be more effective in building the private sector, and b) it belongs anyway - with the leaders and order-givers, on our following whom everything depends.
I think of these people as “Cargo Cult” conservatives. Apparently, they believe if they vote like the rich people do, they will become rich people themselves.
In most developed countries, taxes get as high as 50%, sometimes for people in the middle class. The tax structure is designed to make this society run, giving each successive generation the opportunity to make something of themselves, and make sure they have the means to survive (ie, eat and sleep) if they fall on hard times. The rich, who have directly benefited from this system, owe it to the rest of us to make this country run as well for my generation as it did for theirs.
I never said that anything in the Republican platform keeps anyone from sharing what they have with the less fortunate. I said that rich Democrats are probably Democrats because they believe they owe something to the less fortunate. As a former fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee, I believe I know of which I speak.
“Why throw money at social problems? Because that’s what money is for.” - Kurt Vonnegut
mbh - your concerns impress me as rather vague Democratic stereotypes, rather than any specific reason to believe you (or your boss) would do better under McCain than Obama.
That’s twice I’ve heard that the rich owe something to the less fortunate. I’d rather see a company that did things like profit sharing for it’s employees or helped the community it was in with schools and such, but that’s a moral choice rather than a debt. If I sell a widget for $10 and it turns out I sell 5,000,000 widgets I’m a rich guy. I don’t owe any additional something to anyone because they made a choice to buy my widget. They got what they paid for. I could agree there is a moral imperative to help the less fortunate but that’s the development of the individual and volition.
If a society as a whole agrees to a certain tax code that’s volition. Obviously people in this country don’t agree.
Perhaps I’m just nitpicking terminology here but I do object to the concept that rich people *owe * something to the less fortunate. If we can show that a society works better with a progressive tax system then that’s fine. That’s evidence with which to make a reasoned choice. btw in a flat tax system the rich pay the same percentage and still more taxes for obvious reasons. The objection for many folks is not paying more in taxes, they expect to. It’s paying a higher percentage while others pay nothing.
While helping the less fortunate we need to consider things like personal responsibility and motivation. We can help and still push them toward self reliance and making a some contribution.
Where are your widgets coming from? Who made your widgets? Who bought your widgets? Unless you can do all of these things yourself, you have used the society that you belong to to provide adequate resources to make the widgets, a workforce with enough skills to produce the widgets, and a consumer base that is in a position to buy widgets. If these things need to be transported, you’ve relied on the existence of transportation infrastructure to move the widgets. I assume that somehow people were able to find out about the widgets.
And so on and so forth…
This idea of the rugged individualist single-handedly making his own fortune is certainly a noble and glorious image. Too often the picture leaves out all that a society has to put in place for that individual to do everything so single handedly.
The mind of the person or people who conceived, designed and capitalized the company to produce them. Where else?
The workers hired (and paid) by the person or people who conceived the product and created the company to produce them.
The consumers who desire to purchase said widgets…and who wouldn’t be able to buy them if they were never conceived of and produced.
Unless someone puts the thought into creating them all those workers will never have those jobs. Unless someone puts up the capital and takes the risks then all those workers won’t have those jobs. True, they may have OTHER jobs…but they won’t have the jobs that will open up to manufacture the new widgets. Unless someone does all the things necessary to bring those widgets to market the consumers won’t be able to purchase and enjoy those new widgets. True, they could buy other products…but they will never have these particular products.
While certainly the folks who are capitalizing the effort and those who conceived and developed the product rely on workers to actually make it, the workers are more dependent on the capitalists than vice versa…because there are less capitalists and visionaries creating new industries or products than there are workers (skilled and/or unskilled) to produce them.
And that’s what taxes are for. And our transport infrastructure benefits those workers at least as much as it does the companies…which is why we all pay for the creation and upkeep. After all, without that road infrastructure no one would get ANY products (or food, or fuel or…anything)…so it’s kind of a two way street there. So to speak.
Not sure what you are getting at here. I assume it has something to do with marketing…and that you point has something to do with the media infrastructure in this country and how companies rely on it for advertising. Or something. Same point as the transport, as it’s not JUST companies who use it or benefit by it.
It’s almost as silly as the concept that new companies and products spring out of the ground providing wealth and jobs like mana from heaven. Society creates the structure that allows for individuals to innovate and create…which in turn benefits society by providing jobs, new products and taxes. The transport infrastructure of course is multi-use, providing logistics for everyone, as well as person transport for people to use…which is why we all pay for it. Media infrastructure provides vectors for advertising (which companies pay for), and entertainment for people to use and enjoy.
There is one thing that makes the rugged individualist stand out, though, which is his or her willingness to assume risk. Some inventors of widgets make a fortune, some crash & burn. But all of them have to be willing to risk (often everything) to take a chance at being the former rather than the latter. Me, I’ll likely never be rich, and what’s more, I’ll never know if there was a chance I could have been rich, because I’m not willing to put it all on the line to find out. I’m more than happy helping to churn out the widgets, as long as I’m reasonably compenstated for doing so, because I know that if I do so, I’m more than likely to have a steady income and a roof over my head.
The idea comes from a person’s mind, but you’re not suggesting that the actual widget itself does, are you? From your answers below, I take it that you aren’t, but this is an odd response to lead with.
It isn’t until I got to the physical infrastructure of transportation that you got it. I wonder why that was.
Look, somehow you seem to be implying that I don’t think the individual should profit from their venture. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m just pushing back against the idea that any individual can sell 5 million widgets completely of their own accord. They cannot use capital to instantly create an educated and skilled workforce. They cannot use capital to instantly create a consumer base with the resources and need for their product. These things exist because America, and the American society exist. Just like the transportation and communication infrastructure exists, and is utilized by the person selling the widgets.
Exactly, except that it applies to everything else I listed as well, not just transportation.
Exactly, and individuals can and are very well rewarded for those innovations and risks. But they also are beholden to the society that existed to provide ALL of the resources they took advantage of to generate that wealth. I see a moral and ethical obligation on the part of people who benefit so greatly to pay taxes to support the continued existence of that society that they benefitted from themselves.
Hentor, I’m not sure I understand your argument. If cosmosdan makes his widget, sell it, and get rich why should that mean he owes anything more than anyone else? Sure, he used the mechanisms society put into place, but he got no special advanatge. He just made and sold a widget. If you’d made and sold said widget, you’d be the rich guy. And I’d also question why he has a moral obligation to provide more than someone who didn’t come up with the widget. And if he is beholden to society, then he settle that debt through taxes and charitable giving (if he gives, not all do). What moral obligation has he to provide anything more?
I’m what you’d would call middle class earnings-wise: despite working a full time job, and as a consultant, and as a real estate agent my wife and I earn well below the $250,000 magic “rich person” salary. I’m also a guy who was homeless for several months, “showered” in a public fountain, worked day labor and ate almost nothing while saving my money so that I could be one of 11 renters of a room, worked two jobs to pull out of my financial woes, saved enough to open a business while still working another job, and over the years have managed to scrimp, save, and work my way into a position of relative stability and financial comfort. By working hard my wife and I managed to nearly triple our net worth during the real estate boom and are now planning for the next opportunity to increase our wealth further.
During my times of distress, I never took advantage of any social program. That is, I was never on unemployment, never got a welfare check, never got food stamps or similar aid, never got a handout from a church. The closest I came to charity was buying a suit for an interview at the Salvation Army. When I opened my business, I didn’t qualify for an SBA loan and so opened on a shoestring budget and had many days in which 3 or 4 hours of sleep were a godsend. I eventually lost the business, but ran it well enough that I was able to earn and save some money and continue making myself more comfortable financially.
I know beyond any doubt that my story is not typical, and don’t want to put forth the claim that it is. I know that without a stable society with an infrastructure I would probably still be homeless, but that stable society offers you and everyone else the same opportunity to succeed that I have. Given all of the above, please explain to me why I should owe anything more than you do to society simply because I’ve worked so hard to make myself as wealthy as I possibly can be.
In what way is making a claim on unemployment insurance equivalent to welfare, food stamps or church charity? How about making a claim on your health insurance, car insurance or life insurance, are those social programs that you eschew?
The only thing missing from this thought is the description of the great struggle between the workers employed to make the widgets and the capitalists taking advantage of them. Society is already compensated by the wages they earned from the supplier. General taxes are already paid by the supplier for the use of roads and other infrastructure, as well as the financing of government for all the other administrative stuff needed to make society function. Shouldn’t we all be paying into this equally? Doesn’t the already progressive tax structure take this into account? Every argument I’ve seen to the contrary is just some sort of spin on class warfare. Stratocaster’s post correctly describes exactly what should be going on with wealth distribution.