laughing dog
Contributor
It is fascinating to watch Jason demand an answer to an irrelevant and insulting question while he persistently evades answering a legitimate question based on the transparent false excuse of some unnamed false "premise".
-
Features
Millionaires who want to pay higher taxes
- Thread starter southernhybrid
- Start date
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
It's a bullshit question, it has no answer.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nGQLQF1b6I[/youtube]
It's a bullshit question, and anyone anyone capable of thought would see it. You don't see it.
The prosecutor in "My Cousin Vinny" was honest enough to admit that he had asked a trick question when called on it. ZiprHead isn't that honest. You're not that smart.
Nice false analogy based on a mindless tautology. "The rich should keep their money because it is their money."
The whole issue is that it isn't "their" money. It is money that moves around due to economic activities that centrally depend upon, use, erode, and/or cause harm to a complex infrastructure, public resources, a government, and all the people within that system.
Thus, part of every dollar involved in these activities belongs to every person in that system (and therefore the government that represents them). Just because a person has cash in their hand during a particular moment of the economic process doesn't make it "their" money, any more than your car becomes the valet's car when the keys are in their hand.
This is in contrast to a woman's body, which from the moment of birth till death is the definition of the woman and thus is by definition theirs.
This. The wealthy enjoy a great many perks of an economic system geared to funnel more money to them and help them save more money, play less taxes, etc.
It's en entitlement system. The wealthy make and have a lot of money, so therefore they deserve more of the economic system to work in their benefit over everyone else's.
Someone might work hard and deserve what they work for, but they don't deserve a system that favors them over other people who also work hard. They don't deserve to have everyone else pay for the roads they drive on or the education of their workforce, etc. The wealthy want to own more of the system itself and more of what everyone in their business has worked for, not just to keep what they've worked for themselves.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,105
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Here is the question again: Do you agree that wealth concentration in this nation is a problem?
What exactly is dishonest or bullshit?
laughing dog
Contributor
Another unsubstantiated claim used as an evasion. Why do you feel it is a "bullshit" question?
That excludes you.
laughing dog
Contributor
There is nothing dishonest about the question. One can answer it with a simple "no" or "yes" without an explanation. It is fascinating to see the lengths someone will go to evade answering a simple question.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,234
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
"Concentration" is what the nuclear power and nuclear weapon industries do to the U-235 in natural uranium. They take a metal that's mostly U-238 with a little U-235 mixed in, and they move the atoms around until they have a pile of "enriched uranium", containing "concentrated" U-235, suitable for bombs and light-water reactors. And they have "depleted uranium" in another pile, containing more U-238 than the usual proportion, suitable for anti-tank projectiles.
When people talk about "wealth concentration", they are using the word "concentration" metaphorically. They are using isotope separation and similar chemical processes as an analogy to the processes by which some people become wealthier than others. They are proposing that enriching people is analogous to enriching uranium. They are proposing, in effect, that enriching people is a process that moves wealth around without creating new wealth, the same way enriching uranium is a process that moves U-235 around without creating new U-235. They are proposing, in effect, that people becoming wealth-enriched is an activity that necessarily causes other people to become wealth-depleted.
"Do you agree that wealth concentration in this nation is a problem?" comes with a built-in premise: that economics is a zero-sum game.
lpetrich
Contributor
Irrelevant hairsplitting. Concentration, in this context, is getting something into one place out of several possible places.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,234
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Well, if that's true, then the people going on about "concentration" being a problem shouldn't have any objection to dropping that word and switching to one that doesn't have zero-sum-game connotations, should they? For example, would "Do you agree that wealth inequality in this nation is a problem?" adequately express the intention of the questioners?
Which wealth and which possible places is the alleged "concentration" process getting something "out of"?
laughing dog
Contributor
One of the arguments against severe concentrations of wealth is that it slows economic growth and wealth creation. Which means that "built-in" premise is not necessarily even present.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,575
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Governor Cuomo: "Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich!"
There's a solution to this which would correct most of the dilemma of how to tax the rich higher without driving them away (or rather, without driving their wealth away).
Instead of taxing their INCOME, tax their property, especially their real estate. What would be wrong with a PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY TAX?
Then if they leave the state, they cannot take their wealth with them. The land/resources remain behind, where it is still taxed, regardless where the owner relocates to.
Most of the wealth generation requires commercial property, at some point. And, if some of the rich are able to earn their fortune without using commercial property, maybe they should not pay such high taxes anyway. It's the greater reliance on real estate or natural resources which makes them more dependent on society and the system, so it's this which should determine how much tax they pay. Those who instead generate wealth with their talent, e.g., earning massive income because they are in so much demand, should not necessarily be taxed at a much higher rate.
Also, at the federal level, a tax on Wall Street (on stock transactions) would capture a chunk of revenue from the super-rich, which they would pay regardless where they might relocate to.
There should be less reliance on income tax, which is easy to avoid paying, not only by relocating (to another state or country), but in many ways which allow cheating in so many forms, whereas a tax on property and a tax on stock transactions cannot easily be avoided.
There's a solution to this which would correct most of the dilemma of how to tax the rich higher without driving them away (or rather, without driving their wealth away).
Instead of taxing their INCOME, tax their property, especially their real estate. What would be wrong with a PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY TAX?
Then if they leave the state, they cannot take their wealth with them. The land/resources remain behind, where it is still taxed, regardless where the owner relocates to.
Most of the wealth generation requires commercial property, at some point. And, if some of the rich are able to earn their fortune without using commercial property, maybe they should not pay such high taxes anyway. It's the greater reliance on real estate or natural resources which makes them more dependent on society and the system, so it's this which should determine how much tax they pay. Those who instead generate wealth with their talent, e.g., earning massive income because they are in so much demand, should not necessarily be taxed at a much higher rate.
Also, at the federal level, a tax on Wall Street (on stock transactions) would capture a chunk of revenue from the super-rich, which they would pay regardless where they might relocate to.
There should be less reliance on income tax, which is easy to avoid paying, not only by relocating (to another state or country), but in many ways which allow cheating in so many forms, whereas a tax on property and a tax on stock transactions cannot easily be avoided.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,234
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
But they already pay more to the country. We already have a discriminatory tax system that requires most people to work for the government one to four days a month while requiring people in a minority group to work for the government eight or ten days a month. If one of those guys working ten days a month for the government wants to put in twelve or fifteen days a month, nobody is raising any objection. Nobody's upset about that. If Jim Millionaire wants to be that patriotic, go for it! What we object to is that he's trying to get the government to force some other member of the minority group to work more for the government too, even though she's already putting in twice as many hours for the government as the majority put in. She's doing her part and she's doing somebody else's part too, but that's not enough to satisfy for Jim Millionaire. Work that "rich bitch" harder! That's not Jim Millionaire being patriotic. That's Jim Millionaire being a dick. That's no different from some hypothetical Ottoman Empire Christian saying the special tax on Christians isn't high enough. That's not patriotic. Patriotic would be saying Christians and Muslims are all in their country together and the law should be the same for all.
Nobody is against a "rich bitch" giving to charity. As for why a sane person would be against Bill Gates saying somebody else's taxes should be raised, well, it's been explained to you in perfectly clear terms. If you don't understand, that's on you.
Did those of us who don't approve of the law discriminating against your outgroup more than it already does insult you, that you feel the need to insult us back? Did we misrepresent you? Did we make up a fake motivation for why you think what you think? Did we duck dealing with the arguments you actually made?
So who expressed compassion for the ultra-wealthy?
Look, I get it that you've been sucked into the leftist religion. And like all religions, it teaches its victims to think tribally and it cripples their moral sense. Tribalists usually not only lose the ability to recognize injustice against their outgroup, but they also lose the ability to recognize other people recognizing injustice against their outgroup. Not only do you become tribalists, you presume everybody else is a tribalist too. And in the specific case of leftism the religion gets adherents to equate morality with feeling sorry for people, much the same way Christianity gets adherents to equate morality with obeying their God. So when you guys encounter someone who disapproves of cheating a rich guy, your ideology teaches you to take for granted either that the upper fraction of a percent are his tribe, or else that he feels sorry for the ultra wealthy. The concept that he has a principled objection to cheating people, a principle he applies to everyone, not just to his ingroup or just to those he feels compassion for, well, that just isn't a concept your moral sense is equipped to entertain. It's been crippled by your religion. You imagine you're seeing compassion for the ultra wealthy because you're projecting. You wouldn't object to injustice against someone unless you felt compassion for him, so you assume others wouldn't either. That is why you, like so many, many other leftists, blatantly ignore our explanations and instead invent fairy tales about our psychology.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Concentration is not limited to uranium enrichment or even chemistry in general, nor does it presume a closed system with a finite amount of what is being concentrated.
It's standard general meaning is simply "A close gathering of things" (OED). Therefore, if any type of units of wealth are gathered in large numbers under the possession of a person, that is an accurate and literal application of the term concentration that any competent English speaker readily understands. And notice that terms like "close" (or "large" or "high") are inherently relative to some referent that can take many forms and does not need to be a some absolute all or nothing amount (which is what would imply a closed zero sum game). If at time point 1, I have 10 units of wealth and you have 100, then at time 2 I have 15 units and you have 1000, then there is a greater concentration of wealth at time 2 despite an overall increase in wealth units.
IOW, "wealth concentration" also refers to a relative wealth disparity between people, whether or not there is also some variation in the total amount of wealth. Some of the increasing disparity is due to the wealthiest taking a vast majority of any net added wealth, and some is due to them taking more from and reducing the wealth of other Americans, 25% of whom have negative wealth, despite most of them having full time employment.
The number of Americans with negative wealth has increased and the average amount of debt has doubled, yet Americans are working about the same number of hours and productivity/hour is up due to tech. So where is the wealth going created by this labor? The top 5% are taking it. The Forbes 400 has enjoyed a 7 fold increase in wealth in the last 26 years
Also, even if all members of a society increase in wealth over time, an increase in relative wealth disparity (aka an increase in wealth concentration) means an increase in the disparity in nearly all forms of social, economic, and political power, which destabilizes society in ways that threatens the absolute levels of wealth and well being its members enjoy.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Which is why ZiprHead won't answer when I asked him if he stopped beating his wife, a simple "yes" or "no" question that does not require an explanation.
So, to his question.
1. Is there a proper amount of wealth concentration?
2. How could you measure it? Is there an objective standard you can point to?
3. What is it's cause? This is why my "evasion" comes in, because I skipped the symptom and addressed the cause. He didn't like it, and you don't understand it.
So yes, it's a bullshit question.
laughing dog
Contributor
That does not explain your evasion. If Ziprhead is not married or if he does not beat his wife, he cannot answer it with a yes or a no. So, your analogy is just another bullshit evasion.
Instead of answering the question, you persistent in evasion.
Not to any rational person who is even remotely familiar with the English language. Your evasion is pathetic and your excuses are bullshit. What scares you so much that you continue to evade answering such a question?
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
So according to you, detailing what is wrong with the question is evasion. You wondered what the faulty premises were, but didn't recognize them when they were spelled out.
laughing dog
Contributor
Employing the discredited labor theory of value does not explain anything. And asking the rich or the "out group" to pay more does not mean require them to necessarily work more.
In addition, the logic that a progressive tax system (or making a tax system more progressive) is a form of discrimination requires the assumption that those who pay more are not getting more in return. As ronburgundy has pointed out, the rich benefit more from many government functions.
laughing dog
Contributor
So according to you, anything to which you are ignorant is a faulty premise.
I recognized them as lame and stupid excuses for your evasion.
So, here's a rephrase of Ziprhead's question. In your opinion, is the current inequality of wealth (as you understand it) an indication of a problem?
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,575
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
The FALSE THEORY that higher wages drive up demand and "stimulate" the economy.
A need to reduce the wealth gap should not include the phony demand for higher wages = populism and demagoguery. Preaching to the idiot masses what they want to hear is popular and wins applause, but is not sound economics.
This theory of higher wages to create demand and "fuel" the economy was tried in the 1920s. It wasn't "minimum wage law" yet, but the dogma that wages must be higher in order to increase workers' demand was practiced in the 1920s (for the first time ever in history):
There is no theoretical basis for this higher-wage dogma, nor is there any empirical evidence that propping up the wage level to create more demand ever produced any net economic benefit. Rather, the evidence is that this higher-wage dogma helped turn the 1930s recession into the worst depression in history.
In addition to direct higher wages paid to workers, there were two other factors of the 1920s done in order to boost wages above "market" level: protectionism and restriction on immigration.
The increase in protectionism in the 1920s was the greatest or second greatest increase in U.S. tariffs historically, culminating in the Smoot-Hawley tariff increase in the early 30s. This was done to protect U.S. workers against competition from cheap foreign imports, which would put downward pressure on U.S. wages.
And the new crackdown on immigration also was done in order to protect U.S. workers from competition, by restricting increases in the labor supply due to immigrants entering and "stealing" jobs from red-blooded Americans.
So in the 1920s the effort was made to implement this dogma of higher wages, by increasing the wage level artificially above the "market" level, and by protecting workers from foreign imports, and by protecting them from competition from immigrants. So, what was the result of adopting the higher-wages dogma? What should have been a normal stock market crash followed by a typical recession in 1929-30 or -31, what we got was the Great Depression.
In addition to this empirical evidence, there is no logical theory why driving up the wage level should lead to anything but bad consequences. It contradicts the law of supply-and-demand which sets the prices/values at the point where the supply and demand curves intersect, at the lowest level at which workers will offer their labor and the highest level employers must pay in order to attract the needed labor.
Artificially boosting the price of anything, including wages, only leads to higher cost of production and thus higher prices consumers must pay. These higher prices then drive down the demand, thus offsetting any higher demand caused by higher wages.
If there is an inequality of wealth needing to be corrected, the correction is not to artificially drive up the wages, or the labor cost, which only hurts all consumers. Rather, the correction needed is some form of higher taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the middle- and lower-income levels.
Restricting competition in any form, including wage competition, can only make the overall economy worse, by the damage it inflicts onto the entire population = all consumers.
A need to reduce the wealth gap should not include the phony demand for higher wages = populism and demagoguery. Preaching to the idiot masses what they want to hear is popular and wins applause, but is not sound economics.
This theory of higher wages to create demand and "fuel" the economy was tried in the 1920s. It wasn't "minimum wage law" yet, but the dogma that wages must be higher in order to increase workers' demand was practiced in the 1920s (for the first time ever in history):
There is no theoretical basis for this higher-wage dogma, nor is there any empirical evidence that propping up the wage level to create more demand ever produced any net economic benefit. Rather, the evidence is that this higher-wage dogma helped turn the 1930s recession into the worst depression in history.
In addition to direct higher wages paid to workers, there were two other factors of the 1920s done in order to boost wages above "market" level: protectionism and restriction on immigration.
The increase in protectionism in the 1920s was the greatest or second greatest increase in U.S. tariffs historically, culminating in the Smoot-Hawley tariff increase in the early 30s. This was done to protect U.S. workers against competition from cheap foreign imports, which would put downward pressure on U.S. wages.
And the new crackdown on immigration also was done in order to protect U.S. workers from competition, by restricting increases in the labor supply due to immigrants entering and "stealing" jobs from red-blooded Americans.
So in the 1920s the effort was made to implement this dogma of higher wages, by increasing the wage level artificially above the "market" level, and by protecting workers from foreign imports, and by protecting them from competition from immigrants. So, what was the result of adopting the higher-wages dogma? What should have been a normal stock market crash followed by a typical recession in 1929-30 or -31, what we got was the Great Depression.
In addition to this empirical evidence, there is no logical theory why driving up the wage level should lead to anything but bad consequences. It contradicts the law of supply-and-demand which sets the prices/values at the point where the supply and demand curves intersect, at the lowest level at which workers will offer their labor and the highest level employers must pay in order to attract the needed labor.
Artificially boosting the price of anything, including wages, only leads to higher cost of production and thus higher prices consumers must pay. These higher prices then drive down the demand, thus offsetting any higher demand caused by higher wages.
If there is an inequality of wealth needing to be corrected, the correction is not to artificially drive up the wages, or the labor cost, which only hurts all consumers. Rather, the correction needed is some form of higher taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the middle- and lower-income levels.
Restricting competition in any form, including wage competition, can only make the overall economy worse, by the damage it inflicts onto the entire population = all consumers.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Good suggestions. But how will you implement them? Here is the current situation in a nutshell.
- the already rich wanted more income and wealth.
- there were two ways that they could achieve this.
- they could work harder and invest more of their wealth in new research and development or,
- they could usurp democracy by buying one political party completely and part of the other and divide the electorate along any possible fissure to gain the votes of a majority who are most susceptible to believing lies and propaganda.
- they chose #2 because it was many times cheaper than #1 and involved less risk