Saint, are you saying that you have no responsibility to pay for roads, schools, fire, police, etc.? None of that is in the constitution.
As for corruption in social programs like Medicare and the VA - which serves over 100,000,000 people, it pales in comparison to the military and plane-loads of shrink-wrapped $100 bills that disappeared, or the amount of money held in overseas tax shelters that is invested in US treasuries that citizens pay interest on, or in direct subsidies to corporate agriculture or other industries, or the cost of war for profit, etc.
By the way, notice how as soon as Iraq and Afghanistan start winding down all of a sudden the cold war is being stoked back to life?
And you can forget about the constitution, the government and courts already have.
"...roads, schools, fire, police, etc.? None of that is in the constitution."
All of those are, in fact, unconstitutional. Now, why do you suppose that is the case? Maybe you think that the founding fathers make a mistake and left them out, or that they didn't have -- or couldn't have had -- the foresight necessary to envision the scale of the need for these fundtions, but you would be wrong. So, why do you suppose they are not in the consitiution?
This is what we need. That and a reduction in zoning restrictions would start to shake things up pretty quickly.
Taxing based on income doesn't capture acquired wealth and continues the "money makes money" cycle. Taxing land forces people to do something with it, or sell it to someone who will. More development causes the housing supply to rise, decreasing housing /rent prices and making life more affordable for the average person. Land not being used to farm would suddenly be available for farming, making food cheaper. The same would apply to minerals.
because wealthy landowners provided those services on their own property, and offered education as they saw fit (if they saw fit) to the labor class that worked on their property and were not allowed to vote. they were also responsible for other important tasks like burning witches. today, people are allowed to vote even if they don't own land. land ownership requirement were typically removed around the 1820s.
the 16th amendment was added to the constitution, through constitutionally valid means, in 1913. women were allowed to vote about 6 years later. poor people and racial minorities still sometimes face challenges to their right to vote, historically through means such as poll taxes or literacy tests, more recently through ID requirements, despite the fact the constitution granted them the right to vote in 1870.
i would think it's obvious, but i live in a city. with a sewer. and i drive a car, on a road. since i only get a small plot of land in the 'burbs, i am unable to provide roads for everyone. i need all my neighbors to pitch in and help out. they do so through taxes. my city and state also provide education opportunities. having a somewhat educated country helps all of us, even though some of us spend too much time listening to angry radio shows and shutting out real life. if my neighbor's house burns down, it's helpful to have an organization that can control it before it spreads. we all pitch in for that service.also, i have electricity on my property, fed through government sanctioned utility easements, which the founding fathers were unable to account for.
i happen to live only a couple miles from the state line. infrastructure ultimately has to be shared a bit, especially with things like connected power systems and water rights and such. that's where the federal government comes in; there needed to be a body to regulate commerce between the states (article 1, section 8, clause 3). neither state has authority over the other; the federal government is the governing body that coordinates between the two states. our founding fathers didn't have telegraphs, or railroads, or highways, or radio signals, or airplanes, or delaware corporations, or the internet, or any of the other multitude of technologies that now cross state borders.
seriously, are you suggesting we improve the problems we currently have with economic disparity by returning to a time when only white, male, landowners were allowed to vote, and push everyone onto plantations so we don't have to bother with shared interstate infrastructure costs? would you be the peasant or the landowner?
More development is the problem, not the solution. Real estate is primarily another part of a diversified investment strategy for the rich who use it for income as well as reduced tax liability (rent & capital gains).
Mining the planet is exactly what is being done now, with catastrophic consequences.
I don't like the gov either, but someone with a gun is going to try to steal someone else's stuff unless there is a government there to give order to things. This is a force which is necessary. Also - if you have a bunch of land you are sure as hell not going to give it up peacefully without the gov. this results in intrinsic economic inefficiencies. If it were up to me, id do a 50% Land value tax, and give nearly all of it back to the people in the form of monthly checks.
Miles, I'll agree with the fact that mining the planet might not be the best for it. However, increased mining also results in a cheaper cost of living for the average person. We would ideally switch off of fossil fuels to renewable resources and recycle more, though.
Development does have positive effects. Sure, the rich hope to make a quick buck, but they better know what they are getting involved with if they want to. and you know who's holding onto vast swaths of land for giant yards in urban centers? The rich. The concept would make creating a lighter footprint more desirable by making the alternative much more costly.
Also, a more competitive development market makes it much harder to make money off of real estate, unless you continue to stay active, by driving down prices to a balance where those that are most active still feel comfortable with how much money they are making.
real estate values are often based on comparable sales prices right? so if i buy an investment property that's worth about $90, but pay $100 because i need a place to shelter my piles of money, that increases the value of real estate. then the next guy buys the next property for $110. then $120. then $150.....
the competition isn't to find the best price or the best property, it's a competition for where to best stash your wealth. that makes the cost go up, because supply and demand are essentially flipped
investing in property can easily drive up prices instead of down. they create asset bubbles. you can see how agriculture land is doing. they can't make shit growing stuff, but the land price keeps going up anyway.
The investment market will occur no matter what the tax structure looks like. I would argue real estate markets are best tied to rental rates (except during bubbles, when people are buying property at stupid prices). Also, beauty of the property and access to amenities/infrastructure can play a role (resort real estate, good school districts and what not). Rental rates are based on incomes and the supply of rental housing available. A land value tax would place much less of a tax burden on the ghettos of the city than the rich burbs with the nice school districts.
The farmland bubble article is interesting. I think it probably is a bubble- that's how the financial industry makes money. Driving up scarcity by buying it, then trying to dump it all before prices can adjust.
Tax policy can (and should) be used to control activity. The most basic example is tax policy that rewards investment income with low or zero tax rates as opposed to income taxes on wage labor. The first is rewarded and encouraged, the second penalized and discouraged.
I think rewarding investment is different from encouraging development. Penalizing excessive and wasteful use of land with taxes is different from rewarding investment income with lower tax rates. I do think that in the current tax structure, capital gains should be taxed just like income, though.
Curtkram: i am not implying no one honestly earns their money. i'm saying how much money you have has little relation to what you do to earn it. the environment you're born to is a far greater indicator to how much wealth you will have than how hard you work, how smart you are, how capable you are, or really any other indicator. there is a certain point where you can work hard and earn a living for yourself, but that isn't likely to get you very far. to go beyond that, you need to be born into favorable circumstance.
Dude...
I'm guessing you don't make any side money as a motivational speaker.
All you're doing is applying a quasi-Marxist view regarding a sort of economic determinism to help justify and shape your whacked-up view of the world. In fact, you're simply rationalizing reasons for laziness.
You're saying that since few in the middle class become Steve Jobs, then, statistically, envirionmental factors decide one's fate. Like, perhaps Grandma didn't leave you enough enough inheritance. Or, the economy changed the profession of architecture. Or, you're not tall enough. It's an easy position, there is always someone / something to blame and let you off the hook. In fact, however, you have far more opportunity to improve than there are limitations. The GOT JUNK guy started with reading problems and a 700 pickup.
"All you're doing is applying a quasi-Marxist view regarding a sort of economic determinism to help justify and shape your whacked-up view of the world. In fact, you're simply rationalizing reasons for laziness."
Saint, I understand where you are coming from. That being said, I don't think time is money. Knowledge, connections, reputation, and ownership brings in the big bucks. You can "pull yourself up by your boostraps" and go from rags to riches, but for most people that's not going to happen.
Just remember this: one thing that will always be in limited supply is land. Nearly all the basic needs to survive come from land. If no one is willing to give up what land they own, what happens?
To the 30+ million under/unemployed, the millions of corporate part-timers getting minimum at major WalMart and McDonalds who are living courtesy of taxpayer-funded food stamps and medicaid, pull yourself up by the boot straps and get rich. This is AMERICA, not some pansy-ass retirement club where you can live high on your $5 dollar daily supplement. If you are poor or unemployed or sick and can't afford health care it's your own fault.
why would you think i was trying to motivate you, or anyone else? you're still a bit slow on the pick-up.
i've never even heard of got junk. what did his parents do? since we were talking about the generational effects of wealth being a greater determinate of success than what you do to earn said wealth, surely he's from a lower middle class background? remember when you were talking about "another man's earnings?" as if that man earned it through work instead of generational privelage? never mind. let's change the topic again and say it's about education, and this guy's reading problems. (of course education is important)
if you don't understand the problem, you're not going to be able to address it. if you dismiss it due to moronic dogma, and try to pretend it's about steve jobs, or quasi-marxism, or the constitutionality of electing democrats to office, or whatever other strawman your building, you will never be able to understand the problem. i would like to understand your honest opinion of how the economy operates, as related to the earlier posts in this thread (which could include the potential ill-effects of greed and growing wealth inequality), but you don't seem to have an opinion so much as a desire to move the topic away from how the economy actually works, towards empty rhetoric.
i would say that you have stated a clear opinion about how you think influencing the economy is outside the purpose of government, and that you think wealth is "earned," implying it comes from work, which as i stated before tends to not be the case. it seems to me your argument fell apart at that point, and now you're talking about the constitutionality of roads and for some stupid reason trying to make this about my grandma to hide what is essentially a mistaken opinion by turning this into a troll-baiting flame thread.
why not try to evolve your opinion in such a way as to include the complexity of real life, even if that means trying to understand views you don't agree with? if you're unable to change your opinion or listen to opinions that fall outside of your dogma, is it because you suffer from affluenza? if your opinions ultimately grew out of too pampered of an upbringing, that might help me to understand your perspective better.
Or you can go $200,000 in debt for graduate school and rejoice when the minimum wage is increased so you can pay the loan back. With interest. Lots of interest.
It's all nothing more than a layer of caulking to fix a decaying half ass house. The problem is that all political philosophies can work if all people were "good" but in reality all people are not. In fact most people suck and they are often the ones that get into power because power hungry ego maniacs seek power. Nothing will work for too long because we are rotting at the core. We need to fix the culture not the system. This cannot be done through policy. It can only be done through cultural paradigm shifts.. Problem with the workplace and the overall situation of workers is that the people we work for and the reasons we work are jacked up. Greed and materialism run the show. The govt is corrupt and the people are corrupt. We are a selfish herd. We keep getting worse and worse as time passes. The community is rotting and with it so is the nation. We can't fix bottom up problems with top down solutions. The bottom is rotting because of the top and vicaversa. It's not a one way street.
As a metaphor , bullying can't be stopped by anti bullying rules. Only a swift kick in the balls can stop that kind of shit. We need to stop outsourcing behavioral modification to Uncle Sam and start implementing some measures. In the work place this would mean not working overtime unless paid
42% Born on Home Plate inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400. This percentage is higher than that listed by Forbes for inheritors. The reason: Forbes listed as "self-made" people who actually inherited substantial sums or property and then later built that stake into a greater fortune. One example is Philip Anschutz (1997 net worth: $5.2 billion) who is listed as "self-made" even though he inherited a $500-million oil and gas field.
6% Born on Third Base inherited substantial wealth in excess of $50 million or a large and prosperous company and grew this initial fortune into membership in the Forbes 400.
7% Born on Second Base inherited a medium-sized business or wealth of more than $1 million or received substantial start-up capital for a business from a family member.
...
the Forbes 400 is a chance to roll out the age-old Horatio Alger myth that America is a land of opportunity for those willing to work hard enough. "Forget America's 50 families," the 1996 Forbes Magazine survey begins. "Forget old money. Forget silver spoons. Great fortunes are being created almost monthly in the U.S. today by young entrepreneurs who hadn't a dime when we created this list 14 years ago."
Don't forget old money too fast, though, according to Born on Third Base: The Sources of Wealth of the 1997 Forbes 400. Half of those 400 individuals and 100 families listed started their business lives with at least $50 million in family wealth or by inheriting a large company. This is what most people might call a "head start."
The govt is the corporations. We lost it because of this thirst for centralized order and fear of disorder. . It's a lazy form of civilization if you ask me. Real civility means that when the lights go out we don't steal our neighbors food. What we have is a veil of civilization which in reality is nothing more than a fear of consequence. All we ever seem to do is add more rules and in doing so further remove the personal responsibility of common decency. Its why we cheat our employees and shit on our coworkers to climb the bs ladder.
The govt is the corporations. We lost it because of this thirst for centralized order and fear of disorder.
We never had it. The country was founded by rich white guys who didn't want to pay taxes. Wealth always controls. When money = speech there is no democracy.
That's true but we've lost more in recent years. At one point we at least had the power to influence our own communities. I agree that on the large regional scale we have never really had much control especially if you were black or female. The local level however, was a different thing. We had control over local conditions especially with regard to local business. Big corps shat on that. They created a centralized marketplace with the support of govt. The collective power of communities in turn had a large effect at the state and federal level. Once you lose control over your own local economy your ability to influence anything is gone.
Saint in the City: Let's think about the very few constitutional functions of governement. The social programs that were started under FDR, those that were expanded in the 1960's, and the enormous increases in such programs since then all the way up ObamaCare -- those are all unconsitutional examples of the "smarter" people spending tax money.
You do realize that because something in not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution does not make it unconstitutional, right? The Constitution is the basis of law in the United States; it is not the entirety of law.
It sounds like you could use a refresher course in civics. The Supreme Court has ruled that all of the things you cited are, in fact, constitutional. And since the ruling in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 confirmed the basis for judicial rule, it has been long established that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Because you disagree with something does not make it unconstitutional. That has been settled for over two hundred years.
Miles, your little rant was entertaining. However, your implicit premise is that I'm necessarily and categorically different from those you've enumerated. In fact, been there. Besides, the truly needy is an entirely different issue.
As far as the corporate / politcal unholy marriage that you often rail against -- as I've repeated, I couldn't agree more that it's helping wreck the country. OK? I'm not sure who you're continually attempting to convince.
But as for the fact that some people are born on a big pile of cash, yeah that's true, there are a lot of them. But does that necessarily limit you? What about the large sector of wealthy not accounted for in your Forbes article? Or are they all completely immoral as well? Is it really your premise that no one has acquired wealth through fair methods?
In other words, I'm getting the feeling that your view of those possessing more than you goes beyond those things that are objectively unfair. That is, I think that even if the current corruption were eliminated, etc., you would still feel slighted.
Say the playing field were magically leveled to your specifications and everyone started from zero. Certain individuals would soon, once again, have more than you, and your class warfare would begin all over again.
FrankLloydMike: Are you merely intent on attempting to prove me wrong, or are you missing an important point? Your outline is almost correct. However, you make no room for the fact that judges can act essentially unlawfully, yet their rulings become law. Or is it your premise that this does not occur?
But as for the fact that some people are born on a big pile of cash, yeah that's true, there are a lot of them. But does that necessarily limit you?
yes, it does, and there is compelling research to support that contention. without the premise that increasing wealth disparity has a negative effect on the overall economy, you would be right and we could easily pretend everything is hunky-dory. that is not a realistic view of how the world works, or how the economy works.
What about the large sector of wealthy not accounted for in your Forbes article?
what about them?
Or are they all completely immoral as well
it's not a question of morality. it's a broken economic system that should be fixed. the more people believe that it isn't a problem, or that it shouldn't be fixed, the less likely it will be to fix it.
Is it really your premise that no one has acquired wealth through fair methods?
i don't think it is. i believe you're applying the fallacy of hasty generalization, or generalization from the particular. also, considering there are "fair" and "unfair" methods of acquiring wealth in your generalization, you're adding an additional controversial aspect to the conversation.
Is it really your premise that no one has acquired wealth through fair methods?
Not everyone, but quite a few. Is inheritance a "fair" way to acquire wealth? It wasn't earned ...
Ever hear of sewer service? It's when a processor server throws away the notice and files an affidavit claiming he served it. A friend of mine was issued a summary judgement because of this - he never even knew he had a court date.
I know another guy whose safe deposit box was seized by a bank because he was behind on his mortgage (not even the same bank!). Fortunately he had a good lawyer, and the bank took a thrashing from the judge. If he couldn't have afforded one ...
Look at the mortgage scandal. Or any banking scandal, for that matter, it's not like we have a shortage of them. Almost all are settled with a fine and a statement that there was no "wrong doing". Then why the fine? More important, why the lack of prosecution - too big to fail or simply a tax on an accepted business practice?
What about commodities traders, who profit from manipulating the prices of everything from energy to food? What about Apple and Cisco and others sheltering trillions overseas tax-free and investing it in interest-paying T-bills - you know who pays for that, right? Twice.
Wall Street is 70% high-frequency trading - nanosecond trading. It's not how much you make on each trade, it's how many trades you make that where you make something. It's legal, but does it add value to society? Oh, sorry, I forgot about trickle down. That's where the pigs gorge themselves so full that an occasional oat passes through undigested for the rats to fight over.
Many WalMart employees earn minimum wage and no benefits, existing only because of taxpayer funded food stamps and Medicaid. Meanwhile the Waltons control a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined, and wield tremendous political power because of it. There have been mass arrests of WalMart employees picketing over low wages. And we pay for the police and courts, too.
I once had a rich guy define fair for me. It was during a fee negotiation. According to him, fair is what the rich guy decides he is going to pay.
Miles, not sure how any of that is a response to what I wrote. The first part of my last post was my repeated acknowledgement to your repeated assertion that corruption occurs. Well, again, that is already understood. Yet your last post is more examples of corruption. Do you assume that only you is able to perceive that corruption exists?
Interesting that you didn't respond to this part:
In other words, I'm getting the feeling that your view of those possessing more than you goes beyond those things that are objectively unfair. That is, I think that even if the current corruption were eliminated, etc., you would still feel slighted.
Say the playing field were magically leveled to your specifications and everyone started from zero. Certain individuals would soon, once again, have more than you, and your class warfare would begin all over again.
Curtkram: You've noted several times that I just don't understand the real problem. In your esteemed opinion, what the the "real problem"? And, if you still have an ounce of compassion left in your being, please, convey the problem in 2 or 3 sentences. Your voluminous and unfocused ramblings are far more Dunning-Kruger than erudite.
Unfair is not that someone has more money, it's that mountains of money are accumulated by theft and rewarded with nearly unlimited power. Unfair is that some are rewarded beyond measure while others are denied the very means of existence let alone health and livlihood.
You seem more comcerned that someone is going to get a few dollars worth of food stamps out of your tax bill.
LOL... Miles, you are like a broken record -- citing the tales of corruption as the answer to every question. And I'm not sure you even recognize that you're doing it.
Maybe a different angle:
Unfair is that some are rewarded beyond measure while others are denied the very means of existence let alone health and livlihood.
I think you've amply established that one reason for this can be corruption with the system.
What happens if the disparity in wealth that you despise were to occur objectively and fairly. In your world, is that even possible? Here's the thing -- within any free society, some will prosper more than others. This will occur on the most level of playing fields. There will always be certain individuals that are more able, more talented, and more willing than others, and will thus access more wealth.
I think you are in denial of this fact. And I'm getting the feeling that for you it's not about fair or unfair, but rather much more about "why does he have more than me?".
So, since fairness is not really your goal, your idea is to have the government forcibly gather up money from all taxpayers and redistribute the funds as you see fit for your purposes -- the 2500 dollar handout. Which, makes sense in a warped way in that it would serve your need to help abolish those having more than you.
What doesn't make sense is that within the government / corporate corruption team that you claim to abhor, the same government that was party to every bit of the corruption you've noted would now be asked by you to play the lead role in your solution -- the guaranteed income. Um, duh? Perhaps you might perceive the problem here.
At this point, and by your logic, I should begin similarly regaling you with accounts of government corruption.
It was proposed as a thought experiment. I have no expectation that our government is going to do anything any differently than it has for the last 30 or so years.
As far as unfairness goes, I've defined it multiple times but you seem utterly unable to grasp it. Somehow - maybe by my defense of the poor - you imagine I am envious or jealous of the wealthy. You seem to think that any fraction of your effort / work / money going to anything beyond yourself is wrong. There is a name for that.
Despite giving you numerous examples, let me try one more time, and I'll make it personal so that maybe - just maybe - you can see beyond those blinders.
Unfair is not having a voice in government (because money buys elections). Unfair is having my access to health care limited by my income. Unfair is having my labor taxed at a far higher rate than people with huge incomes. Unfair is that my family's educational opportunities are limited by my income. For many people things are far worse, as food and shelter are added to that list.
That we not only allow but actually perpetuate such conditions is a national tragedy and a disgrace.
saint, the problem is that it's getting difficult to "earn" a living if your only means to "earn" a living is to work.
growing wealth inequality is concentrating too many resources and too much power in the hands of too few people, which ultimately limits the ability for someone not in that group to gain wealth for themselves.
i think the problem is largely created by people too motivated by greed, and i think miles' solution of providing a minimum living wage to everyone could be a reasonable way to address the problem of greed (which causes the wealth inequality, which leads to limited opportunity for people like me that work for a living).
that's 3 sentences which explain the problem as i see it, though to be fair it is sometimes hard to explain complicated problems in the sort of 30 second sound bite a radio show host might incorporate when pandering.
you cite rhetoric similar to tea party or other conservative talking points, such as less government or reduced taxes, to try to fix what we all see as corruption in the current economic system. i do wonder if you actually understand what that rhetoric means. there aren't many institutions other than government that are big enough, or have the power, to influence the wealth and power yielded by the few people who control most of the resources in our economy. limiting government limits what prevents them from controlling too much power and abusing those of us who work for a living for their own gain.
we agree that there are a lot of corrupt practices among corporate entities, such as walmart or mcdonalds relying on government safety nets and support programs to provide a minimum quality of life for their employees. when you talk about "redistribution of wealth," you also have to at least accept that there is an initial distribution of wealth. you also accept there is corporate corruption, which should be seen as corruption in the initial distribution of wealth, since many of the people relying on these government programs that are stealing your tax dollars are paid by those corporations. so then doesn't government, which exists to protect the governed, have a responsibility to fix that? wouldn't monetary policy that gives more money, less regulation, and more power to the entities creating the problem be ineffective if your goal was to fix the problem they're creating?
when you talk about "resdistribution," you also have to understand how the initial distribution occurs, don't you?
Curtkram: "the problem is that it's getting difficult to "earn" a living if your only means to "earn" a living is to work."
As opposed to.... not working? And instead collecting Miles' 2500 / month? Interesting that you're so sensitive to the greed in others...
"we agree that there are a lot of corrupt practices among corporate entities, such as walmart or mcdonalds relying on government safety nets and support programs to provide a minimum quality of life for their employees."
I think they call this sentence plus the rest of the paragraph it's connected to an example of "leading the witness". In fact, I disagree with this sentence, and the self-serving connections you go on to attempt to make.
Miles: Unfair is not having a voice in government (because money buys elections). Unfair is having my access to health care limited by my income. Unfair is having my labor taxed at a far higher rate than people with huge incomes. Unfair is that my family's educational opportunities are limited by my income. For many people things are far worse, as food and shelter are added to that list.
There could be an entire second phase to this discussion which would focus upon the legitimate / non-legitimate role of government within a free society for the items you've listed, plus many other items / functions. Moot, for now.
The point at hand is that, whether it could actually occur in the next 30 years or not, your belief is that the same government that currently represents a full partnership position in the politics/corporate corruption alliance could and should fix all of those things on your list.
You might let that actually sink in a while. You have a laser site fixed on one of the conspirators, but are blind to the other.
Saint, it would be far more interesting to debate you if you had something substantive to say rather than just trying to pick apart what everyone else says without offering any ideas or even supporting examples of your own.
Also, maybe you should try reading a little more carefully. I have repeatedly said that the corporate political complex is a single entity that I don't expect either component of that complex to do anything differently. In fact the opposite is true: I fully expect them to further exploit both people and the environment to total collapse.
Your denial of corporations like WalMart and McDonalds using the social support system to supplement low wage employees proves that propaganda works and that a combination of Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh is a cocktail of ignorance.
No picking apart. No propaganda at work. No ignorance. My last post makes a substantive point.
Also, maybe you should try reading a little more carefully. I have repeatedly said that the corporate political complex is a single entity that I don't expect either component of that complex to do anything differently. In fact the opposite is true: I fully expect them to further exploit both people and the environment to total collapse.
If you believe this to be true -- and, clearly much of what you've listed IS true about that unholy alliance -- then how can you possibly expect that same government player to suddenly act honorably and solve your list of life's problems?
What I'd been attempting to get you to admit was that is takes two to tango. The government is a more than willing participant in all you rightly despise about the corporate political complex.
So, politics aside for a moment, and by sheer logic alone, why do you expect nothing but consistent evil from the one player -- the corporations -- but you oppositely expect that the government would switch gears and act honorably?
Your $2500 basic income idea, your improved health care idea, your educational equality idea -- all would rely upon the government for it' implementation.
How would this obviously and similarly corrupt entity -- the government -- honorably participate in any attempt toward social justice? They've been a co-conspirator in selling out both individuals and groups for decades.
So here's some substance: You complain about the corruption of government, but you simultaneously turn to them for the solution.
Talk about a broken record .. I have repeatedly stated that the government will can't serve the people. Funny how you can't seem to understand that no matter how many times I've written it, and in how many different ways. I think you have difficulty with reading comprehension.
You have no entitlement to another man's earnings
No, I don't. But we all have a responsibility to participate in society and the cost of running it. Should fire departments be privatized and by subscription? Police? Only private schools? Highways? Maybe you should fence your property and stay there for the rest of your days, because if you venture outside of that you are benefiting from my dime.
I take it back, it's not your reading comprehension that is the problem, it is your ideology.
My ideology is opposed to yours. But put that fact in your pocket for the moment.
This question is not political:
"I have repeatedly stated that the government will can't serve the people."
So, all the functions and programs you want to see in place -- how could a government that you've admitted is a willing and self-serving partner in corruption, and whose will you've repeatedly stated "can't serve the people" -- honestly and fairly administer those functions and programs?
You want it both ways.
You are willing to accept your villain as your savior.
"will" was a typo, of course. As if you didn't know what I meant, I've only written it about 8 times. LOL Which doesn't change the fact that the well-being of citizens is the very purpose of government. I you want to get all Constitutional, read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
This was posted as a thought experiment: What would happen if ...
You raised the question of where the money would come from, and I showed you how it could be paid for without raising taxes. Ever since you've harped on two points: the government will not do this (duh) and it's not your responsibility to pay for anyone else (You have no entitlement to another man's earnings). You duck and weave every time you are directly questioned, reduced at this point to taking obvious typos as contradictions.
Your ideology - it's not my responsibility to pay for society - is shared by the corporate government complex. That is what is perpetuating this system. That is the source of corruption. The common term for it is greed.
Well, I am doing my taxes now. It is such a privilege to be paying for Michelle's $8,500 a night hotel room in Beijing. I would normally work extra hard trying to reduce my taxes legally, but not this year. I may send in a lot of extra coin, because there is always O's Martha's Vineyard golf vacay coming up and, don't forget, the exciting Christmas in Hawaii gig. Here take some more of my money. In fact, take it all. There was a time in this country that leaders actually led by example. But wait- they still do!
Oh, I didn't even catch the typo -- but it didn't make any meaningful difference anyway, did it? You'll have to give me a little credit -- " reduced at this point to taking obvious typos as contradictions" --? Remember that I'm the guy that cleverly cited the Sockholm Syndrome. LOL.
Have you given me a direct question? Wasn't looking to "duck and weave". I'll answer anything.
The point I'm making with you and your approach is that you believe the government to be corrupt, but then you also think they still somehow simultaneously possess the moral and ethical capacity to fairly administer programs.
I don't.
You have a view of -- and belief in government -- that I simply don't share. That fact does not make me guilty of "greed".
What I do think is that the government now resides in a position of unprecedented and unconstitutional control over the lives of individuals. (Franklloydmike is incorrect -- laws can most certainly be instituted that run counter to the intent of the constitution. )
You lambaste corporations -- and, as I've repeated, rightly so -- for the advantage they take of the system. Corporations deserve this criticism, but they are an easy target.
This 'advantage' also occurs in arenas having nothing to do with corporations. When's the last time a complete stranger had a meal in your own house -- just because you knew he was hungry? Big picture, the more that government is relied upon for more and more functions and programs, the less and less that individuals feel responsible for -- that is, people being to figure 'why would I help that guy -- there are government programs that are in place for that sort of thing'.
The examples are many, and the result is not only a society of rising governmental dependency -- which historically, has never been sustainable. But the result is also -- ultimately -- a profoundly negative effect upon the way people tend to view each other, their neighbors, and strangers on the street.
Are you saying that you have no responsibility to pay for roads, schools, fire, police, etc.?
Is inheritance a "fair" way to acquire wealth?
you also think they still somehow simultaneously possess the moral and ethical capacity to fairly administer programs
Nope. That exists solely in your imagination, despite my repeatedly spelling it out. The corporate-government complex is a single entity.
the government now resides in a position of unprecedented and unconstitutional control over the lives of individuals
Agreed. Beyond that the constitution has been largely thrown out. Free speech, lawful assembly and due process are nice theories occasionally applied.
Big picture, the more that government is relied upon for more and more functions and programs,
By who, and for how much? Corporate welfare (tax breaks and direct subsidies, interest on untaxed profit held overseas and invested in T-bills, the continued and accelerating effort to privatize all government services and functions (changing them to for-private-profit), utilization of social programs to supplement wages of the underpaid, wars for profit ($4-6 trillion into Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and gas, etc., etc., etc. far exceeds the money spent on programs that actually help citizens. Food stamps are cut while "defense" spending increases. Don't forget that the military is largely privatized.
As far as I know, Medicare hasn't had plane loads of shrink wrapped stacks of $100 bills on pallet just disappear. Another direct question: Do you really think that corruption in social programs is on the same level as this?
The government is relied upon for functions and programs by the very same people who control it. These are the very same people who want to privatize or eliminate all social services. Didn't Wall Street already raid all the 401k plans?
The examples are many, and the result is not only a society of rising governmental dependency -- which historically, has never been sustainable. But the result is also -- ultimately -- a profoundly negative effect upon the way people tend to view each other, their neighbors, and strangers on the street.
If you're talking about the dependency of billionaires and huge corporations on politicians, and vice versa, I agree wholeheartedly. The well-being of the rich and powerful is not the purpose of government.
Obama set to expand overtime pay by executive order
Saint, are you saying that you have no responsibility to pay for roads, schools, fire, police, etc.? None of that is in the constitution.
As for corruption in social programs like Medicare and the VA - which serves over 100,000,000 people, it pales in comparison to the military and plane-loads of shrink-wrapped $100 bills that disappeared, or the amount of money held in overseas tax shelters that is invested in US treasuries that citizens pay interest on, or in direct subsidies to corporate agriculture or other industries, or the cost of war for profit, etc.
By the way, notice how as soon as Iraq and Afghanistan start winding down all of a sudden the cold war is being stoked back to life?
And you can forget about the constitution, the government and courts already have.
"...roads, schools, fire, police, etc.? None of that is in the constitution."
All of those are, in fact, unconstitutional. Now, why do you suppose that is the case? Maybe you think that the founding fathers make a mistake and left them out, or that they didn't have -- or couldn't have had -- the foresight necessary to envision the scale of the need for these fundtions, but you would be wrong. So, why do you suppose they are not in the consitiution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
This is what we need. That and a reduction in zoning restrictions would start to shake things up pretty quickly.
Taxing based on income doesn't capture acquired wealth and continues the "money makes money" cycle. Taxing land forces people to do something with it, or sell it to someone who will. More development causes the housing supply to rise, decreasing housing /rent prices and making life more affordable for the average person. Land not being used to farm would suddenly be available for farming, making food cheaper. The same would apply to minerals.
"Taxing land forces people to do something..."
Ah yes, force, the final frontier.
because wealthy landowners provided those services on their own property, and offered education as they saw fit (if they saw fit) to the labor class that worked on their property and were not allowed to vote. they were also responsible for other important tasks like burning witches. today, people are allowed to vote even if they don't own land. land ownership requirement were typically removed around the 1820s.
the 16th amendment was added to the constitution, through constitutionally valid means, in 1913. women were allowed to vote about 6 years later. poor people and racial minorities still sometimes face challenges to their right to vote, historically through means such as poll taxes or literacy tests, more recently through ID requirements, despite the fact the constitution granted them the right to vote in 1870.
i would think it's obvious, but i live in a city. with a sewer. and i drive a car, on a road. since i only get a small plot of land in the 'burbs, i am unable to provide roads for everyone. i need all my neighbors to pitch in and help out. they do so through taxes. my city and state also provide education opportunities. having a somewhat educated country helps all of us, even though some of us spend too much time listening to angry radio shows and shutting out real life. if my neighbor's house burns down, it's helpful to have an organization that can control it before it spreads. we all pitch in for that service.also, i have electricity on my property, fed through government sanctioned utility easements, which the founding fathers were unable to account for.
i happen to live only a couple miles from the state line. infrastructure ultimately has to be shared a bit, especially with things like connected power systems and water rights and such. that's where the federal government comes in; there needed to be a body to regulate commerce between the states (article 1, section 8, clause 3). neither state has authority over the other; the federal government is the governing body that coordinates between the two states. our founding fathers didn't have telegraphs, or railroads, or highways, or radio signals, or airplanes, or delaware corporations, or the internet, or any of the other multitude of technologies that now cross state borders.
seriously, are you suggesting we improve the problems we currently have with economic disparity by returning to a time when only white, male, landowners were allowed to vote, and push everyone onto plantations so we don't have to bother with shared interstate infrastructure costs? would you be the peasant or the landowner?
More development is the problem, not the solution. Real estate is primarily another part of a diversified investment strategy for the rich who use it for income as well as reduced tax liability (rent & capital gains).
Mining the planet is exactly what is being done now, with catastrophic consequences.
I don't like the gov either, but someone with a gun is going to try to steal someone else's stuff unless there is a government there to give order to things. This is a force which is necessary. Also - if you have a bunch of land you are sure as hell not going to give it up peacefully without the gov. this results in intrinsic economic inefficiencies. If it were up to me, id do a 50% Land value tax, and give nearly all of it back to the people in the form of monthly checks.
Miles, I'll agree with the fact that mining the planet might not be the best for it. However, increased mining also results in a cheaper cost of living for the average person. We would ideally switch off of fossil fuels to renewable resources and recycle more, though.
Development does have positive effects. Sure, the rich hope to make a quick buck, but they better know what they are getting involved with if they want to. and you know who's holding onto vast swaths of land for giant yards in urban centers? The rich. The concept would make creating a lighter footprint more desirable by making the alternative much more costly.
did you see this thread g?
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/95986014/not-looking-good-for-us/0#last
which links to this story
http://www.policymic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us
edit, of course you did. i responded to your comment. anyway, they say letting rich people mine more could have a downside.
Also, a more competitive development market makes it much harder to make money off of real estate, unless you continue to stay active, by driving down prices to a balance where those that are most active still feel comfortable with how much money they are making.
real estate values are often based on comparable sales prices right? so if i buy an investment property that's worth about $90, but pay $100 because i need a place to shelter my piles of money, that increases the value of real estate. then the next guy buys the next property for $110. then $120. then $150.....
the competition isn't to find the best price or the best property, it's a competition for where to best stash your wealth. that makes the cost go up, because supply and demand are essentially flipped
investing in property can easily drive up prices instead of down. they create asset bubbles. you can see how agriculture land is doing. they can't make shit growing stuff, but the land price keeps going up anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/your-money/despite-drop-in-commodity-prices-farmland-values-rise.html?_r=0
The investment market will occur no matter what the tax structure looks like. I would argue real estate markets are best tied to rental rates (except during bubbles, when people are buying property at stupid prices). Also, beauty of the property and access to amenities/infrastructure can play a role (resort real estate, good school districts and what not). Rental rates are based on incomes and the supply of rental housing available. A land value tax would place much less of a tax burden on the ghettos of the city than the rich burbs with the nice school districts.
You could also use a graduated land value tax (which taxes more expensive properties at higher rate) much like we do with income taxes.
The farmland bubble article is interesting. I think it probably is a bubble- that's how the financial industry makes money. Driving up scarcity by buying it, then trying to dump it all before prices can adjust.
Tax policy can (and should) be used to control activity. The most basic example is tax policy that rewards investment income with low or zero tax rates as opposed to income taxes on wage labor. The first is rewarded and encouraged, the second penalized and discouraged.
I think rewarding investment is different from encouraging development. Penalizing excessive and wasteful use of land with taxes is different from rewarding investment income with lower tax rates. I do think that in the current tax structure, capital gains should be taxed just like income, though.
Curtkram: i am not implying no one honestly earns their money. i'm saying how much money you have has little relation to what you do to earn it. the environment you're born to is a far greater indicator to how much wealth you will have than how hard you work, how smart you are, how capable you are, or really any other indicator. there is a certain point where you can work hard and earn a living for yourself, but that isn't likely to get you very far. to go beyond that, you need to be born into favorable circumstance.
Dude...
I'm guessing you don't make any side money as a motivational speaker.
All you're doing is applying a quasi-Marxist view regarding a sort of economic determinism to help justify and shape your whacked-up view of the world. In fact, you're simply rationalizing reasons for laziness.
You're saying that since few in the middle class become Steve Jobs, then, statistically, envirionmental factors decide one's fate. Like, perhaps Grandma didn't leave you enough enough inheritance. Or, the economy changed the profession of architecture. Or, you're not tall enough. It's an easy position, there is always someone / something to blame and let you off the hook. In fact, however, you have far more opportunity to improve than there are limitations. The GOT JUNK guy started with reading problems and a 700 pickup.
Oh, the excuses of the already defeated. Man up.
"All you're doing is applying a quasi-Marxist view regarding a sort of economic determinism to help justify and shape your whacked-up view of the world. In fact, you're simply rationalizing reasons for laziness."
Saint, I understand where you are coming from. That being said, I don't think time is money. Knowledge, connections, reputation, and ownership brings in the big bucks. You can "pull yourself up by your boostraps" and go from rags to riches, but for most people that's not going to happen.
Just remember this: one thing that will always be in limited supply is land. Nearly all the basic needs to survive come from land. If no one is willing to give up what land they own, what happens?
Oh, the excuses of the already defeated. Man up.
Right on!
To the 30+ million under/unemployed, the millions of corporate part-timers getting minimum at major WalMart and McDonalds who are living courtesy of taxpayer-funded food stamps and medicaid, pull yourself up by the boot straps and get rich. This is AMERICA, not some pansy-ass retirement club where you can live high on your $5 dollar daily supplement. If you are poor or unemployed or sick and can't afford health care it's your own fault.
You tell, 'em, Saint.
why would you think i was trying to motivate you, or anyone else? you're still a bit slow on the pick-up.
i've never even heard of got junk. what did his parents do? since we were talking about the generational effects of wealth being a greater determinate of success than what you do to earn said wealth, surely he's from a lower middle class background? remember when you were talking about "another man's earnings?" as if that man earned it through work instead of generational privelage? never mind. let's change the topic again and say it's about education, and this guy's reading problems. (of course education is important)
if you don't understand the problem, you're not going to be able to address it. if you dismiss it due to moronic dogma, and try to pretend it's about steve jobs, or quasi-marxism, or the constitutionality of electing democrats to office, or whatever other strawman your building, you will never be able to understand the problem. i would like to understand your honest opinion of how the economy operates, as related to the earlier posts in this thread (which could include the potential ill-effects of greed and growing wealth inequality), but you don't seem to have an opinion so much as a desire to move the topic away from how the economy actually works, towards empty rhetoric.
i would say that you have stated a clear opinion about how you think influencing the economy is outside the purpose of government, and that you think wealth is "earned," implying it comes from work, which as i stated before tends to not be the case. it seems to me your argument fell apart at that point, and now you're talking about the constitutionality of roads and for some stupid reason trying to make this about my grandma to hide what is essentially a mistaken opinion by turning this into a troll-baiting flame thread.
why not try to evolve your opinion in such a way as to include the complexity of real life, even if that means trying to understand views you don't agree with? if you're unable to change your opinion or listen to opinions that fall outside of your dogma, is it because you suffer from affluenza? if your opinions ultimately grew out of too pampered of an upbringing, that might help me to understand your perspective better.
Or you can go $200,000 in debt for graduate school and rejoice when the minimum wage is increased so you can pay the loan back. With interest. Lots of interest.
It's all nothing more than a layer of caulking to fix a decaying half ass house. The problem is that all political philosophies can work if all people were "good" but in reality all people are not. In fact most people suck and they are often the ones that get into power because power hungry ego maniacs seek power. Nothing will work for too long because we are rotting at the core. We need to fix the culture not the system. This cannot be done through policy. It can only be done through cultural paradigm shifts.. Problem with the workplace and the overall situation of workers is that the people we work for and the reasons we work are jacked up. Greed and materialism run the show. The govt is corrupt and the people are corrupt. We are a selfish herd. We keep getting worse and worse as time passes. The community is rotting and with it so is the nation. We can't fix bottom up problems with top down solutions. The bottom is rotting because of the top and vicaversa. It's not a one way street.
As a metaphor , bullying can't be stopped by anti bullying rules. Only a swift kick in the balls can stop that kind of shit. We need to stop outsourcing behavioral modification to Uncle Sam and start implementing some measures. In the work place this would mean not working overtime unless paid
analysis of the 1997 Forbes 400 shows:
42% Born on Home Plate inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400. This percentage is higher than that listed by Forbes for inheritors. The reason: Forbes listed as "self-made" people who actually inherited substantial sums or property and then later built that stake into a greater fortune. One example is Philip Anschutz (1997 net worth: $5.2 billion) who is listed as "self-made" even though he inherited a $500-million oil and gas field.
6% Born on Third Base inherited substantial wealth in excess of $50 million or a large and prosperous company and grew this initial fortune into membership in the Forbes 400.
7% Born on Second Base inherited a medium-sized business or wealth of more than $1 million or received substantial start-up capital for a business from a family member.
...
the Forbes 400 is a chance to roll out the age-old Horatio Alger myth that America is a land of opportunity for those willing to work hard enough. "Forget America's 50 families," the 1996 Forbes Magazine survey begins. "Forget old money. Forget silver spoons. Great fortunes are being created almost monthly in the U.S. today by young entrepreneurs who hadn't a dime when we created this list 14 years ago."
Don't forget old money too fast, though, according to Born on Third Base: The Sources of Wealth of the 1997 Forbes 400. Half of those 400 individuals and 100 families listed started their business lives with at least $50 million in family wealth or by inheriting a large company. This is what most people might call a "head start."
The govt is the corporations. We lost it because of this thirst for centralized order and fear of disorder. . It's a lazy form of civilization if you ask me. Real civility means that when the lights go out we don't steal our neighbors food. What we have is a veil of civilization which in reality is nothing more than a fear of consequence. All we ever seem to do is add more rules and in doing so further remove the personal responsibility of common decency. Its why we cheat our employees and shit on our coworkers to climb the bs ladder.
"The govt is the corporations." Why I bought into bitcoin, despite being very liberal politically. We need a land value tax.
The govt is the corporations. We lost it because of this thirst for centralized order and fear of disorder.
We never had it. The country was founded by rich white guys who didn't want to pay taxes. Wealth always controls. When money = speech there is no democracy.
That's true but we've lost more in recent years. At one point we at least had the power to influence our own communities. I agree that on the large regional scale we have never really had much control especially if you were black or female. The local level however, was a different thing. We had control over local conditions especially with regard to local business. Big corps shat on that. They created a centralized marketplace with the support of govt. The collective power of communities in turn had a large effect at the state and federal level. Once you lose control over your own local economy your ability to influence anything is gone.
Saint in the City: Let's think about the very few constitutional functions of governement. The social programs that were started under FDR, those that were expanded in the 1960's, and the enormous increases in such programs since then all the way up ObamaCare -- those are all unconsitutional examples of the "smarter" people spending tax money.
You do realize that because something in not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution does not make it unconstitutional, right? The Constitution is the basis of law in the United States; it is not the entirety of law.
It sounds like you could use a refresher course in civics. The Supreme Court has ruled that all of the things you cited are, in fact, constitutional. And since the ruling in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 confirmed the basis for judicial rule, it has been long established that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Because you disagree with something does not make it unconstitutional. That has been settled for over two hundred years.
Miles, your little rant was entertaining. However, your implicit premise is that I'm necessarily and categorically different from those you've enumerated. In fact, been there. Besides, the truly needy is an entirely different issue.
As far as the corporate / politcal unholy marriage that you often rail against -- as I've repeated, I couldn't agree more that it's helping wreck the country. OK? I'm not sure who you're continually attempting to convince.
But as for the fact that some people are born on a big pile of cash, yeah that's true, there are a lot of them. But does that necessarily limit you? What about the large sector of wealthy not accounted for in your Forbes article? Or are they all completely immoral as well? Is it really your premise that no one has acquired wealth through fair methods?
In other words, I'm getting the feeling that your view of those possessing more than you goes beyond those things that are objectively unfair. That is, I think that even if the current corruption were eliminated, etc., you would still feel slighted.
Say the playing field were magically leveled to your specifications and everyone started from zero. Certain individuals would soon, once again, have more than you, and your class warfare would begin all over again.
FrankLloydMike: Are you merely intent on attempting to prove me wrong, or are you missing an important point? Your outline is almost correct. However, you make no room for the fact that judges can act essentially unlawfully, yet their rulings become law. Or is it your premise that this does not occur?
But as for the fact that some people are born on a big pile of cash, yeah that's true, there are a lot of them. But does that necessarily limit you?
yes, it does, and there is compelling research to support that contention. without the premise that increasing wealth disparity has a negative effect on the overall economy, you would be right and we could easily pretend everything is hunky-dory. that is not a realistic view of how the world works, or how the economy works.
What about the large sector of wealthy not accounted for in your Forbes article?
what about them?
Or are they all completely immoral as well
it's not a question of morality. it's a broken economic system that should be fixed. the more people believe that it isn't a problem, or that it shouldn't be fixed, the less likely it will be to fix it.
Is it really your premise that no one has acquired wealth through fair methods?
i don't think it is. i believe you're applying the fallacy of hasty generalization, or generalization from the particular. also, considering there are "fair" and "unfair" methods of acquiring wealth in your generalization, you're adding an additional controversial aspect to the conversation.
Is it really your premise that no one has acquired wealth through fair methods?
Not everyone, but quite a few. Is inheritance a "fair" way to acquire wealth? It wasn't earned ...
Ever hear of sewer service? It's when a processor server throws away the notice and files an affidavit claiming he served it. A friend of mine was issued a summary judgement because of this - he never even knew he had a court date.
I know another guy whose safe deposit box was seized by a bank because he was behind on his mortgage (not even the same bank!). Fortunately he had a good lawyer, and the bank took a thrashing from the judge. If he couldn't have afforded one ...
Look at the mortgage scandal. Or any banking scandal, for that matter, it's not like we have a shortage of them. Almost all are settled with a fine and a statement that there was no "wrong doing". Then why the fine? More important, why the lack of prosecution - too big to fail or simply a tax on an accepted business practice?
What about commodities traders, who profit from manipulating the prices of everything from energy to food? What about Apple and Cisco and others sheltering trillions overseas tax-free and investing it in interest-paying T-bills - you know who pays for that, right? Twice.
Wall Street is 70% high-frequency trading - nanosecond trading. It's not how much you make on each trade, it's how many trades you make that where you make something. It's legal, but does it add value to society? Oh, sorry, I forgot about trickle down. That's where the pigs gorge themselves so full that an occasional oat passes through undigested for the rats to fight over.
Many WalMart employees earn minimum wage and no benefits, existing only because of taxpayer funded food stamps and Medicaid. Meanwhile the Waltons control a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined, and wield tremendous political power because of it. There have been mass arrests of WalMart employees picketing over low wages. And we pay for the police and courts, too.
I once had a rich guy define fair for me. It was during a fee negotiation. According to him, fair is what the rich guy decides he is going to pay.
Miles, not sure how any of that is a response to what I wrote. The first part of my last post was my repeated acknowledgement to your repeated assertion that corruption occurs. Well, again, that is already understood. Yet your last post is more examples of corruption. Do you assume that only you is able to perceive that corruption exists?
Interesting that you didn't respond to this part:
In other words, I'm getting the feeling that your view of those possessing more than you goes beyond those things that are objectively unfair. That is, I think that even if the current corruption were eliminated, etc., you would still feel slighted.
Say the playing field were magically leveled to your specifications and everyone started from zero. Certain individuals would soon, once again, have more than you, and your class warfare would begin all over again.
Curtkram: You've noted several times that I just don't understand the real problem. In your esteemed opinion, what the the "real problem"? And, if you still have an ounce of compassion left in your being, please, convey the problem in 2 or 3 sentences. Your voluminous and unfocused ramblings are far more Dunning-Kruger than erudite.
Unfair is not that someone has more money, it's that mountains of money are accumulated by theft and rewarded with nearly unlimited power. Unfair is that some are rewarded beyond measure while others are denied the very means of existence let alone health and livlihood.
You seem more comcerned that someone is going to get a few dollars worth of food stamps out of your tax bill.
LOL... Miles, you are like a broken record -- citing the tales of corruption as the answer to every question. And I'm not sure you even recognize that you're doing it.
Maybe a different angle:
Unfair is that some are rewarded beyond measure while others are denied the very means of existence let alone health and livlihood.
I think you've amply established that one reason for this can be corruption with the system.
What happens if the disparity in wealth that you despise were to occur objectively and fairly. In your world, is that even possible? Here's the thing -- within any free society, some will prosper more than others. This will occur on the most level of playing fields. There will always be certain individuals that are more able, more talented, and more willing than others, and will thus access more wealth.
I think you are in denial of this fact. And I'm getting the feeling that for you it's not about fair or unfair, but rather much more about "why does he have more than me?".
So, since fairness is not really your goal, your idea is to have the government forcibly gather up money from all taxpayers and redistribute the funds as you see fit for your purposes -- the 2500 dollar handout. Which, makes sense in a warped way in that it would serve your need to help abolish those having more than you.
What doesn't make sense is that within the government / corporate corruption team that you claim to abhor, the same government that was party to every bit of the corruption you've noted would now be asked by you to play the lead role in your solution -- the guaranteed income. Um, duh? Perhaps you might perceive the problem here.
At this point, and by your logic, I should begin similarly regaling you with accounts of government corruption.
It was proposed as a thought experiment. I have no expectation that our government is going to do anything any differently than it has for the last 30 or so years.
As far as unfairness goes, I've defined it multiple times but you seem utterly unable to grasp it. Somehow - maybe by my defense of the poor - you imagine I am envious or jealous of the wealthy. You seem to think that any fraction of your effort / work / money going to anything beyond yourself is wrong. There is a name for that.
Despite giving you numerous examples, let me try one more time, and I'll make it personal so that maybe - just maybe - you can see beyond those blinders.
Unfair is not having a voice in government (because money buys elections). Unfair is having my access to health care limited by my income. Unfair is having my labor taxed at a far higher rate than people with huge incomes. Unfair is that my family's educational opportunities are limited by my income. For many people things are far worse, as food and shelter are added to that list.
That we not only allow but actually perpetuate such conditions is a national tragedy and a disgrace.
saint, the problem is that it's getting difficult to "earn" a living if your only means to "earn" a living is to work.
growing wealth inequality is concentrating too many resources and too much power in the hands of too few people, which ultimately limits the ability for someone not in that group to gain wealth for themselves.
i think the problem is largely created by people too motivated by greed, and i think miles' solution of providing a minimum living wage to everyone could be a reasonable way to address the problem of greed (which causes the wealth inequality, which leads to limited opportunity for people like me that work for a living).
that's 3 sentences which explain the problem as i see it, though to be fair it is sometimes hard to explain complicated problems in the sort of 30 second sound bite a radio show host might incorporate when pandering.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
you cite rhetoric similar to tea party or other conservative talking points, such as less government or reduced taxes, to try to fix what we all see as corruption in the current economic system. i do wonder if you actually understand what that rhetoric means. there aren't many institutions other than government that are big enough, or have the power, to influence the wealth and power yielded by the few people who control most of the resources in our economy. limiting government limits what prevents them from controlling too much power and abusing those of us who work for a living for their own gain.
we agree that there are a lot of corrupt practices among corporate entities, such as walmart or mcdonalds relying on government safety nets and support programs to provide a minimum quality of life for their employees. when you talk about "redistribution of wealth," you also have to at least accept that there is an initial distribution of wealth. you also accept there is corporate corruption, which should be seen as corruption in the initial distribution of wealth, since many of the people relying on these government programs that are stealing your tax dollars are paid by those corporations. so then doesn't government, which exists to protect the governed, have a responsibility to fix that? wouldn't monetary policy that gives more money, less regulation, and more power to the entities creating the problem be ineffective if your goal was to fix the problem they're creating?
when you talk about "resdistribution," you also have to understand how the initial distribution occurs, don't you?
Curtkram: "the problem is that it's getting difficult to "earn" a living if your only means to "earn" a living is to work."
As opposed to.... not working? And instead collecting Miles' 2500 / month? Interesting that you're so sensitive to the greed in others...
"we agree that there are a lot of corrupt practices among corporate entities, such as walmart or mcdonalds relying on government safety nets and support programs to provide a minimum quality of life for their employees."
I think they call this sentence plus the rest of the paragraph it's connected to an example of "leading the witness". In fact, I disagree with this sentence, and the self-serving connections you go on to attempt to make.
Miles: Unfair is not having a voice in government (because money buys elections). Unfair is having my access to health care limited by my income. Unfair is having my labor taxed at a far higher rate than people with huge incomes. Unfair is that my family's educational opportunities are limited by my income. For many people things are far worse, as food and shelter are added to that list.
There could be an entire second phase to this discussion which would focus upon the legitimate / non-legitimate role of government within a free society for the items you've listed, plus many other items / functions. Moot, for now.
The point at hand is that, whether it could actually occur in the next 30 years or not, your belief is that the same government that currently represents a full partnership position in the politics/corporate corruption alliance could and should fix all of those things on your list.
You might let that actually sink in a while. You have a laser site fixed on one of the conspirators, but are blind to the other.
You're not sensing the common denominator.
Who are the other conspirators?
You mean the other conspirator in the political/corporate corruption alliance?
The other party?
The one that is not the corporations?
The one that you've named as your savior from all wrongdoing?
Yes, I wonder who that might possibly be...
Saint, it would be far more interesting to debate you if you had something substantive to say rather than just trying to pick apart what everyone else says without offering any ideas or even supporting examples of your own.
Also, maybe you should try reading a little more carefully. I have repeatedly said that the corporate political complex is a single entity that I don't expect either component of that complex to do anything differently. In fact the opposite is true: I fully expect them to further exploit both people and the environment to total collapse.
Your denial of corporations like WalMart and McDonalds using the social support system to supplement low wage employees proves that propaganda works and that a combination of Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh is a cocktail of ignorance.
Well that took a while...
No picking apart. No propaganda at work. No ignorance. My last post makes a substantive point.
Also, maybe you should try reading a little more carefully. I have repeatedly said that the corporate political complex is a single entity that I don't expect either component of that complex to do anything differently. In fact the opposite is true: I fully expect them to further exploit both people and the environment to total collapse.
If you believe this to be true -- and, clearly much of what you've listed IS true about that unholy alliance -- then how can you possibly expect that same government player to suddenly act honorably and solve your list of life's problems?
What I'd been attempting to get you to admit was that is takes two to tango. The government is a more than willing participant in all you rightly despise about the corporate political complex.
So, politics aside for a moment, and by sheer logic alone, why do you expect nothing but consistent evil from the one player -- the corporations -- but you oppositely expect that the government would switch gears and act honorably?
Your $2500 basic income idea, your improved health care idea, your educational equality idea -- all would rely upon the government for it' implementation.
How would this obviously and similarly corrupt entity -- the government -- honorably participate in any attempt toward social justice? They've been a co-conspirator in selling out both individuals and groups for decades.
So here's some substance: You complain about the corruption of government, but you simultaneously turn to them for the solution.
Makes no sense.
Talk about a broken record .. I have repeatedly stated that the government will can't serve the people. Funny how you can't seem to understand that no matter how many times I've written it, and in how many different ways. I think you have difficulty with reading comprehension.
You have no entitlement to another man's earnings
No, I don't. But we all have a responsibility to participate in society and the cost of running it. Should fire departments be privatized and by subscription? Police? Only private schools? Highways? Maybe you should fence your property and stay there for the rest of your days, because if you venture outside of that you are benefiting from my dime.
I take it back, it's not your reading comprehension that is the problem, it is your ideology.
You're thrashing a bit.
My ideology is opposed to yours. But put that fact in your pocket for the moment.
This question is not political:
"I have repeatedly stated that the government will can't serve the people."
So, all the functions and programs you want to see in place -- how could a government that you've admitted is a willing and self-serving partner in corruption, and whose will you've repeatedly stated "can't serve the people" -- honestly and fairly administer those functions and programs?
You want it both ways.
You are willing to accept your villain as your savior.
"will" was a typo, of course. As if you didn't know what I meant, I've only written it about 8 times. LOL Which doesn't change the fact that the well-being of citizens is the very purpose of government. I you want to get all Constitutional, read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
This was posted as a thought experiment: What would happen if ...
You raised the question of where the money would come from, and I showed you how it could be paid for without raising taxes. Ever since you've harped on two points: the government will not do this (duh) and it's not your responsibility to pay for anyone else (You have no entitlement to another man's earnings). You duck and weave every time you are directly questioned, reduced at this point to taking obvious typos as contradictions.
Your ideology - it's not my responsibility to pay for society - is shared by the corporate government complex. That is what is perpetuating this system. That is the source of corruption. The common term for it is greed.
Well, I am doing my taxes now. It is such a privilege to be paying for Michelle's $8,500 a night hotel room in Beijing. I would normally work extra hard trying to reduce my taxes legally, but not this year. I may send in a lot of extra coin, because there is always O's Martha's Vineyard golf vacay coming up and, don't forget, the exciting Christmas in Hawaii gig. Here take some more of my money. In fact, take it all. There was a time in this country that leaders actually led by example. But wait- they still do!
Oh, I didn't even catch the typo -- but it didn't make any meaningful difference anyway, did it? You'll have to give me a little credit -- " reduced at this point to taking obvious typos as contradictions" --? Remember that I'm the guy that cleverly cited the Sockholm Syndrome. LOL.
Have you given me a direct question? Wasn't looking to "duck and weave". I'll answer anything.
The point I'm making with you and your approach is that you believe the government to be corrupt, but then you also think they still somehow simultaneously possess the moral and ethical capacity to fairly administer programs.
I don't.
You have a view of -- and belief in government -- that I simply don't share. That fact does not make me guilty of "greed".
What I do think is that the government now resides in a position of unprecedented and unconstitutional control over the lives of individuals. (Franklloydmike is incorrect -- laws can most certainly be instituted that run counter to the intent of the constitution. )
You lambaste corporations -- and, as I've repeated, rightly so -- for the advantage they take of the system. Corporations deserve this criticism, but they are an easy target.
This 'advantage' also occurs in arenas having nothing to do with corporations. When's the last time a complete stranger had a meal in your own house -- just because you knew he was hungry? Big picture, the more that government is relied upon for more and more functions and programs, the less and less that individuals feel responsible for -- that is, people being to figure 'why would I help that guy -- there are government programs that are in place for that sort of thing'.
The examples are many, and the result is not only a society of rising governmental dependency -- which historically, has never been sustainable. But the result is also -- ultimately -- a profoundly negative effect upon the way people tend to view each other, their neighbors, and strangers on the street.
Have you given me a direct question?
Are you saying that you have no responsibility to pay for roads, schools, fire, police, etc.?
Is inheritance a "fair" way to acquire wealth?
you also think they still somehow simultaneously possess the moral and ethical capacity to fairly administer programs
Nope. That exists solely in your imagination, despite my repeatedly spelling it out. The corporate-government complex is a single entity.
the government now resides in a position of unprecedented and unconstitutional control over the lives of individuals
Agreed. Beyond that the constitution has been largely thrown out. Free speech, lawful assembly and due process are nice theories occasionally applied.
Big picture, the more that government is relied upon for more and more functions and programs,
By who, and for how much? Corporate welfare (tax breaks and direct subsidies, interest on untaxed profit held overseas and invested in T-bills, the continued and accelerating effort to privatize all government services and functions (changing them to for-private-profit), utilization of social programs to supplement wages of the underpaid, wars for profit ($4-6 trillion into Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and gas, etc., etc., etc. far exceeds the money spent on programs that actually help citizens. Food stamps are cut while "defense" spending increases. Don't forget that the military is largely privatized.
As far as I know, Medicare hasn't had plane loads of shrink wrapped stacks of $100 bills on pallet just disappear. Another direct question: Do you really think that corruption in social programs is on the same level as this?
The government is relied upon for functions and programs by the very same people who control it. These are the very same people who want to privatize or eliminate all social services. Didn't Wall Street already raid all the 401k plans?
The examples are many, and the result is not only a society of rising governmental dependency -- which historically, has never been sustainable. But the result is also -- ultimately -- a profoundly negative effect upon the way people tend to view each other, their neighbors, and strangers on the street.
If you're talking about the dependency of billionaires and huge corporations on politicians, and vice versa, I agree wholeheartedly. The well-being of the rich and powerful is not the purpose of government.
"QE Was A Massive Gift Intended To Boost Wealth", Fed President Admits
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.