Leo
Is this you? Claim Profile »
7 months ago
in Barstool Economics (on Taxes) on Ready Fire Aim
Hi Billda
I see your points and I appreciate your response. You have a better picture of the situation then the other guy. Ok here is my arguments:
a. "Your belief that participants in an economy should be rewarded based upon how hard they work is flawed…Participants in the economy are compensated not based on how much effort they put in, but based upon the output (or wealth) they produce."
That is not true. Everyone gets paid based on supply and demand, not the output or how valuable the work he does really is. The value is determined by the market so it could be if we would not have enough ditch diggers that they would get paid even more then doctors. You see you give the example with doctors and high wages. The doctors do not get paid high because they do highly valuable work, but because there is just a shortage on doctors in US (high demand for doctors versus low supply of doctors). That is also why the government tries to balance it out by giving special immigration consideration to doctors (and nurses). Look at a doctor in Africa. He does the same job, same output, but gets paid 10 or 100 times less. So the output has nothing to do with it. It is the restrictions of the government that artificially keep wages high in one county at the expense of low wages in the other countries. Would we truly have a free economy without borders, then wages of doctors in Africa would rise while those in America would drop until every doctor on earth would be paid about the same. This is not the case and so a doctor in US who is paid more is actually literally taking money out of the pocket from the doctor in Africa because the African fellow can not for some reason relocate to US. The system in US (immigration or whatever other barrier there is) keeps the American doctor relative rich compared to the African. And that is what I mean when I say rich explode the system and are rich only because of some error (barrier) they set up, not because there work is so much valuable. That is what I mean the rich "trick" the system. These becomes even more obvious in the agriculture. Sure the wages of American farmers would drop if we open the borders. They should because they are getting unfair advantage and again literally take money from the pockets of poor farmers in 3rd world countries and so keep those countries poor. The poor farmer has the same product maybe even better and is wiling to sell it for much cheaper to Americans, but the freaking government of US protects the US farmer so the poor foreign farmer can not sell it and has not even enough pay the bills. Then US government fills sorry for those poor guys and sends humanitarian help which is a joke. If they really want to help they should remove the protectionism of the US farmers and let market decide the price. US farmers would have no chance and would have to change business and people would move in more productive areas (like high tech) and leave the food industry to poor countries which would now make 10 or 100 times more money and so the whole world would be better off. Instead of sending Africa humanitarian help, open the market so they can start growing, and have a fair chance on the market.
I see you point about the wages that would drop probably in all areas in US if we open up the borders, but I look at the global consequences not some minority group like Americans. And the global consequences would be that the poor countries would get more money while logically the rich will lose some. But since the food and services would be now available for much less also in US (at about the same price as anywhere else on Earth) the drop of income would not cause a drop in living standard, -the standard would in fact in long term even increase, because of more competition higher diversity of products and services and better mobility. So yes instead of a doctor making 150,000 USD a year in US he might end up be paid maybe 20,000 USD a year (and all other people would also end up being paid less), but the food would suddenly cost 5% of what you pay now, and prices of there item like cloths, housing etc will also drop significantly , because suddenly if would not matter anymore that you need to be physically in US to be making above overage money and people would move. So the standard would not fall, and at the same time the standard of living in all the poor countries around the world would increase to the same level then that of the US. Would that not be great?
b. " Each and every time a company sells one if its products, the person that buys it from them willingly exchanges their money for the product - it is a voluntary exchange. If the consumer did not think the product was worth their money, they would simply not buy it."
I see your point. But you have to know what you say work only in perfect competition (which is for now only a theory), not in real world that is far from that. This works only in a market that is completely open which unfortunately US is not and no market is, because we have borders, import export regulations, oligopoly, monopoly, etc. The government tries to fight the monopoles but , well not really. Just look the gas prices. Sure we have more then one gas company and you might argue that they compete, but if you look at the prices I would not say so. The prices in one area are just about the same maybe if you are lucky 2-3 cents apart. Since the price of crude Oil is just 60% of total gas price, then I am really surprised that the final price after considering all the different cost that the companies have comes only few cents a gallon apart (Check http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel... to see gas price structure.) That shows that companies are not pricing the gas based on the actual cost but form the price by some secret agreements among each other (monopoly). This is just one example. So it might look as a willing exchange of money for product (gas), but it's not because it’s a monopoly and you have no chance-you either buy or walk 20 miles to work which you cant.
I can also not agree that CEOs get paid gazillions$ just because they run a big company especially if they run a monopolistic company like described above. "CEOs" literally do not do anything, but just delegate work. They (The CEOs) have people who do job for them. The big multibillion companies with 100,000 people or more are to complex to be fully managed and understood by any CEO so the CEO uses more or less his guts taking decisions similar as a president uses his guts when choosing if go to Iraq or not. The big companies would NOT suddenly collapse if the CEO is removed. They would keep running for many years just as fine as it was with the CEO. Look I don’t say we do not need CEOs, but I say that there role in the success of a company and consequently their share in compensation is MUCH MUCH MUCH overrated. At best they should get 5 times the minimum wage not billions. Now they get paid millions even when they screw things up and are fired. Why?
And I know that many companies are public, but the fact is you need money to buy the stock and the current system of wealth distribution as I said is messed up which is why still only 5% of people own 95% of wealth and that includes the public stocks.
c. "Receiving more than you give is not wrong. In fact, it is the basis for a free market economy, and you engage in it every day."
Well it is not so easy. The problem is not in taking more then you give or giving more then you take … what is more and what is less? That is a subjective measure. If you are in a desert dying of thirst but have a sack of diamonds, giving one diamond for a glass of water will make you fill you gain more then you gave so you will trade. This will be considered a rip of in a normal situation. "more" or "less" are subjective and it is right so or else nobody would ever engage in any trade. The point is in correctly valuing the time of a person (how much he gets for 1 hour of his life). Does a special model deserve to get pain 1 million for a commercial while another only 200 $? Or a football player paying football being paid 10,000,000 $ million, while a whole life of equal physical work in a factory somewhere china would pay only 10,000$? Again you see its not the output you create but supply and demand. If there are little people who can do what you do you get paid more no matter if this is cleaning the toiled to being a doctor. But if there are many people who can do it, then you get paid little. Is one hours of life of a person digging holes worth 9$ and an hour of a guy in a office at a certain bank 250$? It is, if we agree, and is not if we don’t.
But what really bothers me is if a person working job A gets paid 50% less/hour then another person doing the same job A in another country (or company) because there is a artificial barrier that prohibits free flow of workforce, then this is a system that creates
"The laws of supply and demand dictate that if the borders were opened, wages (especially for the poor) would fall"
Yes in US, but not for 5 billion poor people on Earth-there they would go up. And as I said even if the wages in US drop it will force people to move into more productive sectors (high tech) and we should not forget that even if wages drop the standard will not because we will get stuff much much cheaper.
About the author. I asked the author and he said he did not write the article so whoever came up with the story is using his name to spread his own stories. Here is his email reply:
From: davidk@terry.uga.edu
Hello Leo
Sorry, but I did not write the story and I do not know who did.
Best
David
I see your points and I appreciate your response. You have a better picture of the situation then the other guy. Ok here is my arguments:
a. "Your belief that participants in an economy should be rewarded based upon how hard they work is flawed…Participants in the economy are compensated not based on how much effort they put in, but based upon the output (or wealth) they produce."
That is not true. Everyone gets paid based on supply and demand, not the output or how valuable the work he does really is. The value is determined by the market so it could be if we would not have enough ditch diggers that they would get paid even more then doctors. You see you give the example with doctors and high wages. The doctors do not get paid high because they do highly valuable work, but because there is just a shortage on doctors in US (high demand for doctors versus low supply of doctors). That is also why the government tries to balance it out by giving special immigration consideration to doctors (and nurses). Look at a doctor in Africa. He does the same job, same output, but gets paid 10 or 100 times less. So the output has nothing to do with it. It is the restrictions of the government that artificially keep wages high in one county at the expense of low wages in the other countries. Would we truly have a free economy without borders, then wages of doctors in Africa would rise while those in America would drop until every doctor on earth would be paid about the same. This is not the case and so a doctor in US who is paid more is actually literally taking money out of the pocket from the doctor in Africa because the African fellow can not for some reason relocate to US. The system in US (immigration or whatever other barrier there is) keeps the American doctor relative rich compared to the African. And that is what I mean when I say rich explode the system and are rich only because of some error (barrier) they set up, not because there work is so much valuable. That is what I mean the rich "trick" the system. These becomes even more obvious in the agriculture. Sure the wages of American farmers would drop if we open the borders. They should because they are getting unfair advantage and again literally take money from the pockets of poor farmers in 3rd world countries and so keep those countries poor. The poor farmer has the same product maybe even better and is wiling to sell it for much cheaper to Americans, but the freaking government of US protects the US farmer so the poor foreign farmer can not sell it and has not even enough pay the bills. Then US government fills sorry for those poor guys and sends humanitarian help which is a joke. If they really want to help they should remove the protectionism of the US farmers and let market decide the price. US farmers would have no chance and would have to change business and people would move in more productive areas (like high tech) and leave the food industry to poor countries which would now make 10 or 100 times more money and so the whole world would be better off. Instead of sending Africa humanitarian help, open the market so they can start growing, and have a fair chance on the market.
I see you point about the wages that would drop probably in all areas in US if we open up the borders, but I look at the global consequences not some minority group like Americans. And the global consequences would be that the poor countries would get more money while logically the rich will lose some. But since the food and services would be now available for much less also in US (at about the same price as anywhere else on Earth) the drop of income would not cause a drop in living standard, -the standard would in fact in long term even increase, because of more competition higher diversity of products and services and better mobility. So yes instead of a doctor making 150,000 USD a year in US he might end up be paid maybe 20,000 USD a year (and all other people would also end up being paid less), but the food would suddenly cost 5% of what you pay now, and prices of there item like cloths, housing etc will also drop significantly , because suddenly if would not matter anymore that you need to be physically in US to be making above overage money and people would move. So the standard would not fall, and at the same time the standard of living in all the poor countries around the world would increase to the same level then that of the US. Would that not be great?
b. " Each and every time a company sells one if its products, the person that buys it from them willingly exchanges their money for the product - it is a voluntary exchange. If the consumer did not think the product was worth their money, they would simply not buy it."
I see your point. But you have to know what you say work only in perfect competition (which is for now only a theory), not in real world that is far from that. This works only in a market that is completely open which unfortunately US is not and no market is, because we have borders, import export regulations, oligopoly, monopoly, etc. The government tries to fight the monopoles but , well not really. Just look the gas prices. Sure we have more then one gas company and you might argue that they compete, but if you look at the prices I would not say so. The prices in one area are just about the same maybe if you are lucky 2-3 cents apart. Since the price of crude Oil is just 60% of total gas price, then I am really surprised that the final price after considering all the different cost that the companies have comes only few cents a gallon apart (Check http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel... to see gas price structure.) That shows that companies are not pricing the gas based on the actual cost but form the price by some secret agreements among each other (monopoly). This is just one example. So it might look as a willing exchange of money for product (gas), but it's not because it’s a monopoly and you have no chance-you either buy or walk 20 miles to work which you cant.
I can also not agree that CEOs get paid gazillions$ just because they run a big company especially if they run a monopolistic company like described above. "CEOs" literally do not do anything, but just delegate work. They (The CEOs) have people who do job for them. The big multibillion companies with 100,000 people or more are to complex to be fully managed and understood by any CEO so the CEO uses more or less his guts taking decisions similar as a president uses his guts when choosing if go to Iraq or not. The big companies would NOT suddenly collapse if the CEO is removed. They would keep running for many years just as fine as it was with the CEO. Look I don’t say we do not need CEOs, but I say that there role in the success of a company and consequently their share in compensation is MUCH MUCH MUCH overrated. At best they should get 5 times the minimum wage not billions. Now they get paid millions even when they screw things up and are fired. Why?
And I know that many companies are public, but the fact is you need money to buy the stock and the current system of wealth distribution as I said is messed up which is why still only 5% of people own 95% of wealth and that includes the public stocks.
c. "Receiving more than you give is not wrong. In fact, it is the basis for a free market economy, and you engage in it every day."
Well it is not so easy. The problem is not in taking more then you give or giving more then you take … what is more and what is less? That is a subjective measure. If you are in a desert dying of thirst but have a sack of diamonds, giving one diamond for a glass of water will make you fill you gain more then you gave so you will trade. This will be considered a rip of in a normal situation. "more" or "less" are subjective and it is right so or else nobody would ever engage in any trade. The point is in correctly valuing the time of a person (how much he gets for 1 hour of his life). Does a special model deserve to get pain 1 million for a commercial while another only 200 $? Or a football player paying football being paid 10,000,000 $ million, while a whole life of equal physical work in a factory somewhere china would pay only 10,000$? Again you see its not the output you create but supply and demand. If there are little people who can do what you do you get paid more no matter if this is cleaning the toiled to being a doctor. But if there are many people who can do it, then you get paid little. Is one hours of life of a person digging holes worth 9$ and an hour of a guy in a office at a certain bank 250$? It is, if we agree, and is not if we don’t.
But what really bothers me is if a person working job A gets paid 50% less/hour then another person doing the same job A in another country (or company) because there is a artificial barrier that prohibits free flow of workforce, then this is a system that creates
"The laws of supply and demand dictate that if the borders were opened, wages (especially for the poor) would fall"
Yes in US, but not for 5 billion poor people on Earth-there they would go up. And as I said even if the wages in US drop it will force people to move into more productive sectors (high tech) and we should not forget that even if wages drop the standard will not because we will get stuff much much cheaper.
About the author. I asked the author and he said he did not write the article so whoever came up with the story is using his name to spread his own stories. Here is his email reply:
From: davidk@terry.uga.edu
Hello Leo
Sorry, but I did not write the story and I do not know who did.
Best
David
7 months ago
in Barstool Economics (on Taxes) on Ready Fire Aim
You know you try to teach me here the ABC of economics that every idiot can find in a book. I did make master degree in business so you won't teach me anything I don’t know already. But remember this: the knowledge of today will only be known as stupidity tomorrow. And if you believe or not we are governed by fools - exaggerated chimpanzees, who have no clue about anything and care only for their own pockets. They don't care about you at all, so think twice before you go here trying to defend the existing messed up system that is actually keeping you on a level of a modern slave. You should go and study some history and philosophy like Plato or works of Cesar, etc and not just really on your limited knowledge some professor brainwashed you with and was tailored for to make you believe all is well and things have to be the way they are and can not be better. Nothing is well man. Nothing. Look around you, and maybe take a step out of US and go travel around the world and you will see the crap and poverty and wars that the fat cats create with there greed. And you try to convince me here that the system is just and that rich pay too much taxes and oh how poor are the rich are and I should fill sorry because the freaking 10th guy in the story about the beer has all the money so he pays more for the beer? Man wake up, economy is a ZERO SUM GAME. That means when one country has more the other have less, and I SAY THIS IN THE FACE of every economist out there. There are actually still fools out there (even PhD economists) who believe that there is a WIN-WIN situation possible. That is only locally if two countries join to exploit the third for example. But globally looking there is no win-win, only win-lose because each win for one is a loss for another. This should make sense since all resources on Earth are limited. America is relatively rich compared to the other countries, because it controls other countries (fear and wars) and keeps them poor. Each dollar you have is a dollar someone else does not have. You can only be rich relative to someone else, not by yourself. If everyone in the world would have 1 million $ today is the same as if everyone has only 1 cent., because nobody would be rich. To be rich you must create relative difference, and this is done by a group of people who step together and beat down the masses who are not organized and can not fight back. Then this group builds a system around itself to protect its status like they are Gods. It started in the age of cave men and is still going on today, just more sophisticated. In the past the kings even claimed they are descendant form Gods and something special, that their blood is blue etc so they justified they higher status. Today people got smarter and don’t buy this crap anymore, but they are still stupid enough to believe lies that the system is designed to protect them-like you claim with the freaking taxes and military that protects all especially poor, etc. Wake up!!!!! No really freaking wake up!! Are you insane?!! Sorry but you are totally brainwashed. When was a system ever created to protect anyone else then the elite, and when was there any military force build to protect anyone else but the king and the leaders? Man wake up really. The system is there to protect the rich and that’s it. In the past these were kings, today the kings are fat business cats who realized the crap the kings were selling them and kicked them from their power so they have the power now.
You get lost in all the numbers and tax debates etc, and forget the big picture which is that every system exists to protect those who are on top and make it. At the same time that means the system is made to prevent anyone from below to get on top. So you basically stay in on the level you were born. You need an example look at the immigration policy of US. It is literally created to keep anyone away. Did you ask yourself why the poor Mexicans or Chinese etc don’t just go to INS and say "Hey I want to live here because I can make more money in US then at home." Well they cant not, because the Americans as relative "rich cats " to the rest of the world do not want to share the wealth with those guys, even while we know that letting them in would improve competition, lower costs and give better products and services. But hey who cares, let them die and starve just as long I make my 100,000 here in US, have a nice house a nice car and live good, right? Wrong. And then Bush even sends military to Mexican border as an excuse to protect US from terrorist while terrorist are already in the country and the only people that are being kept away are poor people who just want a share of the American dream. I don’t see any military on the Canadian border where bad guys could also come in-why? because Canada has people who have more money and so less interested in immigrating. Who has the right to tell anyone where to leave? Especially in America that was build on immigrants? I wish the American Indians would say to the first settlers-hey white dudes you need American Indian green card to leave here and we don’t give it to you so go hell back where you came from. Everyone in America has ancestors who one day desired to move here to leave a better live like those poor Mexicans try every day even risking their lives. Dam this system! America was a land of the free, now it is as corrupt as any other country, if not even more. Free market my ass. The land of free my ass. We are all equal my ass. Someone really needs to shake the dam tree here and change the system. This immigration law is such a crap. Its just here to enslave the poor immigrants who are so desperate for a better live that they come here illegally and work under the table for peanuts mauling grass, building your freaking houses, preparing your freaking food. And BTW I am European, finish MBA here and still struggle to get the freaking work permit (green card) to live here. I see the crap that the immigration system has created to exploit the poor.
Let me tell you one thing: NOBODY has the right to tell ANYONE where to live and there is no justification for doing so. If I want to be called American and contribute to the nation I can, and if a Mexican wants the same he should be allowed no matter if he has money or not. It was said the land of the free, not the land of the rich!! If I want to live here I will, and if I want to live in China tomorrow I will and if in Japan after tomorrow I will. The age of slavery is gone so the governments should stop enforcing limits on there assets (people) where one can live how long etc. because I am nobodies asset. I am free. I stand for a free land for all countries without borders. Let the free economy decide the wages and all. Stop freaking artificially holding up high wages in US by limiting inflow of immigration. Then on the other hand you freaking cry that cost in US are high and that China and other Asia countries are beating crap out of us in productivity, innovatively, costs, and quality. This is what creates wars, because 5 billion people just will not take the crap anymore to live in poverty and be governed by minorities, especially if they know more are more educated or are even smarter and can compete on the American market, but the freaking American public is so scared of the competition. No freaking borders will stop the process of opening up. And the more a country procrastinates with the process the more it harms itself growing weak and less competitive which US is doing now for the last 40 years. So before giving me more lessons one Marxism, or how stupid I am look at the US and their closed border regarding immigration, import taxes, etc.
I guess you still believe that people actually do elect presidents and leaders. If you do then you are worth being the slave you are because the leaders need stupid obedient slaves like you. The leaders (fat cats) select and debate among themselves who will be the next leader (president, governor, etc..) then they make a short list of people who all work for them and will support their political ideas (enforce laws national and international that will keep them in power and make them richer). Everyone against their ideas (who might endanger their power) will not be on the list. Then they give the pre-selected list of candidates to the public, make a big show paid by the money they collect from the poor (masses) making the poor believe they are choosing the new leader. Give me a break. No wonder that nothing changes and that people soon realize the president sucks, and does not truly represent them, but some rich fat cats. Then they get mad, but hey the rich fat cats have a great plan how to handle this. They just offer new candidates for a president (after 4 years) which of course is done by the same token, so they maintain the power while the stupid masses keep buying the crap and vote full of hopes something will change for real this time so that they will be free, be able to live better, etc. But guess what? The rich will stay rich and the poor masses who select the new leader to represent them will keep being poor, because the leader does not care for the masses. His only job is to keep the masses enough happy not to rebel against the rich. That is one thing the rich learned from the past and all the revolutions- don’t push the poor to much or they will bite back.
You get lost in all the numbers and tax debates etc, and forget the big picture which is that every system exists to protect those who are on top and make it. At the same time that means the system is made to prevent anyone from below to get on top. So you basically stay in on the level you were born. You need an example look at the immigration policy of US. It is literally created to keep anyone away. Did you ask yourself why the poor Mexicans or Chinese etc don’t just go to INS and say "Hey I want to live here because I can make more money in US then at home." Well they cant not, because the Americans as relative "rich cats " to the rest of the world do not want to share the wealth with those guys, even while we know that letting them in would improve competition, lower costs and give better products and services. But hey who cares, let them die and starve just as long I make my 100,000 here in US, have a nice house a nice car and live good, right? Wrong. And then Bush even sends military to Mexican border as an excuse to protect US from terrorist while terrorist are already in the country and the only people that are being kept away are poor people who just want a share of the American dream. I don’t see any military on the Canadian border where bad guys could also come in-why? because Canada has people who have more money and so less interested in immigrating. Who has the right to tell anyone where to leave? Especially in America that was build on immigrants? I wish the American Indians would say to the first settlers-hey white dudes you need American Indian green card to leave here and we don’t give it to you so go hell back where you came from. Everyone in America has ancestors who one day desired to move here to leave a better live like those poor Mexicans try every day even risking their lives. Dam this system! America was a land of the free, now it is as corrupt as any other country, if not even more. Free market my ass. The land of free my ass. We are all equal my ass. Someone really needs to shake the dam tree here and change the system. This immigration law is such a crap. Its just here to enslave the poor immigrants who are so desperate for a better live that they come here illegally and work under the table for peanuts mauling grass, building your freaking houses, preparing your freaking food. And BTW I am European, finish MBA here and still struggle to get the freaking work permit (green card) to live here. I see the crap that the immigration system has created to exploit the poor.
Let me tell you one thing: NOBODY has the right to tell ANYONE where to live and there is no justification for doing so. If I want to be called American and contribute to the nation I can, and if a Mexican wants the same he should be allowed no matter if he has money or not. It was said the land of the free, not the land of the rich!! If I want to live here I will, and if I want to live in China tomorrow I will and if in Japan after tomorrow I will. The age of slavery is gone so the governments should stop enforcing limits on there assets (people) where one can live how long etc. because I am nobodies asset. I am free. I stand for a free land for all countries without borders. Let the free economy decide the wages and all. Stop freaking artificially holding up high wages in US by limiting inflow of immigration. Then on the other hand you freaking cry that cost in US are high and that China and other Asia countries are beating crap out of us in productivity, innovatively, costs, and quality. This is what creates wars, because 5 billion people just will not take the crap anymore to live in poverty and be governed by minorities, especially if they know more are more educated or are even smarter and can compete on the American market, but the freaking American public is so scared of the competition. No freaking borders will stop the process of opening up. And the more a country procrastinates with the process the more it harms itself growing weak and less competitive which US is doing now for the last 40 years. So before giving me more lessons one Marxism, or how stupid I am look at the US and their closed border regarding immigration, import taxes, etc.
I guess you still believe that people actually do elect presidents and leaders. If you do then you are worth being the slave you are because the leaders need stupid obedient slaves like you. The leaders (fat cats) select and debate among themselves who will be the next leader (president, governor, etc..) then they make a short list of people who all work for them and will support their political ideas (enforce laws national and international that will keep them in power and make them richer). Everyone against their ideas (who might endanger their power) will not be on the list. Then they give the pre-selected list of candidates to the public, make a big show paid by the money they collect from the poor (masses) making the poor believe they are choosing the new leader. Give me a break. No wonder that nothing changes and that people soon realize the president sucks, and does not truly represent them, but some rich fat cats. Then they get mad, but hey the rich fat cats have a great plan how to handle this. They just offer new candidates for a president (after 4 years) which of course is done by the same token, so they maintain the power while the stupid masses keep buying the crap and vote full of hopes something will change for real this time so that they will be free, be able to live better, etc. But guess what? The rich will stay rich and the poor masses who select the new leader to represent them will keep being poor, because the leader does not care for the masses. His only job is to keep the masses enough happy not to rebel against the rich. That is one thing the rich learned from the past and all the revolutions- don’t push the poor to much or they will bite back.
7 months ago
in Barstool Economics (on Taxes) on Ready Fire Aim
Look you don’t need to be sarcastic, but please just logically disprove my points. I would be glad to accept you view if you can show me you are in truth.
1) The Rich are rich because they suck money out of the Poor, manage to trick everyone into paying them more than they're worth, exploit the system, and in general make life miserable for everyone but themselves. They are also fat cats.-TRUE
You made it sound very dramatic, but on the end of the day it is true. The rich give out less then they receive so yes they get and stay rich. And the system is btw written for the rich. The only think they do is do a compromise with the poor, when the poor rebel. They do not want the poor to become rich (get there money), so they write laws that keep rich rich and the poor poor. However the rich also know they need the poor to be rich so they do not want the poor to die away, so they keep them happy by small compromises to keep them from rebelling.
2) Removing incentives from any economy has no ill effects on it-TRUE
What do you mean by incentives anyway? If the economy is free market and self regulating the incentives will be self imposed. We don’t need any freaking economist to mess around with ANY rules, because they do not do anything. All things return in circles and if you adjust something in economy on one end it comes back at you on the other. So you keep fixing a thing you can not fix, and like a cat trying to catch its own tail you run in a circle. We do not need ANY market regulation. Just freaking open up all the borders from all countries and let it come to an equilibrium.
3) Taxes are used to buy buildings, hotels, and airplanes for the rich, which poor people are not allowed to or do not use.-FALSE.
The money is not used to buy but protect this property and make it prosper- Remember how much money we spend on military to protect this wealth that belongs only to the minority? And who pays for the protection-yes everyone and the poor pay the most-yes with their lives. I never so the majority owner of IBM, GE, GEICO, FORD, DELL, etc go fight and lose their life to protect HIS property
4) The Military only protects the rich and their property, the poor have no need for a military for they are bullet proof.-FALSE
Sure the military protects the poor, but hey the rich create the wars in the greed for more money, and then they send the poor to fight for them while they observe it all in life over some satellite spy system or even go to dinner to the enemy to "work out things"-Now think again. Who really protects the poor? It's not the military, but the poor who now work for military.
5) The only proper justification for taxes is to pay for the great costs an economy incurs from wealth generation, because wealth is the great satan and taxes are the only cure.-FALSE
Come on, wealth is the Satan? Wealth is wealth-it is not good or bad. It is the rich fat greedy cats that are acting like pigs and to everything just for one extra cent. Wealth is good, if spread proportionally. Do not give me the crap that 5% of people (or even less) in the World have 95% of wealth is right, while the 95% are fighting, dying and paying for those asses-you think it is right only if you are one of the freaking 5%
The Rich can never pay enough in taxes to make up for the sin of being rich-PARTLY TRUE.
I will just suppose that whoever you are you probably don’t make 1 billion USD a year. So tell me dear friend, why the f#$# don’t you make a billion a year like some rich fat cat? Is it because you are stupid, or because the rich is so much more smart then you/ No. Or because you don't work enough and the rich work lets say 100,000 times more then you? Come on, we all have only 24 hours in a day. So if some ass makes 100,000 times or even million times more then you make in the same time period it is because the system is not just. I don’t speak about the "rich" who works every day hard and makes 200,000 USD a year compared to the bump who sits on the corner doing nothing. Of course there should be reward for work and if you do job good be rewarded more. But hey 100,000 times more and that maybe even if you are actionably more lazy etc just because you just were born in a rich family that own wealth? No way! So you can be a lazy bump like the guy on the corner doing nothing, but just because you inherited lets say a company that makes lots of money for you (poor people working for you make lots of money for you) you deserve that money? That is like saying the bump on the corner doing all day nothing deserves to be paid 100,000 times more they you, because he does nothing and you go and sweat and work every day to get your 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,000 or whatever. Now thing and freaking realize the system is craped up. There is no freaking way that any human being deserves to be paid so much more then another because physically it is impossible that his work can be some much more productive or that he can work so much more harder. The difference that makes the rich rich comes from the pockets of people who work for that rich ass, so everyone gets paid lets say 10 dollars less, which end up in the pocket of the rich fat cat, so he can make millions and gazillions a year just because he legally inherited something. Well I thought we are all equally in the land of the free, but it was I guess just a dream.
Now about your points
1) In free markets economic equilibrium. Yes I know about all that and equilibrium is reached, but who says that the equilibrium is the true equilibrium. For example if the economy is closed we still have equilibrium, but it is much higher then if we would open up all the borders. Today we have bunch of protectionism going on and all kinds of borders. Without that we could buy same product (especially food) for 10% of what we pay now, not to mention the better quality we would get because of more competition. And to your example about fat Bill Gates: He did invent something, but so what? There are millions inventions being patented every day that change your life without even knowing. So he wrote (not alone) the first operating program for IBM computers. Big deal. There are millions other programmers over the world who can do that and would do it sooner or later if he would not have done it. Does he therefore deserve all the billions? The fact is he created a monopoly which is as I say exploiting the system and that gave him all the money. Its not that he was the best program, but there was (and is) no other program. And that is a mistake in the system. And this supports my idea that rich only get rich when there is a error in system, like a wall that prevent the equilibrium to happen-he had no competition, and not because he was a God or super genius-ok he is smart etc, but as I said there are millions like him. The difference that made him rich is exploiting the system (monopoly) not his hard work, or ability etc. Look freaking Nikola Tesla. He invented AC/DC yet you probably did not even hear about him, because Thomas Edison hired him and later took over his patents and fired him, to the smart Tesla had to dig ditches to pay rent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla) Edison got rich while Tesla died poor, yet both contributed to our life, and in fact the electrical system used today is from Tesla not Edison. The rich got rich because he exploited the system build a monopoly and destroyed Tesla.
2) Incentives are crucial parts of any economy.
YES
But do you really believe one rich man can be paid 100,000 times more or even more then an overage, even he works just as hard or even less? Come on! Think about the CEO of companies like ENRON that even get freaking bonuses and millions when they are fired for going their job WRONG. What kind of incentive is this? And btw guess who will pay again for the crap that happened at ENRON? Yes the government which is again financed by taxes which also the poor pay. That is what I mean that the poor pay to protect the freaking wealth of the rich. The poor pay for the crap they do, for their houses, cars, yachts, parties, etc.
3) Taxes actually serve three key purposes.
First they redistribute wealth-TRUE, but the poor are still poor, and the rich get richer so something is the distribution is not working right don’t you agree?
Second they pay for government. Leo, may be surprised to learn that the majority of government programs benefit the poor more than the rich. Things like social security, medicare, public schools, public transportation, unemployment, federal housing programs, foreign aid, disaster relief, public broadcast systems, grants, and medicare all benefit and are targeted to help poor people, most rich people don't need or want to utilize these services.
OK I don’t even wona go into that: Ever so SICKO from Moor? If yes then you see what I mean about Medicare, and ever went to public school? Parents don’t even wont to send kids there because it sucks, and the only thing they learn there is drugs, sex and rock and roll.
Disaster relief? Remember hurricane Catrina and the help those people did not get? If you ask me churches and other humanitarian organization gave more help then the government. What about September 11? Whatever help was offered there you can thank again the overage Joe who was there and volunteered while Bush was reading bedtime stories to children in a kindergarten.
Third they can discourage behaviors that may have negative externalities and also help pay for the negative externalities associated with these behaviors. This means stuff like polluting the air when you drive a gas powered vehicle or burn coal for power.
TRUE, but do they really discourage anything? The only motive of the government is to suck away more money so they can fix their budget holes under the lie they do it to discourage pollution of air, etc. If they really wanted to discourage it then they would fine the companies who produce this cars and make a law they can not sell gasoline cars. Oh but wait, if they do that then the "fat cat" who owns the car company and the fat soundi arab who sells the gas will lose money. So lets just blame the poor because they buy gas powered cars, so the rich can keep making their money and we even get some extra money from the poor for being bad and buying the car. Yeah that is a great idea. Hello? Give me a electric car today for the price of a gas car and I buy it. But to punish me because I must drive to work (so the rich cat gets fat and more rich) and they sell me gas cars I should be punished? F%W$%3 don’t you get it? The poor (and that is 95% of people on the planet) just live so the fat rich can be rich. They say slavery was bad, but look they did not pay rent and food and their master took care of them. Today we are supposed to be free, but earn just enough to pay the rent and food to life another month to go to work and make the richer more rich. Wake up ok and tell me if this is not just slavery but under a different name? It you freaking don’t own a yacht and at least 2 houses and have at least 1 million $ on your account you should get it. You are a slave my friend for the fat cat you go work for every day 8-5 and writes you a check. You are a slave that is wasting his life every day on this planet without ever knowing what was your purpose here. You are getting older every day and your bank account does not look much more different then it did 2 years ago. You are getting older and soon you will die and leave this Earth and nobody will even know you ever existed 100 years from now. Well at least you have enough for food and rent, but remember many people and children don’t and not because they do not deserve it or because they work less then you or are more stupid. They don’t have it because the system f#%# sucks, but this discussion would go beyond the tax system which we try to discuss.
Please note that taxes do not usually buy hotels, airplanes, and most buildings and give them to the rich. These are actually private assets and you are actually a moron.
You are very simple minded. Of course they don’t buy directly the building etc, but indirectly. Remember again Enron, etc. Every time a big company get in trouble who bails its out? Yes the government. So who is the moron?
4) Taxes also pay for National Defense, but security is what we call a public access resource, meaning that you can't really protect one person in a country without protecting everyone. Interestingly if there was a large scale military invasion rich people would probably be better able to protect themselves than poor because they could purchase travel to a safe place, pay off the enemy, or contract personal security so you could actually make the argument that National Defense benefits poor people more. Unfortunately poor people not bullet proof, but it'd be awesome if they were.
National defense protects poor people more? Man you were really brainwashed by the "rich fat cats". Again who goes to war and dies on the fields? The poor-I never heard of a rich dude fight his own wars. So you call dying being protected? The rich are safe. They play with the lives of the poor but if something goes wrong they will survive. They have even a freaking shelter in US for all the elite asses in case of a nuclear war, so that those who would be actually responsible would be taken care and saved while you and me my friend would miserably die outside. And guess who paid for that shelter again-yes the poor. And again look you have to understand the rich always make wars. The poor simple people in country A and country B don’t care to fight. They just want food, shelter and peace. YES PEACE! But the fat rich cat wants the money and land of the other fat rich cat so they each lies to its own people that the other guys are bad and that they want to take their food away, their shelter, and their peace or come and rape there families. Then they make them hate each other until the poor think that going to fight the other poor is the only way to peace. We are in a moden age of space exploration genetic research and quantum mechanics. We don’t freaking need the lies anymore. People are people and will live in peace with each other if they are given the necessities to a life (food, education, shelter, peace). We do not need National defense. What we need is a world without borders where people are allowed to freely move and life truly where they want. We don’t need nacist government that control people with media. Open the borders and let the Mexicans come here to life, open the borders and eliminate all import and export restrictions. Open the borders so that the whole world is one country and one nation under God. Then we will have your equilibrium where it really deserves to be, free competition and prosperity we never experienced, no more wars, no millions of children dying on hunger while the "fat rich cat" rolls in his food. No more lack of education. Just look what internet has done to the world. The same would happen when we open all borders.
5) You may be interested to learn that wealth generation and capital accumulation in an economy is actually not bad for it. In fact when people work hard and produce things of value that helps an economy. I know this is probably counter intuitive to you, but if a government taxed its citizens only when they did things that benefited their economy that government would not only be as stupid as you are, if they did it enough they'd manage to either make everyone who was productive leave or just stop being productive.
Man you are brainwashed and very defensive. You think you know all, but what would you say if I tell you that all your wisdom is empty.
6) You're not smart.
-said one monkey to another
Taxes are not all bad, in fact if they're used appropriately they're extremely helpful to an economy. The moral of the story here is that tax rates tend to disrupt an economy if they are too progressive because the good people go elsewhere. The US's taxes are too high at higher levels of income and our most productive citizens are also least likely to gain from tax funded programs. The solution however isn't raising taxes on the poor, but slashing bloated federal and state budgets which fund some horribly inefficient programs and spend too much on military deployments and not enough on defense and R&D.
Look I never said taxes are bad or good I just argue that the rich do not pay their share. And again about "the fat cat" going elsewhere if we raise taxes. He is not here because of charity, but because he makes money. And he will be here as long as he makes money. If to many rich leave the competition here drops which in return attract back some rich until new equilibrium is reached. I am totally for destroying all borders and unite all countries into one. Yes it is revolutionary and unfortunately will not happened for at least next 300 years-but you can be sure it will and when it does our lives now will be like the dark ages compared to the renaissance. We don’t have time anymore for sadistic politicians, stupid wars and greed. We must look out and move on to the stars and stop being just exaggerated chimpanzees on a small blue planet somewhere on a corner of the milky way galaxy. I am just sick of all the useless crap that people waist there lives on Earth instead in putting time, effort and money in trying to understand our meaning and role in universe. That is what really matters, not freaking wars here and there, and other power struggle freaking games. I have only respect for scientist and wisdom but none for politician and greedy "fat cats".
1) The Rich are rich because they suck money out of the Poor, manage to trick everyone into paying them more than they're worth, exploit the system, and in general make life miserable for everyone but themselves. They are also fat cats.-TRUE
You made it sound very dramatic, but on the end of the day it is true. The rich give out less then they receive so yes they get and stay rich. And the system is btw written for the rich. The only think they do is do a compromise with the poor, when the poor rebel. They do not want the poor to become rich (get there money), so they write laws that keep rich rich and the poor poor. However the rich also know they need the poor to be rich so they do not want the poor to die away, so they keep them happy by small compromises to keep them from rebelling.
2) Removing incentives from any economy has no ill effects on it-TRUE
What do you mean by incentives anyway? If the economy is free market and self regulating the incentives will be self imposed. We don’t need any freaking economist to mess around with ANY rules, because they do not do anything. All things return in circles and if you adjust something in economy on one end it comes back at you on the other. So you keep fixing a thing you can not fix, and like a cat trying to catch its own tail you run in a circle. We do not need ANY market regulation. Just freaking open up all the borders from all countries and let it come to an equilibrium.
3) Taxes are used to buy buildings, hotels, and airplanes for the rich, which poor people are not allowed to or do not use.-FALSE.
The money is not used to buy but protect this property and make it prosper- Remember how much money we spend on military to protect this wealth that belongs only to the minority? And who pays for the protection-yes everyone and the poor pay the most-yes with their lives. I never so the majority owner of IBM, GE, GEICO, FORD, DELL, etc go fight and lose their life to protect HIS property
4) The Military only protects the rich and their property, the poor have no need for a military for they are bullet proof.-FALSE
Sure the military protects the poor, but hey the rich create the wars in the greed for more money, and then they send the poor to fight for them while they observe it all in life over some satellite spy system or even go to dinner to the enemy to "work out things"-Now think again. Who really protects the poor? It's not the military, but the poor who now work for military.
5) The only proper justification for taxes is to pay for the great costs an economy incurs from wealth generation, because wealth is the great satan and taxes are the only cure.-FALSE
Come on, wealth is the Satan? Wealth is wealth-it is not good or bad. It is the rich fat greedy cats that are acting like pigs and to everything just for one extra cent. Wealth is good, if spread proportionally. Do not give me the crap that 5% of people (or even less) in the World have 95% of wealth is right, while the 95% are fighting, dying and paying for those asses-you think it is right only if you are one of the freaking 5%
The Rich can never pay enough in taxes to make up for the sin of being rich-PARTLY TRUE.
I will just suppose that whoever you are you probably don’t make 1 billion USD a year. So tell me dear friend, why the f#$# don’t you make a billion a year like some rich fat cat? Is it because you are stupid, or because the rich is so much more smart then you/ No. Or because you don't work enough and the rich work lets say 100,000 times more then you? Come on, we all have only 24 hours in a day. So if some ass makes 100,000 times or even million times more then you make in the same time period it is because the system is not just. I don’t speak about the "rich" who works every day hard and makes 200,000 USD a year compared to the bump who sits on the corner doing nothing. Of course there should be reward for work and if you do job good be rewarded more. But hey 100,000 times more and that maybe even if you are actionably more lazy etc just because you just were born in a rich family that own wealth? No way! So you can be a lazy bump like the guy on the corner doing nothing, but just because you inherited lets say a company that makes lots of money for you (poor people working for you make lots of money for you) you deserve that money? That is like saying the bump on the corner doing all day nothing deserves to be paid 100,000 times more they you, because he does nothing and you go and sweat and work every day to get your 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,000 or whatever. Now thing and freaking realize the system is craped up. There is no freaking way that any human being deserves to be paid so much more then another because physically it is impossible that his work can be some much more productive or that he can work so much more harder. The difference that makes the rich rich comes from the pockets of people who work for that rich ass, so everyone gets paid lets say 10 dollars less, which end up in the pocket of the rich fat cat, so he can make millions and gazillions a year just because he legally inherited something. Well I thought we are all equally in the land of the free, but it was I guess just a dream.
Now about your points
1) In free markets economic equilibrium. Yes I know about all that and equilibrium is reached, but who says that the equilibrium is the true equilibrium. For example if the economy is closed we still have equilibrium, but it is much higher then if we would open up all the borders. Today we have bunch of protectionism going on and all kinds of borders. Without that we could buy same product (especially food) for 10% of what we pay now, not to mention the better quality we would get because of more competition. And to your example about fat Bill Gates: He did invent something, but so what? There are millions inventions being patented every day that change your life without even knowing. So he wrote (not alone) the first operating program for IBM computers. Big deal. There are millions other programmers over the world who can do that and would do it sooner or later if he would not have done it. Does he therefore deserve all the billions? The fact is he created a monopoly which is as I say exploiting the system and that gave him all the money. Its not that he was the best program, but there was (and is) no other program. And that is a mistake in the system. And this supports my idea that rich only get rich when there is a error in system, like a wall that prevent the equilibrium to happen-he had no competition, and not because he was a God or super genius-ok he is smart etc, but as I said there are millions like him. The difference that made him rich is exploiting the system (monopoly) not his hard work, or ability etc. Look freaking Nikola Tesla. He invented AC/DC yet you probably did not even hear about him, because Thomas Edison hired him and later took over his patents and fired him, to the smart Tesla had to dig ditches to pay rent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla) Edison got rich while Tesla died poor, yet both contributed to our life, and in fact the electrical system used today is from Tesla not Edison. The rich got rich because he exploited the system build a monopoly and destroyed Tesla.
2) Incentives are crucial parts of any economy.
YES
But do you really believe one rich man can be paid 100,000 times more or even more then an overage, even he works just as hard or even less? Come on! Think about the CEO of companies like ENRON that even get freaking bonuses and millions when they are fired for going their job WRONG. What kind of incentive is this? And btw guess who will pay again for the crap that happened at ENRON? Yes the government which is again financed by taxes which also the poor pay. That is what I mean that the poor pay to protect the freaking wealth of the rich. The poor pay for the crap they do, for their houses, cars, yachts, parties, etc.
3) Taxes actually serve three key purposes.
First they redistribute wealth-TRUE, but the poor are still poor, and the rich get richer so something is the distribution is not working right don’t you agree?
Second they pay for government. Leo, may be surprised to learn that the majority of government programs benefit the poor more than the rich. Things like social security, medicare, public schools, public transportation, unemployment, federal housing programs, foreign aid, disaster relief, public broadcast systems, grants, and medicare all benefit and are targeted to help poor people, most rich people don't need or want to utilize these services.
OK I don’t even wona go into that: Ever so SICKO from Moor? If yes then you see what I mean about Medicare, and ever went to public school? Parents don’t even wont to send kids there because it sucks, and the only thing they learn there is drugs, sex and rock and roll.
Disaster relief? Remember hurricane Catrina and the help those people did not get? If you ask me churches and other humanitarian organization gave more help then the government. What about September 11? Whatever help was offered there you can thank again the overage Joe who was there and volunteered while Bush was reading bedtime stories to children in a kindergarten.
Third they can discourage behaviors that may have negative externalities and also help pay for the negative externalities associated with these behaviors. This means stuff like polluting the air when you drive a gas powered vehicle or burn coal for power.
TRUE, but do they really discourage anything? The only motive of the government is to suck away more money so they can fix their budget holes under the lie they do it to discourage pollution of air, etc. If they really wanted to discourage it then they would fine the companies who produce this cars and make a law they can not sell gasoline cars. Oh but wait, if they do that then the "fat cat" who owns the car company and the fat soundi arab who sells the gas will lose money. So lets just blame the poor because they buy gas powered cars, so the rich can keep making their money and we even get some extra money from the poor for being bad and buying the car. Yeah that is a great idea. Hello? Give me a electric car today for the price of a gas car and I buy it. But to punish me because I must drive to work (so the rich cat gets fat and more rich) and they sell me gas cars I should be punished? F%W$%3 don’t you get it? The poor (and that is 95% of people on the planet) just live so the fat rich can be rich. They say slavery was bad, but look they did not pay rent and food and their master took care of them. Today we are supposed to be free, but earn just enough to pay the rent and food to life another month to go to work and make the richer more rich. Wake up ok and tell me if this is not just slavery but under a different name? It you freaking don’t own a yacht and at least 2 houses and have at least 1 million $ on your account you should get it. You are a slave my friend for the fat cat you go work for every day 8-5 and writes you a check. You are a slave that is wasting his life every day on this planet without ever knowing what was your purpose here. You are getting older every day and your bank account does not look much more different then it did 2 years ago. You are getting older and soon you will die and leave this Earth and nobody will even know you ever existed 100 years from now. Well at least you have enough for food and rent, but remember many people and children don’t and not because they do not deserve it or because they work less then you or are more stupid. They don’t have it because the system f#%# sucks, but this discussion would go beyond the tax system which we try to discuss.
Please note that taxes do not usually buy hotels, airplanes, and most buildings and give them to the rich. These are actually private assets and you are actually a moron.
You are very simple minded. Of course they don’t buy directly the building etc, but indirectly. Remember again Enron, etc. Every time a big company get in trouble who bails its out? Yes the government. So who is the moron?
4) Taxes also pay for National Defense, but security is what we call a public access resource, meaning that you can't really protect one person in a country without protecting everyone. Interestingly if there was a large scale military invasion rich people would probably be better able to protect themselves than poor because they could purchase travel to a safe place, pay off the enemy, or contract personal security so you could actually make the argument that National Defense benefits poor people more. Unfortunately poor people not bullet proof, but it'd be awesome if they were.
National defense protects poor people more? Man you were really brainwashed by the "rich fat cats". Again who goes to war and dies on the fields? The poor-I never heard of a rich dude fight his own wars. So you call dying being protected? The rich are safe. They play with the lives of the poor but if something goes wrong they will survive. They have even a freaking shelter in US for all the elite asses in case of a nuclear war, so that those who would be actually responsible would be taken care and saved while you and me my friend would miserably die outside. And guess who paid for that shelter again-yes the poor. And again look you have to understand the rich always make wars. The poor simple people in country A and country B don’t care to fight. They just want food, shelter and peace. YES PEACE! But the fat rich cat wants the money and land of the other fat rich cat so they each lies to its own people that the other guys are bad and that they want to take their food away, their shelter, and their peace or come and rape there families. Then they make them hate each other until the poor think that going to fight the other poor is the only way to peace. We are in a moden age of space exploration genetic research and quantum mechanics. We don’t freaking need the lies anymore. People are people and will live in peace with each other if they are given the necessities to a life (food, education, shelter, peace). We do not need National defense. What we need is a world without borders where people are allowed to freely move and life truly where they want. We don’t need nacist government that control people with media. Open the borders and let the Mexicans come here to life, open the borders and eliminate all import and export restrictions. Open the borders so that the whole world is one country and one nation under God. Then we will have your equilibrium where it really deserves to be, free competition and prosperity we never experienced, no more wars, no millions of children dying on hunger while the "fat rich cat" rolls in his food. No more lack of education. Just look what internet has done to the world. The same would happen when we open all borders.
5) You may be interested to learn that wealth generation and capital accumulation in an economy is actually not bad for it. In fact when people work hard and produce things of value that helps an economy. I know this is probably counter intuitive to you, but if a government taxed its citizens only when they did things that benefited their economy that government would not only be as stupid as you are, if they did it enough they'd manage to either make everyone who was productive leave or just stop being productive.
Man you are brainwashed and very defensive. You think you know all, but what would you say if I tell you that all your wisdom is empty.
6) You're not smart.
-said one monkey to another
Taxes are not all bad, in fact if they're used appropriately they're extremely helpful to an economy. The moral of the story here is that tax rates tend to disrupt an economy if they are too progressive because the good people go elsewhere. The US's taxes are too high at higher levels of income and our most productive citizens are also least likely to gain from tax funded programs. The solution however isn't raising taxes on the poor, but slashing bloated federal and state budgets which fund some horribly inefficient programs and spend too much on military deployments and not enough on defense and R&D.
Look I never said taxes are bad or good I just argue that the rich do not pay their share. And again about "the fat cat" going elsewhere if we raise taxes. He is not here because of charity, but because he makes money. And he will be here as long as he makes money. If to many rich leave the competition here drops which in return attract back some rich until new equilibrium is reached. I am totally for destroying all borders and unite all countries into one. Yes it is revolutionary and unfortunately will not happened for at least next 300 years-but you can be sure it will and when it does our lives now will be like the dark ages compared to the renaissance. We don’t have time anymore for sadistic politicians, stupid wars and greed. We must look out and move on to the stars and stop being just exaggerated chimpanzees on a small blue planet somewhere on a corner of the milky way galaxy. I am just sick of all the useless crap that people waist there lives on Earth instead in putting time, effort and money in trying to understand our meaning and role in universe. That is what really matters, not freaking wars here and there, and other power struggle freaking games. I have only respect for scientist and wisdom but none for politician and greedy "fat cats".
- 0 points
- Jump to »
7 months ago
in Barstool Economics (on Taxes) on Ready Fire Aim
Also I read somewhere that 5% of Americans own 95% of all wealth in America. Well then they should also pay 95% of all taxes to be fair. And looking at what they pay today, yes it’s a lot but its not 95%, so they are actually still making money and letting other (poor) pay for their resources. Why should poor people pay for buildings, hotels, airplanes, etc. that belong not to them but the rich or pay for military expenses that protect the property of the rich? And that is where the money goes. All government spending is to protect or increase the wealth of a nation. Since the 5% top richest own 95% of all wealth they should pay also 95 % of all taxes. If the poor people pay for the rich so the rich have their property protected etc the poor are screwed over. It's like if I would pay taxes for my neighbor. I might love my neighbor, but to pay his taxes would be insane. But that is exactly what is happening when poor people are asked to pay with taxes for government that protects wealth, when the poor have no wealth in first place, but only the rich have it.
And no matter how high the taxes are for the rich as many articles try to convince us, the rich are still not taxed enough proportionally to the wealth they own, and the poor are taxes few times to much relatively to what there share is in the wealth. You can not just compare here dollar amounts, but first adjust it to the proportion of wealth hold by each group. Only then you compare apples to apples.
And no matter how high the taxes are for the rich as many articles try to convince us, the rich are still not taxed enough proportionally to the wealth they own, and the poor are taxes few times to much relatively to what there share is in the wealth. You can not just compare here dollar amounts, but first adjust it to the proportion of wealth hold by each group. Only then you compare apples to apples.
7 months ago
in Barstool Economics (on Taxes) on Ready Fire Aim
Yeah the story is nice with the 10 guys drinking beer, but it's skewed. If the richest guy is so bad off by paying more, how come he still is rich and even getting richer?
I mean yeah he pays more for the beer then the other guys, but he must also somehow first get in the system more money.
I would tax the rich maximum, but give then minimum tax deduction (if any-they don't need them).
So lets say total tax paid in a country is 100USD.
If the top richest pay 80USD and the rest 20USD and taxes are reduced for 10% (10 USD), I would reduce 10USD from the poor guys so they would pay now only 10USD while the rich would still pay 80USD.
If the tax cuts would be higher lets say 30USD then the rich would pay now only 70USD while the other people zero. If this is a problem for the "rich cat" then he can chose to be poor, if he prefers and then he will not need to pay anything.. But I guess its still better to make 1 billion a year and pay 70% of that to government and keep 300 million then to make 20,000 a year and pay nothing to government. And one more thing –the "rich fat cat" does not stay in US because he does charity, but because he can make more money (suck more money from people) here then anywhere else. Its all economics and a free market.
So the story with beer is nice but it tries to deceive people. The point is the rich is rich because he on the end of the day gets more then he gives, so crying here he pays most of the taxes just shows he also must make most of the money else he would not need to pay and not have money to pay most of taxes.
So this guy whoever came up with the beer story is not very smart. The story is half truth and real life is not like the beer drinking guys. The story never explains why the 10th guy has so much money in the first place and that he probably screws over the other 9 guys since he gets a bigger share of the pie. Naturally he must then also pay more. It's just a ridiculous story. If the rich would be so bed off and the poor such blood suckers as the story tries to show them, then the poor would not be poor and the rich not rich. Let the smart guy who came up with the beer story try to explain this:) Why is the rich still rich and even getting richer if the poor guy pays so much, and why are the poor still poor? Is it maybe because this story explains one once side of the truth (the expense distribution) but not the unfair income distribution? You can bid on that.
I mean yeah he pays more for the beer then the other guys, but he must also somehow first get in the system more money.
I would tax the rich maximum, but give then minimum tax deduction (if any-they don't need them).
So lets say total tax paid in a country is 100USD.
If the top richest pay 80USD and the rest 20USD and taxes are reduced for 10% (10 USD), I would reduce 10USD from the poor guys so they would pay now only 10USD while the rich would still pay 80USD.
If the tax cuts would be higher lets say 30USD then the rich would pay now only 70USD while the other people zero. If this is a problem for the "rich cat" then he can chose to be poor, if he prefers and then he will not need to pay anything.. But I guess its still better to make 1 billion a year and pay 70% of that to government and keep 300 million then to make 20,000 a year and pay nothing to government. And one more thing –the "rich fat cat" does not stay in US because he does charity, but because he can make more money (suck more money from people) here then anywhere else. Its all economics and a free market.
So the story with beer is nice but it tries to deceive people. The point is the rich is rich because he on the end of the day gets more then he gives, so crying here he pays most of the taxes just shows he also must make most of the money else he would not need to pay and not have money to pay most of taxes.
So this guy whoever came up with the beer story is not very smart. The story is half truth and real life is not like the beer drinking guys. The story never explains why the 10th guy has so much money in the first place and that he probably screws over the other 9 guys since he gets a bigger share of the pie. Naturally he must then also pay more. It's just a ridiculous story. If the rich would be so bed off and the poor such blood suckers as the story tries to show them, then the poor would not be poor and the rich not rich. Let the smart guy who came up with the beer story try to explain this:) Why is the rich still rich and even getting richer if the poor guy pays so much, and why are the poor still poor? Is it maybe because this story explains one once side of the truth (the expense distribution) but not the unfair income distribution? You can bid on that.